Of course a few comments-

Re:"Jardine said there was no need to bring in a third party, and that crematoriums do not affect surrounding property values."
Ha-ha-ha-ha
Speak for yourself!
Do a survey, "would you buy a home next to a crematory?" "how much less would you pay for a home next to a body burner"?

RE:"He also estimated it would be used fewer than 200 times a year -- and only for clients of Jardine's."
Put all that in writing.
And the city needs to add this to the regs.

RE:"Jardine said scrubbers are "not normal or standard in the U.S.," only overseas. "
There is still research that some of these emissions can be harmful. As he said, "With the unknown, there is always room for concern," then why not take all precautions? Just because the EPA doesn't regulate is no reason to not safeguard your neighbors and community.

In 2011, a third party independent engineering analysis performed by Dr. Stanley Penkala, Ph.D., Qualified Environmental Professional (Q.E.P.) submitted to the Peters Township Planning commission in reference to an environmental engineering analysis of a Matthews Power Pak II crematory installation resulted in the identification of numerous errors in the analysis performed and serious questions as to the accuracy of the actual test data provided by the Matthews Int. (http://www.egovlink.com/public_documents300/peterstownship/published_documents/May%202nd%20Public%20Hearing%20Documents/Audia%20Group%20Supplemental%20Exhibits.pdf). After the model was revised Dr. Penkala concluded that the results were not acceptable and further analysis was still required.

In his assessment Dr. Penkala states "To produce meaningful estimates of ambient concentrations, the modeling must start with credible estimates of emission rates of the process under evaluation. In both CEC-1 and CEC-2, the stack emission rates come from five reports provided to CEC by Matthews International, and an EPA WebFIRE HAP Emission Factor report performed in 1992. The tests vary widely in operating conditions: secondary chamber temperatures are only known for one case, charge weights are missing in two of the cases, fuel heat input rates are unknown in one test and are assumed to be 3 million BTU/hr for the most recent four cases, and only one criteria pollutant [particulate matter] was reported for all five cases. Most of the HAPS [Hazardous Air Pollutants] are only available from a single test plus the WebFIRE report....”

“As for the HAPS emission estimates, we don’t know whether the cases included prostheses or other combustibles that could increase the emissions of some species. The same criticism applies to the EPA WebFIRE data, which dates back to 1992 and utilized propane rather than natural gas as the combustion fuel. An indication that these parameters are affected by individual test variations can be found in the high variability of species emission rates when data are available for multiple tests. For example, Cadmium emission estimates were 5.55E-06, 2.100E-05, and 2.425E-04 lbs/hr in the 3 sources reporting emissions of that HAP. The modeling evaluation used the average of the two highest test results, as if the average of two values which differ by an order of magnitude is significant and representative of the cremation process.”

They have already started marketing it as Cleveland Cremations LLC,, google it and check out the website. Sounds like more than just Jardine customers.

Dr. Penkala states “This is very sketchy information on which to evaluate any source. Whether a particular modeled concentration turns out to be lower or higher than the comparable screening concentration, we won’t know if that is because there is a real problem or because the assumed emission rate is erroneous.” (http://www.egovlink.com/public_documents300/peterstownship/published_documents/May%202nd%20Public%20Hearing%20Documents/Audia%20Group%20Supplemental%20Exhibits.pdf).

Subsequently, after hearing all of the facts, the Peters Township Council unanimously Voted 7-0 against the Crematory! (http://peters.patch.com/articles/peters-township-council-unanimously-votes-no-on-crematory)

For as many experts that can be found to state possible hazards, there are just as many, or more, that dispute those findings. As I looked all across the Internet, crematories can be found anywhere and everywhere, ie.. strip malls, main highways, residential areas, etc... Most people don't know they even exist. No health issues have been reported in those areas. Just my personal opinion. We have other issues Strongsville needs to address that are 100X more important than wasting our efforts on something so inconsequential

This is based on a study performed last year on the same model unit being proposed. It is very relevant to the discussion, since the proposed location is so close to schools with high potential exposure to our children. At a minimum, a third party Environmental engineering analysis should have been performed. Otherwise, no one can say that this is of safe risk to expose our children and community to.

I can't think of anything more important than this issue. Exposing my child to toxins is something I take very serious.

There are pro's & con's to EVERY subject matter. That does not mean that every quote from every person that you cite is 100% positively the ultimate conclusion. In 30 minutes on the Internet I found at least 100 comments from engineers, scientists, doctors, EPA officials, DEP officials that do not have any issues or concerns. All I am saying is if we are going to make a informed decision, then we must look at all the opinions. Again, these facilities are located all over the US in all areas, including highly populated areas. There does not seem to be any health issues or outbreaks of any illnesses reported. Based on that criteria alone, this seems to be a mon issue that some want to make into an issue.

The particular quotes you are referring to are an experts analysis results based on data supplied by the Matthews company, based on actual testing on the Power Pak II crematory. This is the same model crematory proposed to be installed in Strongsville. At a minimum, a third party Environmental engineering analysis should have been performed. Otherwise, no one can say that this is of acceptable risk to expose our children and community to.

If we are to make an informed decision, they should not build the facility until a third party Environmental engineering analysis is performed.

Anything less should be unacceptable to Strongsville parents and residents!

I have yet to here a legitimate "pro" as to why it needs to be located next to our schools...

Because it is not a recognized health hazard. If it was, there would be laws that regulated the site of operation.

One more time: just in the interest of common sense and a bit of sensitivity to the desires of the community as a whole, this plan needs to be revisited. Decades of a solid and supportive presence in the city of Strongsville, as created by Millar and George Jardine, is being risked by the business interests of the young gun. If I were to venture a guess, I have to believe that any number of influential business and political leaders in the city are "behind the scenes" urging Jason to reconsider this plan. It will be interesting to see if he listens to the voices of experience.

To me common sense means if there is no solid evidence no health risks, then what is the issue? Seems to be a personal issue.

I wonder how many future cancer cases in the surrounding area will be suspected as being caused by the body burner. And, I wonder how many resulting lawsuits regarding these cancer patients it will take to take this business down?
Sometimes you think something will make you money, but it just might have the opposite effect. They have already created lots of bad PR. Word of mouth should be very important in that line of work. If your business is already going to suffer because of alienating your community, a few lawsuits will do you in for sure.

I can’t imagine the proponents of this crematory would disagree with allowing the city to perform a third party independent engineering analysis prior to construction. As I have read numerous times, they live in our community and share our same concerns for our children.

I AM FINE WITH THIS STATEMENT
He also estimated it would be used fewer than 200 times a year -- and only for clients of Jardine's.
COULD WE HAVE THAT IN WRITING AND AFTER 200 NO MORE TILL JAN 1ST

I guess we take a risk every day we leave our homes, drive out cars, step foot on an airliner for vacation, etc... But we do so because the preponderance of evidence does not show that these are dangerous. There is no evidence that these facilities are dangerous or risky.

As far as making your case... I take exception. You have no case.

Lyn,
They must be afraid of something... why would they create a seperate LLC,, "Cleveland Cremations LLC",, to operate under. If in fact any health risks or environmental damage is discovered the LLC takes the hit and the Jardine family and funeral home are shielded from damages. The city issued the conditional use permit to Jardine Funeral Home,, why don't they operate as such?

I apologize if I'm unclear in what I am stating, as my background may be a bit more technical in nature than yours. The engineering analysis I referenced above is very specific to the unit that is being proposed in Strongsville. The 2011 analysis failed even after numerous errors were corrected. What is more troubling to me is that the author, Dr. Stanley Penkala, Ph.D., Qualified Environmental Professional (Q.E.P.) had major concerns regarding the data provided on the unit’s emission. He stated, “This is very sketchy information on which to evaluate any source. Whether a particular modeled concentration turns out to be lower or higher than the comparable screening concentration, we won’t know if that is because there is a real problem or because the assumed emission rate is erroneous.”.

Therefore I am very unclear as to how you have reached your conclusion that "the preponderance of evidence does not show that these are dangerous.”

Based on that analysis alone, I can’t imagine the proponents of this crematory would disagree with allowing the city to perform a third party independent engineering analysis prior to construction.

Also, did you see their affiliation with a group called Life Legacy on the Cleveland Cremation website. If you donate your body to science through Life Legacy,,Cleveland Cremation (Jardine) does the cremation for free.
Doesn't sound like it is limited to their own clients. I can only imagine the number of indigent souls that will now pass through Strongsville that would never have been connected before.

I guess my EE with an MBA, in your eyes, makes me unable to grasp the technical concerns of your Dr. Stanley Penkala. I can get as technical as you like from a science perspective or as detailed as you like from a business perspective. I am amazed at individuals that want to match wits on specific topics and engage that process half prepared. Apples & Oranges here. If you are that convinced, produce the undisputed data, that is all I am trying to say. Your data is inconclusive and these businesses are still operational across the country with NO evidence of health issues.

So, Jason, are you willing to put what you've said publicly in writing - no more than 200 cremations/year and ONLY clients of Jardines - no outsourcing from other homes? Are you a man to be trusted?

My EE makes me the analytical thinker. The MBA awards me the common sense to sepetate fact from fiction. Please show me the undisputed facts and I will retract my statements. The problem is there are none.

Caloge and I created our document to provide factual information and structured questions that concerned us and many other parents. Every item is reference to data. Unless you are a Qualified Environmental Professional that is taking measurements and analyzing the data for our specific situation, you DO NOT have the proper information/education to make a conclusive decision. A few hours of research on the internet does not make me, you or anyone else an expert in anything. Dr. Stanley Penkala, Ph.D studied a case based on the Matthews Crematory Power Pak II for the Peters Township in the Pittsburg area. Is it not in the best interest of our children and community to hire him to analyze our situation?

So if someone else, with the same credentials or more ecoerience, provides conflicting data as non health concerns, where do we from there? I am not a Environmental Professional. I can not and do not base my opinion on scanning the Internet for 30 minutes, but I am a teakist

A realist. If there is not undisputed compelling data available, then it's time to default back to the original approvals of these sites across the country.

Enough is enough. I guess we can agree to disagree on this topic.