DNR, ethanol plant hash out issues
Photo
Citizen attendees look on as United Ethanol general manager Mike Opdahl speaks during an enforcement conference conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources at the Janesville DNR Service Center concerning Milton's United Ethanol and permit violations.
Photo
United Ethanol's attorney Linda Bochert speaks while UE general manager Mike Opdahl reads some legal papers during an enforcement conference conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources at the Janesville DNR Service Center concerning Milton's United Ethanol and permit violations.
Photo
Pam Kober, Environmental Enforcement Specialist, Brian Barbieur, Air Management Engineer, and Tom Roushar, Environmental Engineer Supervisor, members of the Janesville DNR, conducted an enforcement conference with United Ethanol about its permit violations at the Janesville DNR Service Center.
JANESVILLE — The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and United Ethanol have had plenty of communication problems in the past.
Wednesday, they got all the time to communicate they could want.
Representatives of the DNR and the Milton ethanol plant met for nearly four hours at the DNR Service Center in Janesville to hash out the plants’ alleged permit violations.
Both sides said they were satisfied with the meeting.
“You’re on your way to 100 percent compliance,” Brian Barbieur, DNR air management engineer, said to plant officials. “You’ve got a lot going on, and you’ve got a lot completed.”
Neighbors have complained about noise, odors and emissions at the plant since it started operations in March 2007.
The DNR released a report in June detailing more than 170 permit items the plant allegedly violated out of a total of 371. It sent a notice of violation to the plant in August dividing the violations into 10 categories, including exceeding emission limits, failure to properly install equipment and failure to maintain records.
Much of the talk Wednesday focused on record-keeping and monitoring problems. DNR officials expressed frustration that they couldn’t get complete records.
“Brian (Barbieur) continually asks for information, (and) it’s incomplete or inaccurate or inconsistent,” said Pam Kober, environmental enforcement specialist. “The information is still not what he’s looking for or what he needs.”
The discussion was mostly cordial, but Barbieur spoke sharply to plant officials when he learned he’d received wrong information and the plant hadn’t sent a corrected version.
“I’m not seeing responsibility being taken by the company,” he said.
His rebuke provoked a response from Linda Bochert, an attorney for the plant.
“It is not an accurate accusation or characterization of the company that they are misrepresenting information to the department,” she said. “This is an operation that’s trying very hard to understand its permit requirements.”
Still, Bochert said it’s clear the plant has to improve its record-keeping. Both Barbieur and Bochert later apologized for the exchange.
Kober said she was happy with the plant’s response, both written and oral, to the violation notice. She believes three things will help bring the plant back into compliance:
n Installation of a new regenerative thermal oxidizer. The plant has said the new equipment should greatly reduce odor and emissions issues. Recent rains have set back the equipment’s installation, but the plant expects to see it operating by the end of the year, General Manager Mike Opdahl said.
n Installation of an environmental management system. The computerized system will remind employees of permit and monitoring requirements, Bochert said. The plant plans to have the computer system in place by the end of the year, too.
n Changes in the plant’s permit. Both sides said they would like to see clarifications or changes to the plant’s most recent permit.
Three things could happen next in response to the alleged permit violations, Kober said. The DNR could choose to take no further action, or it could refer the case to the Wisconsin Department of Justice for legal action, or the federal Environmental Protection Agency could choose to get involved.
Kober said it probably would be some time before the DNR decides its next step, but the plant’s response to the violation letter will work in its favor.
“It’s always better to get a response, so yes, having a detailed, accurate response does help,” she said.
VIOLATIONS ALLEGED
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources sent a letter to United Ethanol dated Aug. 21 listing the plant’s alleged permit violations. It divided the violations into 10 categories, including:
-- Exceeding emission limits
-- Failing to construct equipment in accordance with the permit application
-- Failing to install and/or operate equipment
-- Failing to monitor parameters and/or equipment
-- Failing to maintain records and/or documentation
-- Failing to inspect equipment
-- Failing to carry out the malfunction prevention and abatement plan
PARTICULATE PROBLEM
In October, tests conducted for the DNR showed United Ethanol out of compliance for particulate matter, volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxide.
Particulate matter is particle pollution. Volatile organic compounds are pollutant gasses.
The plant said it fixed the problem by December.
But a June test found the plant is still over the limit for particulate matter in its boiler, said Brian Barbieur, DNR air management engineer. Plant officials said Wednesday they were “baffled” by the result.
Sep 18, 2008 at 8:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Well, at least UA's lawyer is well versed in what she's doing....she used to be a DNR employee...and she enjoys canning. I wonder if she likes formeldayhde in her jelly, courtesy of ethanol plants? Probably acts as a nice preservative....
http://www.michaelbest.com/attorneys.cfm...
AND, according to www.opensecrets.org she's a regular contributor to Democrats. UA sure did their work in getting a green-washing attorney for this case.
A few of the obvious:
1. UA completely out classed Milton's paid and elected city stewards.
2. UA is owned by corner farmers, and is bent on making new plants - the only way to stop them in Milton is for them to get bad publicity in areas they want to expand to.
3. Doyle's DNR is too invested in ethanol to seriously challenge any ill effects of the pollution. Check the DNR's webpage, search "ethanol" - the first article that comes up - written by GM's energy czar in Michigan....
4. The EPA needs to step in.
5. Some yahoo from Janesville will now comment on crybabies in Milton. FYI - Ethanol produces VOC's, IE acetic acid and formeldahyde emissions, which are airborne. If you live in Janesville, your are in the effected radius for consuming doses of these two known carcinogens. It may not smell of hopps to you, but enjoy the smog and ill health effects.
Sep 18, 2008 at 5:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
What’s glaringly apparent here is the utter and complete “failure” on the part of United Ethanol to live up their promise of being a good neighbor... And I quote: “FAILING to construct equipment in accordance with the permit application, FAILING to install and/or operate equipment, FAILING to monitor equipment, FAILING to maintain records and/or documentation, FAILING to inspect equipment and carry out a malfunction prevention and abatement plan. That's a lot of failure!!! Is there such a thing as an F- grade? Perhaps if Mr. Cramer had invested as much money in the people he hired to build and then run the place as he does his smooth talking legal counsel, the DNR would not have found over 170 violations that UE now needs a lawyer to defend!
This “corndoggle” has been an absolute failure since day one! Thank you Mayor Bruce and the City of Milton Common Council.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.