Even as Congress moves to mandate the use of ethanol as part of the US clean fuels mix (see related story, p. 20), government agencies and environmental pressure groups are stepping up efforts to curb US fuel ethanol plant emissions.
The Department of Justice, US Environmental Protection Agency, and Minnesota earlier this month announced civil settlements with 12 ethanol plants in the state for alleged Clean Air Act (CAA) violations.
The settlements are the first agreements to mandate reductions in air pollution from fuel ethanol producers, US officials said.
The week prior to the settlements, the Sierra Club announced its intention to sue two Midwest ethanol producers to force CAA compliance (OGJ Online, Sept. 30, 2002).
Settlement details
Under the settlements, the plants will install thermal oxidizers that can reduce volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by 95% from feed dryers and meet new, more restrictive emissions limits for nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), and other hazardous air pollutants. In addition to emissions control requirements estimated to cost $2 million/ plant, each facility will also pay a civil penalty of $29,000-39,000.
The government alleges that the facilities were operating in violation of the CAA's New Source Review (NSR) provisions. The NSR program requires plant operators to install pollution controls and undertake other preconstruction obligations to control air pollution emissions.
The consent decrees were lodged in federal district court in Minneapolis and are subject to a 30-day comment period.
Ethanol fuel producer representatives called the announcement part of a "cooperative process" between regulators and the ethanol industry. They said discussions yielded a resolution less than 4 months after EPA and industry representatives met in Chicago last June to discuss new emissions data.
Ethanol fuel critics, meanwhile, said that they question what impact the decision would have on smaller producers with limited access to capital.
Sierra Club efforts
The settlement with Ethanol 2000 in Bingham Lake, Minn., addresses concerns raised by the Sierra Club and will bring about full compliance at that facility, Justice said.
The other facility that Sierra Club intended to name in its lawsuit is operated by New Energy Corp. of South Bend, Ind.; that and other plants may still be targeted, Sierra Club officials said, depending on how pending negotiations with EPA pan out.
Last month, Sierra Club said that it intends to sue the two ethanol producers for not meeting CAA standards. It pointed out that EPA warned ethanol producers in April that "most, if not all, ethanol facilities" were in significant violation of the law and said EPA had offered to meet with producers to discuss resolving the violations "on terms most favorable to industry."
"By the EPA's own admission, these two plants are only the tip of the iceberg," said Sierra Club attorney David Bookbinder. "There's a clear pattern in this industry of systematic disregard for the law. These lawsuits should serve as a warning to the entire industry to clean up their act and to the EPA to enforce the law."
RFA view
The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) said ethanol producers have cooperated with federal and state regulators to meet clean air rules.
"This lawsuit is unnecessary because there are already ongoing discussions that are nearing resolution involving EPA, state air officials, and ethanol facilities to develop an appropriate response to unexpected emission results from a newly applied test method," said RFA Pres. Bob Dineen. "While there has been no determination of noncompliance, ethanol facilities agreed to work cooperatively and quickly with EPA and the states to determine whether additional controls are warranted in light of the new information."
EPA data
Sierra Club maintains recent EPA findings show a different picture.
It argues that the agency's recent emissions data show that corn-based forms of ethanol production, which accounts for around 95% of all ethanol produced in the US, is far more dangerous than previously thought.
"The two plants, which are the subject of the initial lawsuits, were found to be releasing (VOCs) and other chemicals well above permitted levels. Indeed, Ethanol 2000 was exceeding its permitted level by nearly 10 times and was emitting acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
Both of these chemicals are classified by the EPA as probable human carcinogens, while VOCs contribute to the production of ozone, which causes serious respiratory problems, including asthma and lung diseases," Bookbinder said.
EPA found other ethanol facilities to be emitting unlawful amounts of CO.
