Greenfield Ethanol – What the Smell?
I have to admit I have only been in Chatham a few years so perhaps explains why I have problems understanding how people here have put up for so long with the outrageous smell that permeates all corners of Chatham depending on the way the wind blows.
Driving by the plant itself is even worse. If you’re from outside of Chatham please I beg you only risk a drive by the plant if you have a head cold or sinus infection.
I won’t even ask who decided to locate the plant on the west side of the city – apparently prevailing winds weren’t a consideration at the time?
Now I did do a little digging and discovered apparently back in June of 2007 a mere 10 years after the plant first started operations in Chatham an announcement was made with our local MP MPP Pay Hoy taking considerable credit telling us all about the installation of an odour eliminating thermal oxidizer. http://www.greenfieldethanol.com/media_20070625
My initial thought was – what did it smell like in Chatham before the thermal oxidizer?
Apparently however the thermal oxidizer wasn’t either thermal enough or oxidizer enough or perhaps Greenfield was too busy counting the government funding they were receiving to remember to install the thing and by mid-2009 the plant’s commitment to stop the smell by their own proposed ‘end of 2008’ was, well almost not newsworthy as is evident by the matter of fact article CKDP posted July 31, 2009. http://ckdp.ca/greenfield-ethanol-says-no-definitive-time-line-set-to-eliminate-smell-in-chatham/
It especially baffles me people put up with the smell when I have for years listened to complaints and outrage about the cost of the Capitol Theatre. At a nothing to sneeze at cost of approximately $20 million most would agree the Capitol may be the location of a live performance that absolutely stinks, however that is nothing compared to the 24 hour a day, 7 day a week assault on the senses ethanol has managed to create with over $70 million in taxpayers money in 2009 alone.
Yes that’s right: $70 million for some jobs, half a billion in revenue for farmers, and a lot of stench.
When it gets right down to it for $70 million this odoriferous offensive against our olfactory system really does need to stop.
A Smarter Option:
With so much federal funding Greenfield Ethanol needs to put a solution in place now.
With the municipal election coming up there is a real opportunity once and for all to motivate this company to end the smell. Candidates should all be encouraged to have as part of their mandate a plan to put a bylaw into effect that punishes Greenfield with fines for creating such a noxious aroma in the City and beyond, and fine them until the problem is solved.
Given the huge amount of funding the federal government enjoys handing Greenfield I am sure more money can be sent from Ottawa so Greenfield can get a thermal oxidizer that works.
Do you have an issue you would like to see raised in the upcoming municipal election? Tell us about it.
Sources:
http://ckdp.ca/greenfield-ethanol-says-no-definitive-time-line-set-to-eliminate-smell-in-chatham/
http://www.greenfieldethanol.com/media_20090417
http://ckdp.ca/greenfield-ethanol-says-no-definitive-time-line-set-to-eliminate-smell-in-chatham/
Adrian
August 31, 2010 at 12:39 pm
fyi, Pat Hoy is the MPP, not MP. And both the federal and provincial governments have delivered funding for Greenfield.
Greg
August 31, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Hysterical article. I have lived in Chatham for over 2 years and rarely notice any smell at all. Indeed I still note the fresh air and would recommend Chatham to anyone looking for it.
Fresh Air?
August 31, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Fresh air in CK? – Don’t we have some of the worst air quality anywhere?
Frank O'Neill
August 31, 2010 at 4:03 pm
As a relative newcomer to Chatham, I can’t get over how often the stench from this facility blankets the city.
The plant would have been best built in the industrial areas towards the east of the city. The prevailing winds people!
It’s things like this that visitors to the city remember when they go back to their friends and family. They probably don’t mention the fabulous time that they had wherever they went, but I bet they sure remember the smell!
twoguest
September 1, 2010 at 9:11 am
The odour is much less noticeable than in the past; a similar smell is found near breweries and distilleries.
No doubt the better location would have been on the east side of the community however the industrial area was on Bloomfield Road.
If you feel that this was poor planning then look at some longstanding members of (Chatham) council who were around way back then. Time for some changes?
Gulliver
September 1, 2010 at 9:48 am
Yes there is an odor – not as noticeable as before – and predicted to get much better as they implement new processes i have been told . The larger issue is – how can we attract jobs and economic activity without some minor problems. Not every place can be a noise free, odor free , dust free location . ( Well I guess call centres would – don’t we want more than that ?) Lets always try for better – but lets also face reality about some of the things that come with industrial / commercial development . Never accept real health hazards – but lets be willing to put up with ocaisional annoyance for the benefit of the community
WhyMeLord
September 1, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Gulliver said: “Lets always try for better – but lets also face reality about some of the things that come with industrial / commercial development.”
Agreed. One must take the good with the bad. My favourite scenario is when the “city folk” move out to the country and then complain to their politicians about the less than desireable “smells” that eminate from their neighbour’s livestock operation.
I do have to agree, however, with the comment about poor planning. I do remember hearing that this plant couldn’t be built on the east side of Chatham due to the lack of utility services in that area and the lack of willingness for those service providers to upgrade the utilities. But that could just be a rumour.
It’s also interesting that from what I’ve heard the technology used in the Chatham ethanol plant is ancient compared to the new technologies used in plants like that which is being built near Corunna/Courtright. Perhaps the older technology is also a significant contributing factor to the odours.
EnoughAlready
September 1, 2010 at 6:23 pm
CKDP – I’m loosing faith. What a rant. I really thought that journalism was supposed to be non-biased and contain some fact. The tone of this article is unacceptable. I would have been more impressed and perhaps allowed the officiousness had the article contained research. Just wondering why Mr. Lebroq didn’t actually contact the MTO to see if the plant was operating in compliance before suggesting that the system is not performing properly. Or perhaps research why the plant was not situated elsewhere. You know…the bigger picture. It is always easy to be critical.
I have driven by the ethanol plant at times and been more repulsed by the stench of the wastewater treatment plant on Irwin Street.
If you have ever lived in Windsor, you know that the odour from Hiram Walker or the steel plants in River Rouge can take your breath away. And what about Zalev Brothers? I live in central Chatham. Typically, the ethanol plant is not an issue. On hot, humid days or early spring or late fall days thermal inversion does occur and sure, the odour is noticeable. But so is the cattle yard in south Chatham or Meritor on Park Avenue. Its just a nature of SW Ontario.
I wonder if Mr. Lebroq’s rationalle for writing this article is due to his location to the perceived problem.
Rob
September 1, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Hi EnoughAlready,
Sorry you didn’t like the column, but that is what it is – a column written by an authour, expressing an opinion. This piece is not intended to be non-biased journalism.
I’m wondering if I created this confusion by placing it in the “Featured” area along-side other news articles. (?)
Obviously you are familiar with an opinion column – so is the problem you’re having is that we’re not differentiating between what’s news and what’s opinion clearly enough? Perhaps we should be defining the lines more.
Your input is valued and appreciated.
Thanks,
Rob
PS: I’m curious why you’re so hard on David on this one, when your comment on his last article began with: “Great article David” – and this one gets an “I’m Losing Faith”.
You DO KNOW Chatham smells like an ethanol plant right? – Or has your olfactory just gotten used to it? – And your mention of the Walker plants in Windsor is a little on the weak side too, given the point in Windsor’s ancient history when the Hiram properties went in vs. the virtually brand new installation of our local stinker.
Your assertion that “Typically, the ethanol plant is not an issue” seems odd to me too considering Greenfield themselves are still talking about how they are narrowing down on designs to eliminate the smell.
I went for a walk with my wife in Paxton’s Bush last week, and when I lit a cigarette, my wife told me “Can you please put that out? – I can no longer smell the ethanol.”
What’s really got your goat on this one? You’ve been with us a long time, so your opinion matters to me.
In any case, sorry you thought this column stunk. (..I couldn’t resist.)
David Lebrocq
September 2, 2010 at 10:55 am
Enough Already:
I can indeed confirm my rationale for writing this article is my location.
For over a year I experienced the smell on a regular basis living on Grant Street. I now live closer, in the Keil Drive area, and actually experience the smell less often than on Grant Street. This may be because of the height of the stack. Which may actually be the long term solution – extend the height of the stack upward so the smell drops down somewhere around Kent-Bridge or Louisville.
And I have to admit you’ve really lost me on why I should be contacting the MTO – Ministry of Transport – to discuss the operation of a stinky industrial complex. I believe if I were to contact the MTO they likely would recommend I drive away from the smell as quickly as possible but within posted speed limits.
Barry Wilson
December 26, 2010 at 12:21 am
Pollution control at the alcohol plant in Chatham has never been state of the art.
When some of the particulates are removed
from the dryer exhaust before sending the
effluent up the tall chimney the odour
problem will be reduced !
laker
September 1, 2010 at 11:34 pm
I agree with Gulliver. Why bash this plant that has reduced the odour and continues to find a solution for further reduction.It provides employment and needed income for corn producers etc. We need every job we can get in this area .This company is also looking at producing ethanol from corn cobs and could build a related facility.With negative reports such as this we would probably be left off the list of
sites should such a facility come to reality.
David Lebrocq
September 2, 2010 at 11:31 am
Hi Laker:
I’m “Bashing” the plant because it is clear no thought went into its location. And now with the millions upon millions of tax payer dollars being thrown at this plant with no demand for some of that money to be used to put an end to the ‘soiling’ the city’s air is nothing short of absurd.
After listening to years of complaining about the cost of the Capitol Theatre, a meager $25 million, I am entirely puzzled why a plant that has received so much more tax payer money and effects the nostrils of a city of people is not an issue.
For both yourself and Gulliver in the commenting area to suggest Chatham Kent should be looking for ‘jobs at any cost’ is even more baffling. Makes me very curious about where both of you live.
Gulliver
September 2, 2010 at 10:30 pm
my that was selective reading – never jobs at any cost – but rather the mature realization that jobs and economic activity do not happen without some downsides – the challenge is to limit the downsides – and ensure that it is not at the cost of personal health or the overall environment.
Note on the location – always wondered if this was an example of what would have been better if this occured after amalgamation – clearly this was not going any place but chatham because of tax revenue – after amalgamation it could have gone the best location in CK with the tax benefit accruing to all
Sally Joyce
September 2, 2010 at 8:07 pm
I am quite surprised that no one has commented on the fact that if you take full cost accounting into consideration plants like this one and all the activity related to them to produce the fuel actually use more energy than the end fuel produces. (wow that sounds like a tongue twister) This really isn’t a smart or efficient way to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels – it is just another version of the same old thing, with side effects attached.
David Lebrocq
September 7, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Sally I am aware of the argument that net/net this process results in an increase in emissions.
The fact that our Provincial and Federal governments have been supporting this industry through corporate welfare with tens of millions of dollars for a handful of jobs, and very questionable environmental benefit is an entirely different story.
The purpose of the article was to raise an issue that truly does stink and can be dealt with easily at a municipal level. We have bylaws and fines in our community that help motivate people to keep their lawns cut, property clean, noise down, etc.
Perhaps it is time Greenfield Ethanol had in place a bylaw and fines to motivate it to be a good citizen and take the steps necessary to end the smell once and for all.
Jim in Wallaceburg
September 8, 2010 at 9:13 am
I would suggest the Ontario Ministry of the Environment is a more appropriate venue to voice concerns over nuisance odours. Technology has significantly improved since 1998, when Commercial Alcohols turned GreenField Ethanol first set up shop in town. I will give them credit for effort in attempting to deal with the problem – such as the $10-million 75-metre steam stack and the $8-million thermal oxidizer – but not high marks on results (yet).
The Municipal Act does not empower Chatham-Kent to act autonomously from the province on nuisance odours so before council could consider any such bylaw then they would need to have a detailed understanding of proposals being considered between Greenfield and the MOE. I do not know if the municipality has pursued this option however it would be a good place to start – rather than straight to the big stick.
Enjoy your opinion pieces – they certainly make me thinks about important local issues.
Zipper
December 27, 2010 at 7:26 am
The smell is just a product of the great and miraculous abilities of cK planning and zoning department.
Building a plant like that upwind from Chatham has amazed the smallest of minds.
Dan
December 27, 2010 at 11:40 am
In just wonder if Greenfield is gonna foot the bill to repair that portion Bloomfield Rd and the rail crossing that is being torn apart by all the heavy trucks delivering all their corn…sommehow i doubt it..im sure we the taxpayers will get stuck with that!