0001

 1        OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 2              PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING

 3             AIR PERMIT TO INSTALL FOR

 4                     FDS COKING

 5  

 6                         - - -

 7  

 8           Transcript of the Public Hearing taken in

 9   the above-captioned matter, conducted by Hearing

10   Officer Mary McCarron, taken before Nicole D.

11   Blaker, Registered Merit Reporter and Notary

12   Public in and for the State of Ohio, at the Oregon

13   City Hall, Seaman Road, Oregon, Ohio, on Thursday,

14   May 13, 2004, commencing at 8:32 p.m.

15                       - - -    

16  

17  

18  

19  

20  

21  

22  

23  

24  

25  

0002

 1   OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

     Mary McCarron

 2   Public Interest Center

     P.O. Box 1049

 3   Columbus, Ohio  43216-1049  (614) 644-2160

 4                            - - -

 5        MS. MCCARRON:         The purpose of this public

 6        hearing is to accept comments on the official

 7        record regarding a permit to install four coke

 8        batteries at the proposed FDS Coking plant in

 9        Oregon, Lucas County.  If approved, the permit

10        would allow the installation of four coke

11        batteries consisting of 240 coke ovens that would

12        produce 1.44 million tons of coke.  The permit

13        would regulate the following pollutants:  Carbon

14        monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, volatile

15        organic compounds, particulate matter, hazardous

16        air pollutants, and lead. 

17                Ohio EPA published a public notice to

18        announce the hearing and public comment period

19        regarding the expansion -- or the permit

20        application in newspapers in the area.  This

21        notice was issued in Ohio EPA's Weekly Review,

22        which is a publication that lists, by county, all

23        agency activities and actions taking place in the

24        State of Ohio. 

25                Written and oral comments received as part

0003

 1        of the official record are reviewed by Ohio EPA

 2        prior to a final action of the director.  To be

 3        included in the official record written comments

 4        must be received by Ohio EPA by the close of

 5        business on May 24th, 2004.  Comments received

 6        after this date may be considered as time and

 7        circumstances permit but will not be part of the

 8        official record for this hearing. 

 9                Written comments can be filed with me

10        tonight or submitted to Matt Stanfield, Toledo

11        Division of Environmental Services, 348 South Erie

12        Street, Toledo, Ohio, 43602, and this address can

13        be found on your agenda for this evening. 

14                It is important for you to know that all

15        comments received in writing at the agency, all

16        written comments given to me tonight, and all

17        verbal comments given here tonight are given the

18        same consideration.  I ask that all exhibits,

19        including written speeches, maps, photographs,

20        overheads, and any other physical evidence

21        referred to in your testimony be submitted to me

22        tonight as part of the official record.  If you

23        choose not to submit the information, Ohio EPA

24        cannot ensure the accuracy of your testimony.  A

25        court reporter is here to make a stenographic

0004

 1        record of tonight's proceedings. 

 2                Questions and comments made at the public

 3        hearing will be responded to in a document known

 4        as a responsiveness summary.  The director, after

 5        taking into consideration the recommendations of

 6        the program staff and comments presented by the

 7        public, may issue or deny the permit.  Once a

 8        final decision is made by the director, the final

 9        permit decision, along with the responsiveness

10        summary, will be communicated to the applicant,

11        all persons who have submitted comments, and all

12        persons who present testimony at tonight's

13        hearing. 

14                Final actions of the director are

15        appealable to the Environmental Review Appeals

16        Commission or ERAC.  This board is separate from

17        the Ohio EPA and reviews cases in accordance with

18        Ohio's environmental laws and rules.  Any ERAC

19        decision is appealable to the Franklin County

20        Court of Appeals.  Any Court of Appeals order is

21        appealable to the Supreme Court of Ohio. 

22                If you wish to present testimony at this

23        hearing tonight and have not already completed a

24        blue card, please do so at this time and return it

25        to me or another Ohio EPA representative, and the

0005

 1        cards are available at the registration table. 

 2                Each individual may testify only once, so

 3        I ask that you use your time wisely and that you

 4        are respectful of others providing their comments

 5        and questions.  There is no cross examination of

 6        the speaker or Ohio EPA representatives in public

 7        hearings of this type.  Ohio EPA's public hearings

 8        afford citizens an opportunity to provide input. 

 9        Therefore, we will not be able to answer questions

10        during this hearing.  The hearing officer or an

11        Ohio EPA representative may ask clarifying

12        questions of speakers to ensure the record is as

13        complete and accurate as possible.  If you have a

14        question, please phrase your comments in the form

15        of a question and the agency will address your

16        concerns in writing within the responsiveness

17        summary. 

18                Out of courtesy for elected officials here

19        tonight, I request that they make themselves known

20        to me at this time, which I believe I have a

21        number of cards from elected officials, and I will

22        give them the chance to testify first. 

23                We will now be receiving testimony.  The

24        first card I have received is Mayor Brown.

25        MAYOR BROWN:     Thank you.  First of all, I have

0006

 1        a letter from Commissioner Thurber that she wishes

 2        to be read into the record. 

 3                Please accept this letter in lieu of my

 4        appearance at this hearing.  I would like to voice

 5        my personal support of the U.S. Coking Group's

 6        plant being proposed in Lucas County. 

 7                This project is not only a tremendous

 8        economic benefit for Lucas County but for the

 9        entire United States.  A new coke plant will be an

10        important step in making the U.S. less dependent

11        on foreign coke.  Currently the U.S. imports a

12        significant portion of coke for steel production. 

13        However, throughout the world coke is scarce and

14        is considered a strategic commodity to any economy

15        that includes an industrial manufacturing base. 

16                This project is not destroying a

17        greenfield piece of property such as a farm field

18        or wooded land.  This plant will take full

19        advantage of an underutilized brownfield site.  In

20        addition, Lucas County is one of the few places on

21        the Great Lakes that offer the infrastructure

22        needed for this project.  The site is ideally

23        suited for this type of facility because we offer

24        rail access, seaport access, freeway access,

25        proximity to markets, infrastructure, parcel size,

0007

 1        zoning, water, and, most importantly, a skilled

 2        and dedicated workforce. 

 3                Not only will the project create between

 4        150 to 200 permanent jobs, but the approximate 350

 5        million dollar investment will also create about

 6        1,000 badly needed construction jobs for the

 7        various skilled trades of our area. 

 8                The Ohio EPA recently reviewed and issued

 9        a draft approval for the coke plant's air permit

10        to install, meaning that the emissions controls

11        from the plant will meet the Clean Air Act

12        regulations.  This plant will use the most

13        innovative and environmentally sound technology

14        available, including the best available controls

15        technology to minimize air emissions. 

16                I have confidence, after reviewing the

17        proposal for the plant, that the proper

18        environmental concerns are being addressed in the

19        plant design, the equipment specifications,

20        specifically, flat push technology, and in the

21        operation, once the plant is built.  I urge the

22        approval of the permit to install.  And I will

23        give you this when I give you mine.

24                After many months -- this is mine, okay. 

25        After many months of talking with representatives

0008

 1        of the U.S. Coking Group, I feel very confident in

 2        their ability to meet the standards outlined in

 3        the air permit to install and that they will be

 4        very good corporate neighbors.  I understand that

 5        they will use state of the art technology that

 6        will be very clean and efficient. 

 7                To gain a level of comfort to what a plant

 8        like this would mean to our community, I called

 9        the environmental manager of another coking plant

10        operating in the United States.  I did this

11        yesterday.  What I found was that today's plants

12        operate with many complex environmental controls,

13        unlike the plants of yesterday, and those of us

14        who are from Toledo realize and remember those

15        plants.  I was extremely pleased with their strong

16        environmental controls and community perception. 

17        They are considered very good neighbors. 

18                I am confident in the USEPA, the Ohio EPA,

19        and the Toledo Division of Environmental Services'

20        ability to complete a thorough review of this

21        permit to ensure to the citizens of Oregon that

22        the plant design and the operations will meet the

23        Clean Air Act requirements. 

24                If this plant doesn't build here, they'll

25        go someplace else.  We need the jobs. 

0009

 1        (Reaction from the Audience.)

 2        MS. MCCARRON:         Please be respectful to

 3        people providing testimony and keep your comments

 4        quiet.

 5        MAYOR BROWN:          We need the tax base, we

 6        need the boost to our economy, and we need to

 7        encourage businesses committed to coming here to

 8        meet all environmental standards.  Thank you.

 9        MS. MCCARRON:          I am sure Mayor Brown

10        appreciates your applause, but if we could please

11        not applaud after every speaker or we will be here

12        very long.  One thing that I forgot to mention

13        before we got started is that when you come up to

14        the microphone, if you would please state your

15        name, spell it for the record, and state where you

16        are from, and that's it.  We are going to provide

17        five minutes per person for their speeches. 

18                The next public official wishing to

19        testify this evening is Tina Skeldon Wozniak.

20        MS. WOZNIAK:          Good evening.  Tina Wozniak,

21        W-o-z-n-i-a-k, Lucas County Commissioner.  I

22        support this permit.  We need two things in our

23        community.  We need jobs.  We need them badly. 

24        This is a good investment.  It is an investment in

25        a product that is in constant demand.  This

0010

 1        product, these jobs are less subject to the whims

 2        of a difficult economy.  

 3                The second part is we need a strong

 4        economy, and although legitimate environmental

 5        concerns are being discussed, I reject those who

 6        say that we have to choose between jobs and a good

 7        environment.  I refuse to accept that because I

 8        want both.  Our community needs jobs, good jobs,

 9        good paying jobs, and a good environment and a

10        clean environment. 

11                I challenge this plant to use the most up

12        to date technology to ensure that they meet all

13        environmental standards for safety, both for the

14        residents and for the workers.  If they do that,

15        and that's what they say they will do, their plant

16        will be just as good for the economy as our

17        health.  Again, I support this permit.

18        MS. MCCARRON:         Thank you.  Again, if you

19        could please hold your applause.  Mayor Jack Ford.

20        MAYOR FORD:           Madam Chair, thank you for

21        this courtesy of being able to speak.  A recent

22        news report indicated that the proposed plant had

23        raised some flags regarding possible dangers. 

24        When I read that early one morning, I was deeply

25        concerned about the tone of the news report.  We

0011

 1        convened a group at city hall in Toledo and asked

 2        that there be a thorough review, literally a

 3        de novo approach to it. 

 4                After going through that process, I was

 5        informed and I believe that there were some errors

 6        or exaggerations in the description.  In fact,

 7        there will not be 680 pounds of mercury emitted

 8        each year from the plant, and secondly, on that

 9        issue, the report did not take into account

10        technology that will be in place that would reduce

11        whatever emission occurs by 90 percent, and so it

12        is just not accurate.  There was some comment with

13        respect to this new plant would emit more mercury

14        than the Bayshore plant.  Again, in looking at the

15        technology, again, in fact, it would be far less.

16                The article also assumed that all coal is

17        to be combusted in the coke plant when, in fact,

18        it will be cooked.  Now, when I was told this, I

19        didn't know what the hell that meant.  I asked for

20        that to be explained further to me.  As I

21        understand it, cooking coal does not drive off all

22        the mercury as does combusting it. 

23                Only after strong internal review did my

24        comfort level reach the point that it's at today

25        where I could say I support this.  There's been a

0012

 1        lot of good arguments made about the jobs. 

 2        Commissioner Thurber I think was very accurate to

 3        point out it is a national security argument that

 4        is also embedded in the possibility of this plant,

 5        but the health concern was the threshold issue for

 6        me, and had I thought or was convinced that there

 7        was the risk that was originally described, I

 8        would not be here today in support, but I'm

 9        convinced otherwise, and I support it.  Thank you. 

10        I'm sorry, I'm Jack Ford, Mayor, F-o-r-d.

11        MS. MCCARRON:         Thank you.  James Seaman.

12        MR. SEAMAN:           James Seaman, Oregon, Ohio,

13        Oregon city councilman, S-e-a-m-a-n.  I would just

14        like to say to everyone and to the Ohio EPA that,

15        you know, Oregon has a strong track record of

16        caring about their environment.  We've put in

17        millions of dollars in the sanitary sewers

18        recently.  We've improved our wastewater treatment

19        plant when we had an EPA difficulty with the flow

20        equalization project.  We spent over five million

21        to six million dollars for that project, which is

22        a lot of money for a city the size of Oregon, so

23        it shows we care about our environment. 

24                We spent over ten million dollars out of

25        the -- out of local Oregon money over the last

0013

 1        five years to expand our water treatment plant

 2        from eight million to sixteen million gallons

 3        production per day.  The total project is twenty

 4        million, and we're taking a loan of from nine to

 5        ten million dollars over this five-year period of

 6        time, so we're working hard to do what we can to

 7        improve the environment. 

 8                We have the Wynn Road buffer that we're

 9        planning that our legal department and our mayor

10        is working hard to deal with the facility three

11        dredgings.  We're concerned.  We don't have a

12        complete answer for that, but that's a tough

13        situation.  We care about that part of the

14        community.  We care about northwestern Ohio and

15        Oregon. 

16                We have the James Haley Boardwalk that

17        we've implemented and built over the last few

18        years, and, of course, we have our beautiful state

19        park which Representative Barney Quilter helped us

20        build, so we have a lot to be proud of in Oregon

21        and northwestern Ohio. 

22                Our educational system in northwestern

23        Ohio emphasizes certified apprenticeship programs. 

24        It emphasizes education for our young to go into

25        these kind of skilled jobs that this plant would

0014

 1        produce.  We can't just stop in the middle of

 2        things and we have plans to educate people and

 3        provide them the knowledge they need to function

 4        properly and work in these plants and then all of

 5        a sudden say nope, the plants aren't here, we're

 6        going to send your jobs overseas. 

 7                We need this plant.  We need these jobs. 

 8        I work as a psychologist and an educator, and I

 9        see first-hand what happens when people are

10        unemployed and underemployed, and I see this as an

11        opportunity to strengthen our base of employment. 

12        The construction phase will put a lot of the

13        electricians to work, people who are on the list

14        who don't have a job right now.  We've got a lot

15        of other skilled laborers that need -- Local 500,

16        our general laborers, they need to get to work. 

17        Some of the councilmen said the ironworkers are

18        doing good with the bridge right now, but that

19        won't last forever either. 

20                We need to employ people so that they can

21        spend the money back into the community.  That

22        multiplier effect is tremendous.  The property tax

23        the schools will reap will be tremendous.  You

24        know we have a lot of pressure for proficiency

25        tests.  It takes a lot of new technology.  We need

0015

 1        new buildings in the City of Oregon schools.  The

 2        money from the tangible personal property for the

 3        equipment that that plant will provide, even

 4        though it will be a form of abatement, will be

 5        more money than that school district would have

 6        had previously. 

 7                So we have a lot of positive things

 8        happening.  There's a lot of positive impact a

 9        facility of this nature can create for the city of

10        Oregon.  We're going to hold your feet to the

11        fire, and I think we all want to do that.  There

12        are environmental concerns, but I think they'll

13        meet all the guaranteed requirements of clean air,

14        and that's very important for all of us. 

15                We need to -- we need to work together. 

16        We need to trust each other so that we can grow

17        together.  The impact of something like this is

18        very positive.  We have -- we have a lot of -- we

19        have some difficulties, but, you know, with the

20        addition of the water treatment plant, we have the

21        capability of providing the infrastructure for a

22        plant like this.  They're going to need over a

23        million gallons of potable water on a daily basis. 

24        We have a water treatment plant that's capable of

25        providing that, and we're proud of that, and I

0016

 1        guess all of Oregon's proud of our water treatment

 2        plant because it kinds of makes us unique in terms

 3        of the suburbs in that we have our own independent

 4        water supply. 

 5                So the bottom line is that we do have a

 6        positive track record, we care about the

 7        environment, and we'll continue to care, and we'll

 8        continue to hold their feet to the fire to make

 9        sure they live up to all the regulations.  Thank

10        you very much.

11        MS. MCCARRON:         Thank you.  Betty Shultz.

12        MS. SHULTZ:           Thank you.  I'm Betty

13        Shultz.  I'm a City of Toledo city councilwoman,

14        and that's S-h-u-l-t-z. 

15                First of all, I want to thank you for

16        giving me the opportunity to testify.  I will not

17        go over those things that have been presented by

18        the previous speakers but only to say that I would

19        reiterate every point made. 

20                The bottom line is that the price of steel

21        is ever escalating and holding us hostage. 

22        Recently that occurred with construction of the

23        new bridge.  We need to be able to produce it and

24        produce it easily and effectively.  That can

25        happen with this facility. 

0017

 1                More importantly, we in this community

 2        have been begging jobs to come to northwest Ohio. 

 3        These are good jobs.  It will provide construction

 4        jobs.  We've had our people sitting in the halls

 5        asking for jobs for too long.  The economy in this

 6        community can only go upwards by permitting this

 7        to occur.  We have people who want to invest in

 8        our community. 

 9                To echo the sentiments of Mayor Brown, if

10        they don't build here, they will go someplace

11        else, and if they go someplace else, they're going

12        to take at least 150 jobs that pay 25 to $35 an

13        hour, not to mention the hundreds of construction

14        jobs that have been so desperately needed in this

15        community. 

16                Maybe many of us who stand here tonight

17        will have political differences.  We are united in

18        our appeal to bring work to our citizens, to bring

19        good economic conditions to our citizens, and I

20        encourage you to approve this. 

21                I would end my testimony with my thanks

22        for expediting the process.  We know that many

23        times we are all accused of creating bureaucracy. 

24        I believe that you've done a service to this

25        community by expediting this permit process. 

0018

 1                I've had the opportunity, unlike maybe

 2        some of my colleagues, to speak with some people

 3        who are known experts in this field.  This has

 4        been put together with input from all of them, and

 5        to those people who are the experts and wish to

 6        remain unnamed for whatever reasons, many of them

 7        in this room, I've trusted my life to them, and I

 8        would trust the life of my grandchildren to them. 

 9        Thank you very much.

10        MS. MCCARRON:         Thank you.  Frank Szollosi.

11        MR. SZOLLOSI:         Frank Szollosi, councilman

12        for the City of Toledo, S-z-o-l-l-o-s-i. 

13                Leaving some of the legal details to my

14        brother who's going to speak here in a moment, but

15        let me just say that I stand in support of Mayor

16        Brown and Mayor Ford and Commissioner Tina Skeldon

17        Wozniak in support of this permit.  I applaud

18        Mayor Ford for conducting his own environmental

19        review as it were. 

20                If there was a threat to the public

21        health, we would be opposed to it, but we

22        appreciate the Ohio EPA assessing the science,

23        assessing the technology, and I feel fortunate

24        that we in this community don't have to choose

25        between jobs and the environment thanks to new

0019

 1        technology, so as one councilman for the City of

 2        Toledo, I pledge to work with Oregon and with the

 3        Ohio EPA and with the company to help make this a

 4        success for everybody.  Thank you.

 5        MS. MCCARRON:         Thank you.  That is the last

 6        of my public official cards.  What was your name?

 7        MR. SZOLLOSI:         Matthew Szollosi.

 8        MS. MCCARRON:         Mr. Szollosi, step up to the

 9        microphone.

10        MR. SZOLLOSI:         Matthew Szollosi,

11        S-z-o-l-l-o-s-i.  I serve on Oregon City Council. 

12        I am chairman of the Economic Development and

13        Planning Committee, and I serve on Council

14        President Mike Sheehy's Public Utilities and

15        Environmental Committee.  Approximately four years

16        ago I was appointed by Governor Taft and the

17        director of the Ohio Department of Natural

18        Resources to be Lucas County's representative on

19        the State of Ohio Coastal Resources Advisory

20        Council.  I've served several years on the Public

21        Utility and Environmental Committee for the City

22        of Oregon. 

23                During my five years on Oregon City

24        Council, I've certainly not always agreed with

25        decisions made by the Ohio EPA, and as a matter of

0020

 1        fact, I have fought tooth and nail with many of

 2        the people in this room on issues that I felt very

 3        strongly about, people that I have a great deal of

 4        respect for and that are certainly very

 5        intelligent and capable people.  I certainly have

 6        not been shy about expressing my thoughts with

 7        respect to opposition to issues in the past. 

 8                However, I am here tonight to express my

 9        absolute support for what I consider to be a once

10        in a generation opportunity for the City of

11        Oregon.  I live -- my wife and I just completed

12        construction of our house approximately one mile

13        from where the facility is going to be, if

14        permitted, constructed by our local building and

15        construction trades workers.  I can state

16        unequivocally that I would not be in support of

17        this project if I didn't feel assured that the

18        operational monitoring, reporting, and testing

19        requirements would be at the highest and most

20        restrictive nature. 

21                Over many months as the city has engaged

22        in this process, state and local regulators have

23        assured us that the operations of this plant will

24        utilize the best available controls technology to

25        minimize air emissions.  Without fail, we've been

0021

 1        assured the most up to date and stringent

 2        regulations will be put in place and enforced to

 3        ensure the safety of the facility's workers. 

 4                And as an Oregon city councilman, I don't

 5        feel that I would be doing my job had I failed to

 6        look at the economic impact of this facility on

 7        our community.  I have a commitment to bring high

 8        paying jobs to this community.  We must

 9        continually as a city, continually and

10        consistently strive to diversify our tax base. 

11        The city has an obligation to stretch taxpayer

12        dollars to the fullest extent while continuing to

13        provide exceptional city services.  I have pledged

14        to do that, and I will continue to do that. 

15                Investment on this scale coupled with the

16        spin-off development we anticipate to occur will

17        allow the city to continue to provide exceptional

18        city services, assist our schools, and provide

19        much needed jobs for our community while taking

20        the burden off the backs of Oregon's taxpayers. 

21                I strongly urge the Ohio EPA to grant this

22        final permit to install.  Thank you for the

23        opportunity to speak here this evening.

24        MS. MCCARRON:         Mike Sheehy.

25        MR. SHEEHY:           Thank you.  My name is Mike

0022

 1        Sheehy.  I'm president of Oregon City Council, and

 2        my comments do not reflect all the members of

 3        council's opinions, but those of my own.  However,

 4        I'm quick to comment that I agree whole-heartedly

 5        with the comments made by both of my colleagues,

 6        Mr. Seaman and -- Councilman Seaman and Councilman

 7        Szollosi.  I'll point out that also our other

 8        colleagues are present at this hearing, Sharon

 9        Rudess and Mr. Jeff Keller. 

10                I want you to know that I have a strong

11        and abiding commitment to public safety.  I am the

12        only member of city council that has taken a

13        strong position, for instance, against smoking

14        cigarettes at -- where people eat, in a restaurant

15        where people eat.  Now, this may seem to some of

16        you maybe not like a very strong, tough position

17        to take, but believe me, after talking to some of

18        the entrepreneurs who think the other way, I

19        assure you it's not a position that's easily

20        taken. 

21                Like Mr. Szollosi, I have worked very hard

22        to see that the environmental concerns of this

23        community are met.  We have objected strenuously

24        to certain corporations in the community who we

25        have felt were not meeting the specifications to

0023

 1        the USEPA or Ohio EPA.  We will continue to find a

 2        solution to facility three about the dredgings in

 3        the port to protect not only the lake but also the

 4        lands in our community.  And so believe me, if I

 5        felt in any way, shape, or form that this was the

 6        wrong project and the wrong place, I would let you

 7        know and I would object strenuously.

 8                Much has been said this evening from the

 9        very beginning of Mr. Hopkins' comments and in the

10        local newspaper about the breakneck speed at which

11        Ohio EPA has come to the conclusion this permit is

12        to be -- was going to be allowed.  Normally

13        working in government and if something doesn't

14        happen quickly, quickly, now or yesterday, then we

15        hear nothing but criticism and scorn and concern

16        because you folks in government, whether it's

17        municipal, state, or local or federal, don't work

18        quickly enough, and now the EPA with this permit

19        works in a quick and efficient manner, puts aside

20        some concerns that maybe should be set aside, and

21        does what the community -- what the community

22        leaders and I think what the overwhelming number

23        of people in the community want is to work on that

24        permit and get that permit through, and then you

25        are roundly criticized.  For that I say we're very

0024

 1        sorry that you are -- that you were criticized,

 2        and I think that you did the right thing.

 3                Coking facilities, they're not really

 4        pleasant places.  I've been 40 years in the rail

 5        industry, and I've been in some of the worst and

 6        some of the best coking facilities in this country

 7        between here and Chicago, Illinois.  I've waded

 8        almost ankle deep in pollutants over in the former

 9        coppers over on Front Street in East Toledo.  I

10        breathed the stuff.  I blew my nose after 12 hours

11        in the facility delivering and pulling coal and

12        coke in those facilities, so I know what I'm

13        talking about. 

14                And so it was grave concern -- it was with

15        grave concern that I found out about two years ago

16        that a coking facility was coming to Oregon, but I

17        did some investigation about the group, and I

18        investigated the new technology, and I am

19        satisfied that the U.S. Coking Group is concerned

20        enough that they will comply with the U.S. and

21        Ohio EPA regulations and that they are consistent

22        with the modern day technology for this industry. 

23                One of my major concerns in my political

24        life is to have watched in the last 20 or 30 years

25        as jobs and industry and progress have gone south

0025

 1        and west in this country, and finally the

 2        opportunity has -- the world has turned, and we

 3        have an opportunity to have something to change

 4        things in this community, not just for Oregon, not

 5        just for northwestern Ohio, but for the entire

 6        region.  Our congresswoman stated very recently in

 7        Washington, D.C. in one of the hearings on

 8        economic development, and her concerns were that

 9        this -- what we need in the industrial midwest is

10        a rebirth, a rebirth of industry where there are

11        jobs where young people don't have to go away to

12        find work. 

13                In the rail industry, I've been blessed to

14        have been an instructor at some of the rail

15        schools for conductor and engineer training

16        throughout the entire eastern part of the United

17        States, and especially in this part of the

18        midwest, I have seen people come in who have lost

19        jobs, fellows that have been -- with Master's

20        degrees, highly technical people, and, frankly, I

21        would take them aside, and I would say are you

22        sure you want to become a railroad conductor, are

23        you sure that's what you want to do, and they'll

24        tell me, hey, there's nothing out there, there's

25        nothing -- this is the best job that I can find,

0026

 1        and so they continue, and so they're happy to come

 2        into the industry where there's good payroll and

 3        good benefits. 

 4                The environment -- the environmental

 5        concerns are real to us all, and if I felt in any

 6        way, shape, or form that they could not be -- that

 7        those -- the concerns could not be met, I would

 8        oppose this. 

 9                For you folks who are here in opposition,

10        believe me, study the facts, don't listen to

11        Chicken Little, the sky is falling, the sky is

12        falling, again, because believe me, the sky is not

13        falling, and we're looking for progress and we're

14        looking for a rebirth in not just the steel

15        industry but heavy industry and all industry in

16        the American midwest. 

17                And I thank you for your time, and I want

18        to go on record as for the permit.  Thank you.

19        MS. MCCARRON:         Thank you.  Would any other

20        elected officials like to submit testimony before

21        we -- yes.

22        MR. STANOYEVIC:       My name is Carl Stanoyevic. 

23        I am a councilman in the Village of Harbor View. 

24        I'll spell my last name, S-t-a-n-o-y-e-v-i-c.  I

25        know we need jobs in this area.  I'm in the

0027

 1        transportation industry.  I go in and out of steel

 2        and coke mills, and they're very dirty, very

 3        dirty. 

 4                We're a small community that's on the

 5        northwest end of Oregon here.  At our May 11th

 6        council meeting we wrote a resolution, and it was

 7        voted on unanimously against this facility as we

 8        are being polluted upon right now by Toledo Edison

 9        and by the B.P.  B.P. has been a pretty good

10        neighbor with us.  Toledo Edison has not, however. 

11        We don't want any more dust.  We don't want any

12        more dirt. 

13                The Village of Harbor View has written a

14        resolution, a resolution opposing the proposed

15        coke facility in Oregon, Ohio, whose prevailing

16        winds will carry millions of pounds of pollutants

17        annually and will seriously impact the health and

18        welfare of the residents of Harbor View and the

19        surrounding area.  We're not the only people that

20        live there.  There are residents of Oregon that do

21        live back there, and it's like they are forgotten

22        by Oregon.  

23                Whereas, the existing B.P. refinery, the

24        Toledo Lucas County Port Authority Taconite

25        Facility, and FirstEnergy Bayshore power plant

0028

 1        emit pollutants and periodically have incidents

 2        that impact the residents of the Village of Harbor

 3        View; and

 4                Whereas, the Ohio EPA has issued a draft

 5        permit to U.S. Coking Group for a new coking plant

 6        that will emit up to eight million additional

 7        pounds of pollutants annually whose prevailing

 8        winds will go over the Village of Harbor View; and

 9                Whereas, officials from U.S. Coking Group,

10        the Toledo Lucas County Port Authority, Lucas

11        County, Ohio, and the City of Oregon have failed

12        to inform the residents of the Village of Harbor

13        View of the plans and emissions and risks

14        associated with the facility; and

15                Whereas, Council has been advised that as

16        of June 15th Lucas County will be subject to ozone

17        pollution limits, chemicals in the Clean Air act;

18        and

19                Whereas, Council has been advised that the

20        American Lung Association provides information

21        about the proposed coke plant pollutants causing

22        asthma, allergies, cancer, and other illnesses;

23        and

24                Whereas, Council has been advised that the

25        Ohio EPA has expedited the U.S. Coking Group

0029

 1        permit to beat the deadline for the new Lucas

 2        County restrictions and the U.S. Coking Plant

 3        would add over one million pounds of pollutants to

 4        the air that would not be permitted after

 5        June 15th; and

 6                Whereas, Council has been advised that the

 7        U.S. Coking permit includes the following

 8        hazardous and toxic pollutants:  Benzene,

 9        bromomethane, chloromethane, methyl chloride,

10        phenol, toluene, total polycyclic aromatic

11        hydrocarbons, mercury, arsenic, and lead; and

12                Whereas, Council has been advised that the

13        proposed coke plant estimates that up to 680

14        pounds of mercury will be emitted annually, a

15        major new source of mercury impacting the fish and

16        water of the western basin of Lake Erie; and

17                Whereas, for all of the reasons stated

18        above with the foremost reason being the public

19        health and safety of not only the residents of

20        Harbor View but those living and working and

21        traveling through who will be impacted by this

22        plant.

23                 Now therefore be it resolved by the

24        Council of the Village of Harbor View.  It was

25        voted on unanimously, five yeses, zero nos, and I

0030

 1        would like to admit this into the record.

 2        MS. MCCARRON:         Thank you.

 3        MR. STANOYEVIC:       Thank you.

 4        MS. MCCARRON:         Sharon Graffeo-Rudess.

 5        MS. RUDESS:           Sharon Graffeo-Rudess,

 6        Oregon city councilwoman.  That's spelled

 7        R-u-d-e-s-s. 

 8                I will not repeat what my colleagues have

 9        said before me, but I am concerned, like the rest

10        of the Oregon councilpeople here today, trying to

11        bring tax dollars into our community.  We know

12        that we have been getting more economic

13        development here.  We are getting more and more

14        residents into Lucas County, but we want to keep

15        our quality of life.  I too don't live only maybe

16        a couple miles from the proposed site.  I too have

17        grandchildren here.  I too plan to stay here for a

18        long time. 

19                I just want to say that I do support this

20        project.  If the permit is given, especially I

21        know in the room here this evening there are many,

22        many tradespersons here from all the trades, and I

23        too would like to keep some of those men and women

24        working.  Thank you.

25        MS. MCCARRON:         Thank you.  Again, if we can

0031

 1        hold our applause so that we can get through the

 2        testimony.  Any other elected officials that would

 3        like to speak tonight?  If you choose to do it

 4        later, you can turn in a blue card to me.  Rick

 5        Hodges.

 6        MR. HODGES:           Good evening.  My name is

 7        Richard Hodges, H-o-d-g-e-s.  I just came from

 8        Northwood.  I'm the executive vice-president of

 9        the Mechanical Contractors Association of

10        Northwestern Ohio.  I'm here to speak on behalf of

11        my association, the National Electrical

12        Contractors of Northwest Ohio and Southeast

13        Michigan, the Associated General Contractors, and

14        the Northwest Ohio Building and Construction

15        Trades.  Together our organizations represent

16        approximately 500 contractors and 12,000 skilled

17        union craftspeople in northwest Ohio and southeast

18        Michigan. 

19                Our industry has been in the midst of a

20        severe recession for the past several years.  We

21        have struggled with high unemployment rates that

22        have, at times, exceeded 30 percent amongst some

23        crafts.  Needless to say, the construction of the

24        plant here would bring a great deal of relief to

25        many families who live in this community.  This

0032

 1        300 million dollar plant will generate as many as

 2        1,000 construction jobs and 200 permanent

 3        positions.  The economic impact of this project

 4        will help to reenergize an area that is in need of

 5        such help long after the construction's finished. 

 6                Additionally, the proposed construction

 7        site will improve an underutilized brownfield site

 8        and not further encroach on valuable farm land.  I

 9        myself live in a rural area near here, and I

10        believe the best environmental policy is one that

11        allows for economic growth while maintaining the

12        quality of our rural communities.  I do not

13        pretend to be an environmental expert, but I do

14        understand that various environmental hurdles have

15        already been cleared and, in the future, the plant

16        will still be expected to comply with air quality

17        standards with the best available technology. 

18                Thank you for the opportunity to speak on

19        behalf of this project this evening, and we would

20        all appreciate your favorable consideration.

21        MS. MCCARRON:         Thank you.  Nisha Kapadia.

22        MS. KAPADIA:          Nisha Kapadia, N-i-s-h-a

23        K-a-p-a-d-i-a.  I am from the National Wildlife

24        Federation, Great Lakes Natural Resource Center in

25        Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

0033

 1                On behalf of the National Wildlife

 2        Federation and its members and supporters, I'm

 3        pleased to have the opportunity to address the

 4        issue of a proposed coking plant for Oregon that

 5        is currently in an expedited permitting phase. 

 6        Though the proposed plant would emit large

 7        quantities of a number of pollutants, our comments

 8        focus on the issue of mercury contamination.  We

 9        also wish to stress the critical role meaningful

10        public engagement plays in ensuring sound

11        industrial projects that will benefit communities

12        and the economy over the long term. 

13                NWF is a national conservation education

14        and advocacy organization with over four million

15        members and supporters around the country. 

16        Through our Great Lakes field office in Ann Arbor,

17        Michigan, and working with a number of other

18        groups, including our state affiliate in Ohio, the

19        League of Ohio Sportsmen, we have been actively

20        involved in efforts to reduce and virtually

21        eliminate the releases of persistent,

22        bioaccumulative, toxic chemicals, including

23        mercury, in the Great Lakes region. 

24                Mercury is a serious problem in Ohio and

25        nationwide.  Ohio, along with every other Great

0034

 1        Lakes state but New York, has a statewide mercury

 2        advisory in place.  The statewide advisory was

 3        revised last year to indicate that all Ohioans

 4        should limit their consumption of any fish species

 5        in any Ohio water body to no more than one meal

 6        per week.  In addition, more respective advisories

 7        due to mercury along with PCBs are in place for

 8        common carp and smallmouth bass in the Maumee

 9        River, and similar advisories are in place for

10        channel catfish and largemouth bass in the

11        Sandusky River to the east. 

12                Mercury that is released to the air by

13        industrial processes can then be deposited back on

14        the land and our surface waters.  Once converted

15        to the methylmercury in water, it can readily

16        bioaccumulate in the food chain.  In this way

17        predator fish such as walleye can have mercury

18        concentrations over one million times higher than

19        the surrounding water.  So for most water bodies

20        addressing the mercury contamination problem means

21        dealing with sources that release mercury to the

22        air. 

23                Working with a number of Ohio

24        organizations, we recently released the results of

25        rain testing carried out in Cleveland that showed

0035

 1        mercury levels in Cleveland rain which averaged

 2        almost eight times the level the EPA considers

 3        safe for the surface waters of the Great Lakes. 

 4        Because of mercury air pollution, Ohio's rain

 5        isn't cleaning our water bodies, it's

 6        contaminating them. 

 7                Mercury contamination of fish has

 8        potential economic repercussions as well. 

 9        According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

10        nearly 1.4 million anglers fished in the state in

11        2001, and direct fishing-related expenditures

12        amount to over 760 million dollars annually. 

13                Mercury contamination of the environment

14        is a persistent problem that is drawing increasing

15        attention from scientists, policy makers, and the

16        general public.  Mercury is a toxic heavy metal

17        which can damage both human and wildlife health. 

18        Based on the most recent data on blood mercury

19        levels obtained by the Centers for Disease Control

20        and Prevention, the USEPA recently estimated that

21        up to 630,000 newborns a year in the U.S. are at

22        risk for neurodevelopmental problems, including in

23        the areas of memory, attention, and language

24        development, due to mercury exposure they receive

25        in the womb.  This figure doubles earlier

0036

 1        estimates. 

 2                The proposed coking plant for Oregon would

 3        add to the ongoing mercury contamination problem

 4        in Ohio and the region and could impede state

 5        efforts, not just in Ohio, but in Michigan and

 6        elsewhere to achieve mercury reductions. 

 7        According to information accompanying the draft

 8        permit, the facility would release up to 680

 9        pounds of mercury annually, making it the fifth

10        largest source of mercury in the state.  To put

11        this number in context, the total amount of

12        mercury in a 25-acre lake under a mercury advisory

13        would fit in one fever thermometer, so releases of

14        this magnitude are very important. 

15                The move to build the proposed coking

16        plant comes at a time of increased activities at

17        state, regional, and national levels to address

18        mercury emissions from all sources.  NWF and a

19        number of other groups in Ohio and Michigan are

20        promoting initiatives to reduce the use of mercury

21        in products and processes.  Strong regulations

22        have been adopted in the past decade addressing

23        mercury emissions from incinerators, and we are

24        currently advocating for the development of strong

25        federal standards, as well as independent state

0037

 1        regulations, on power plants.  While coal-fired

 2        power plants account for 67 percent of the

 3        emissions in Ohio, coking operations can also be

 4        important mercury sources.  The proposed plant's

 5        emissions would be comparable to those from a

 6        large power plant, and to date the company has not

 7        proposed any method whatsoever of mercury

 8        pollution control. 

 9                We are very concerned about both the lack

10        of any specific limits on mercury emissions from

11        the Oregon coking facility as well as the

12        expedited process by which the draft permit was

13        developed.  It is not clear that adoption of

14        particulate matter emission limits and work

15        practice standards for fugitive emissions of other

16        pollutants will be sufficient to substantially

17        reduce mercury emissions from the plant.  A much

18        more thorough analysis should be done to determine

19        the potential for these measures to affect mercury

20        releases. 

21                In addition to the problems with mercury,

22        the proposed plant would also add another source

23        of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other

24        pollutants to the region's air, contributing to

25        ongoing smog and particulate problems in the

0038

 1        region, including across the border in Michigan,

 2        and acid deposition in regions downwind.  Other

 3        pollutants that would be released from the

 4        facility include volatile organic compounds, such

 5        as benzene and toluene, polycyclic organic matter,

 6        and dioxins and furans. 

 7                For these reasons, NWF believes the city

 8        should request that Ohio EPA take the time to

 9        develop a more thorough analysis of the proposed

10        plan and potential emissions, ensuring that both

11        the potential for elevated releases of both

12        mercury and numerous other chemicals are addressed

13        in a more systematic manner. 

14                While it is important that the industrial

15        and manufacturing sectors in the region are

16        strong, it is equally important to ensure

17        environmental protection and that new industrial

18        development move in a direction of the cleanest

19        production processes possible.  Indeed,

20        developing, manufacturing, and installing new

21        clean technologies has the potential to anchor

22        new, sound, long-term economic development in

23        Ohio. 

24                This promise can only be met if projects

25        are thoroughly reviewed, the public and experts

0039

 1        engaged, and their comments fully considered. 

 2        Accordingly, we further -- we urge further

 3        extension of the comment period for this project. 

 4        The citizens of Ohio, Michigan, and elsewhere in

 5        the Great Lakes, along with the lakes and rivers

 6        we depend on, deserve no less.  Thank you.

 7        MS. MCCARRON:         Thank you.  Tim Susor.

 8        MR. SUSOR:            Tom.

 9        MS. MCCARRON:         Sorry, Tom.

10        MR. SUSOR:            I answer to anything.  Tom

11        Susor, 105 Cedarwood, Oregon, Ohio.  I'm here

12        wearing a multitude of hats this evening, one of

13        which is a father and a grandfather of seven and

14        soon to be eight in September grandchildren.  We

15        all live in Oregon a couple miles from the

16        proposed facility. 

17                I'm here to say a couple things, one of

18        which is this is not your father's coker.  I'm a

19        life-long electrician.  I was a maintenance

20        electrician at the Interlake Steel and the coking

21        facility that was on Front Street, and if we all

22        think of that facility, if facilities were ran

23        that way today, I would be standing here telling

24        you I would shoot you if you decided to permit

25        that. 

0040

 1                Well, this is not my father's coke oven. 

 2        This is a heat recovery coking process.  We need

 3        to keep ourselves focused on the prize.  Emissions

 4        at a heat recovery facility, they are different

 5        than a byproduct producing coke oven facility.  Do

 6        your homework, environmentalists, on heat recovery

 7        coke ovens and find out how the process works. 

 8        Find out the technology available and the

 9        technology utilized in the new process. 

10                That being said, I'm -- I'm an electrical

11        contractor in northwest Ohio and employ about 17

12        guys, formerly about 37 guys, but it's been a

13        little tough times.  Three years ago northwest

14        Ohio produced a little over four million manhours,

15        electrical working manhours in northwest Ohio. 

16        The last year we produced 1.9 million manhours. 

17        Do the math.  We need the work.  We need real

18        jobs.  We need to keep our children employed in

19        their homes and by their families, not trekking

20        off somewhere else to find a job that they can

21        earn a living at. 

22                These jobs are producing new -- real live

23        jobs that will not only give us short-term

24        employment like a Meijer's store or -- that was a

25        bad analogy -- or a restaurant, we go and we do

0041

 1        restaurant -- we build restaurants and we get done

 2        and we walk away, and ten years from now when they

 3        remodel we'll get to come in and do a little work. 

 4        We're talking industrial -- heavy industrial jobs,

 5        when you're done building the facility, you're

 6        there and you're still building the facility,

 7        you're improving, you're updating, your service

 8        calls and your work there is ongoing and ever

 9        changing.  This is continual economic growth and

10        base for northwest Ohio and Oregon.

11                I'm looking at -- I've been involved in

12        the process with our Oregon school system

13        recently, and we are in need of renovations and

14        makeovers.  That money doesn't come from trees or

15        from the air.  I mean, if you're not looking at

16        our industrial base, then you're looking at a

17        sixteen mill levy instead of a six mill levy. 

18        You're looking at the unattainable, unreachable

19        tax base problems for northwest Ohio. 

20                We need to wake up, see where -- first of

21        all, we need to trust you people to do your jobs

22        and then trust the construction tradesman to do

23        their jobs and trust the plant operators who are

24        investing millions of dollars in an operation to

25        do their job.  If everybody has a little trust,

0042

 1        America can recover the steel industry, recover

 2        high production jobs, recover top -- real dollar

 3        jobs and not -- and you cannot do that with paper

 4        or plastic jobs. 

 5                We need real jobs.  We need real industry. 

 6        We need to be self-supporting America on our own

 7        steel so that we don't have to not build buildings

 8        because we can't afford the steel increases, and

 9        you don't do that by turning your back on real

10        people wanting to invest in your community.  I

11        applaud your speed in which you reacted to an

12        economic situation, and it certainly wasn't -- and

13        there's no bones about it, that was an economic

14        situation, you either get our permit through so we

15        can build this facility in a timely fashion so we

16        can help the economic outlook and our economic

17        outlook of building this facility in a location we

18        feel is ideal for it, and you reacted the way you

19        should have in response to what's best for

20        northwest Ohio.  Thank you for your actions. 

21                And I will submit some of this as -- when

22        you're look at building a new technological

23        advanced facility, you can't project -- I mean,

24        you can do your models and you can project on the

25        output and what's going to be produced or you've

0043

 1        got to look to recently built facilities that have

 2        similar type operations and see how they're

 3        performing and how they're reacting.  I have some

 4        stuff here on heat recovery coking operations,

 5        some environmental concerns and water usage

 6        concerns from a facility in northern Indiana I

 7        think you'd be interested in.  I think I'll submit

 8        those to whoever wants those.  You can read those

 9        through.

10        MS. MCCARRON:         Thank you.

11        MR. SUSOR:            Thank you for your time and

12        your patience.

13        MS. MCCARRON:         Mike Clark.

14        MR. CLARK:            My name is Michael Clark,

15        it's Richard Michael, C-l-a-r-k.

16        MS. MCCARRON:         Thank you.

17        MR. CLARK:            You can get ADA things in

18        here but not yet.  I grew up here in Oregon, and I

19        was in Columbus for 18 years.  Mary, you said you

20        were from Columbus.  We all remember the trash

21        burning power plant in Columbus.  Everybody

22        couldn't wait to open it but couldn't wait to shut

23        it down either. 

24                I came in here with an open mind tonight,

25        and I still have an open mind.  I've dealt with

0044

 1        the Environmental Services with Toledo in the past

 2        concerning other things going on.  They've done

 3        nothing.  Karen and Adam, I spoke to both of you

 4        prior to this concerning Sun Oil, problems that

 5        they have with emissions coming up.  They say

 6        well, call us when it happens, we'll try to see,

 7        and you know what happens, nothing. 

 8                I was concerned about one thing here with

 9        this plant, emissions, this new coke plant.  I got

10        more information tonight listening to the people

11        speaking than I did from the Environmental

12        Protection Agency.  Mr. Ford came in.  He actually

13        did some studies.  I was concerned about a few --

14        a few things coming up, such as -- oh, I only have

15        a small note with me because I'm not a big person

16        here, but mercury, 680 pounds a year is what they

17        were projecting.  I understand that's not a good

18        number because of the fact that the coke ovens are

19        state of the art now. 

20                Mr. Hopkins talked about a cyclonic action

21        thing from a stack.  I understand the stacks are

22        200 feet tall, one of them is.  There's going to

23        be several that are 60 feet.  You know, I'd be the

24        first one in line right now to apply for a job at

25        this plant.  I'm disabled, but I can answer the

0045

 1        phone, because the fact that the tax base in

 2        Oregon, first, we need -- my taxes went up $400

 3        last year for my property.  Do you know what that

 4        does for somebody on Social Security disability? 

 5        It hurts big time.  I'm having trouble getting the

 6        grass cut.  I can't hardly pay the utilities

 7        coming in because I'm -- I'm getting

 8        substantial -- under $10,000 a year to live on

 9        when our tax base goes up and continually goes up

10        for our schools.  We need new schools in Oregon,

11        which means there's another 4 to $500 a year that

12        it's going to go up. 

13                Hopefully -- if Oregon stops other plants

14        from coming in, other things from coming in -- you

15        need to do your job.  We've gotten very little

16        tonight.  I don't know how many of you people were

17        actually doing the application for this plant, but

18        we didn't get a lot of information from you.  We

19        got very little information, if anything, and I

20        was very disappointed in that.    

21                I'm still for the plant, but I wish that

22        this -- this group of people, they were more

23        forthcoming with the answers we needed to hear. 

24        We got them from people speaking.  We still have a

25        lot of people in the dark.  I'm still -- I'm not

0046

 1        completely turned over, but I'm almost there, I'm

 2        this close, simply because of the tax base that we

 3        have in Oregon, the jobs that we need.  I've heard

 4        several people speak that they have companies,

 5        large companies, they have workers laid off, they

 6        have -- we need the work.  Toledo needs the work. 

 7        Oregon needs the jobs here. 

 8                Yes, it's a brown space, you know.  Harbor

 9        View, that's been a place that everybody forgot

10        here too.  We need to remember Harbor View because

11        they do have a lot of pollutants hitting them, so

12        if you can guarantee that these pollutants are

13        going to be state of the art, they're not going to

14        get our pollutants that we've got coming from

15        Toledo Edison or from B.P. -- B.P.'s cleaned up

16        their act.  They're still working on it.  They've

17        done a lot of work over there.

18                You know, we talked about a million

19        gallons of water they're going to use over here at

20        this coke plant.  What's going to be emitted into

21        the air, what's going with it, and are we going to

22        clean it up or are we going to watch over it --

23        they say the EPA is watching everybody, they're a

24        watchdog for us.  I have an inground pool.  It's

25        pretty new.  It was just put in for therapy.  It's

0047

 1        fiberglass.  Every summer I have trouble now for

 2        two summers cleaning the oil off of that

 3        fiberglass. 

 4                I live over by Corduroy and Otter Creek,

 5        which is only a few miles from this new coke

 6        plant.  The wind's not going to be blowing my way. 

 7        There was a gentleman up here telling you what way

 8        the wind was going.  Was it northwest?  It's going

 9        out to the harbor.  Everything goes out to the

10        harbor, and those people have put up with enough. 

11        As long as you can guarantee their safety and not

12        be another plant like Columbus had which killed

13        how many people in the south end of Columbus

14        before they decided to shut that power plant down

15        because it was emitting too many things that were

16        hurting people, if you can guarantee that and know

17        what you're doing, I'm all for this plant, and

18        I'll be the first in line to apply for a job, but

19        if you're not, say it.  If you're rushing this

20        through too fast, stop it, you know. 

21                If it's only because of deadlines that

22        need to be reached by June 15th because of the

23        environment, we all lived through it in Columbus. 

24        We all live here in Columbus -- or Oregon rather,

25        we all live here.  Myself, I love Lake Erie perch. 

0048

 1        With the standards right now, it's scary.  I mean,

 2        if you limit yourself to one day a week eating

 3        perch, any lake fish, what would we do if we

 4        couldn't eat fish any more, they all died off.  We

 5        need to think about that for the future. 

 6                Everybody says we have grandchildren.  I

 7        don't have any grandchildren, I don't have any

 8        children, but at the same time there's where the

 9        Environmental Protection Agency becomes involved. 

10        They're to protect, not to get somebody's plant

11        open.  Don't cut any corners.  Get it open, then

12        do it the best you can. 

13                My -- the best thing I've heard from you

14        tonight was you guys implemented how many people

15        to put this whole coke thing together to, make

16        sure that it was expedited as fast as possible,

17        that was the best thing I've heard, because you

18        guys are doing it, but to get it open is one

19        thing, but make sure that you're not cutting any

20        corners and dropping the ball.  We'll hold you

21        accountable to it. 

22                There are a lot of things that happened

23        with Envirosafe here.  They're still ongoing. 

24        They want to increase.  They want to build more

25        from what I understand.  We need to look at a lot

0049

 1        of different studies before that happens, but

 2        let's keep Oregon safe.  The main one thing that

 3        everybody's trying to see is keeping us safe. 

 4                If it was your children or your

 5        grandchildren or if you lived here -- I know

 6        there's things that's out of your power and it's

 7        simply because there's no money for it to happen,

 8        for you to investigate some of it, you know. 

 9        Every time you -- you're letting -- you're putting

10        the wolf in charge of the hen house sometimes when

11        you're letting these companies police theirselves. 

12        That's not a good thing.  You know, yes, you can

13        come in and they're going to change it when you're

14        there, they're going to see -- you know, you're

15        supposed to implement how they do things, how they

16        test for their pollutants and are they doing that

17        when you're not there.  You know, anyway, that's

18        all I have to say.

19        MS. MCCARRON:         Thank you, Mr. Clark.  Thank

20        you.  Steve Davis.

21        MR. DAVIS:            I'm Steve Davis, D-a-v-i-s. 

22        I'm with CSX Transportation out of Columbus, Ohio. 

23        Thank you for the opportunity to address the

24        panel. 

25                I'm here to state CSX Transportation's

0050

 1        support for this project.  I've been working for

 2        economic development in the State of Ohio since

 3        1987.  It's my responsibility to bring new jobs,

 4        investment, and customers to the State of Ohio. 

 5        Rail water sites are rare in the State of Ohio. 

 6        Toledo coal docks have lost jobs and tonnage over

 7        the years. 

 8                Now we have an opportunity to turn things

 9        around.  I can't think of a better site in Ohio

10        for this project, and this project represents our

11        best chance to bring jobs and investment to the

12        Toledo coal docks.  Thank you very much.

13        MS. MCCARRON:         Thank you.  Terry Hodge.

14        MR. LODGE:            Lodge.

15        MS. MCCARRON:         Lodge.

16        MR. LODGE:            It's Lodge.  For the record,

17        Terry Lodge is my name.  My experience with the

18        Ohio Environmental Protection Agency largely stems

19        from Envirosafe.  I find it very interesting that

20        Envirosafe's permit, last permit, which I think

21        was a five-year one, expired in 1996, and it's

22        been annually extended just unilaterally by the

23        Ohio EPA for seven, going on eight years, so that

24        has prevented any meaningful reconsideration of

25        the operations and the toxic emissions, the ground

0051

 1        water emissions of the Envirosafe dump, so it's

 2        kind of interesting to come to a situation where

 3        you're now fast tracking a permit also to do the

 4        bidding of another corporation.  Shame on you. 

 5                I call on the working people who are

 6        indeed desperate and mistreated and misused and

 7        manipulated by projects like this to look at a

 8        little bit of history.  This is a 30-year

 9        phenomenon, folks.  It's the jobs versus

10        environment graymail blackmail game where they

11        divide people.  They make environmentalists pit

12        themselves against workers.  We all breathe and

13        will have to breathe from the same atmosphere if

14        this plant is built. 

15                I want to know what baseline survey the

16        company has indicated to you they intend to

17        perform of their workforce before the plant opens. 

18        I want to know about the baseline public health

19        analyses the company proposes to do of the Harbor

20        View and Oregon communities before the plant

21        opens.  We look for leadership from our

22        government, not a permitting mill. 

23                This is a real jobs package, folks, but

24        they only discuss the sunshine jobs.  They

25        discussed the $50,000 a year -- incidentally, I

0052

 1        haven't -- I haven't heard any company officials

 2        speak on their own behalf tonight, and I haven't

 3        heard from organized labor announcing that the

 4        company has committed to unionize the plant. 

 5        There's a lot of things beyond just granting a

 6        stapled together wad of paper that says you get to

 7        permit -- you get to pollute our commons. 

 8                I don't know the identities of these

 9        corporate folks behind this either.  My

10        understanding is that this may be a much larger,

11        more diverse, and perhaps more polluting project

12        than anyone currently knows publicly, but I can

13        guarantee you that the people who are profiting

14        are not going to be living here breathing the air

15        from that. 

16                The jobs aren't just production jobs at a

17        coking facility or Chessie system or truckers. 

18        The jobs will also in this area -- there will be

19        an increase in Hospice workers, there will be an

20        increase in respiratory therapists and people who

21        treat allergies and emphysema, but we don't know

22        any specific statistics about that because the

23        unknown company will get to pollute into the great

24        void.  They will get to pollute into our commons,

25        and that is wrong, and corporations owe us

0053

 1        transparency, they owe us truth, honesty, and

 2        data. 

 3                I've got a couple of questions that I want

 4        to leave for the record.  I'd just like to point

 5        out they only talk about the sunshine, the plums,

 6        all of the great benefits.  They don't talk and

 7        you haven't talked about what I understand, and

 8        I'm not an engineer, but I understand that this

 9        system, like most smokestack systems, has an

10        override, has a bypass, and that for a certain

11        number of days in your pollution permit, in your

12        permission, your grant of permission to allow them

13        to poison the air, there's also going to be a

14        certain number of days per year when they get

15        because of production reasons or having to take

16        one of the beds out of service or something, they

17        get to push a few buttons, turn a few valves and

18        bypass whatever state of the art or so-called

19        state of the art equipment is there, so let's talk

20        about that.  That's one of the questions. 

21                Another question I have is I look at these

22        excerpts, these pages obviously from the

23        application or the permit or the proposed permit,

24        and there's numbers crossed out and new numbers

25        added, and it says new modeling done.  How can you

0054

 1        expect the public to meaningfully understand the

 2        scope of the project, understand the scope of the

 3        poisons that the community is expected to uptake

 4        without knowing what's really going to happen? 

 5        And my question is is there another set of numbers

 6        that really becomes effective on June 16th after

 7        the permit's granted?