Part of an occasional series on the ethanol boom
Rules for producing `clean' fuel may be relaxed, add pollution
As President Bush promotes ethanol as a green
alternative to gasoline, his administration is quietly relaxing
environmental rules for dozens of new corn-to-fuel refineries sprouting
up across the nation.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is planning to change the way
ethanol plants are treated under the Clean Air Act, a move critics say
could make it easier for the burgeoning industry to evade controls that
dramatically reduce toxic air pollution.
The shift in policy would give a break to agricultural conglomerates
and newcomers seeking to cash in quickly on the nation's growing thirst
for renewable fuel. More than 40 new ethanol plants are expected to be
built during the next year, boosting U.S. production by 30 percent.
"Ethanol is good for the environment," Bush said during an April speech
that touted the fuel additive as a key part of America's energy
strategy.
Critics note that the ethanol industry has been growing rapidly despite
existing environmental regulations. The number of corn-to-fuel
refineries has increased to 101 this year from 50 in 1997, according to
industry statistics.
The proposed rule, which need only be published in the Federal Register
to take effect, comes less than four years after the Bush
administration brokered a series of legal agreements promising deep
cuts in air pollution from leading players in the industry.
Complaints spark inquiry
EPA regulators had decided to take a closer look at the refineries
after complaints about noxious odors coming from several ethanol plants
in the Midwest. The agency discovered many were emitting carbon
monoxide, methanol and cancer-causing chemicals at levels far greater
than owners had reported.
"Those facilities were prosecuted under the exact law they're proposing
to weaken," said John Walke, director of the Natural Resource Defense
Council's clean air project. "They're cutting corners now so the wave
of new ethanol plants can be bigger, cheaper and dirtier."
But whether ethanol is good for the environment is being questioned.
The fuel additive releases somewhat less carbon dioxide than
gasoline--reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that are making the
planet hotter.
But the EPA recently reported that pumping more ethanol into cars and
trucks is expected to increase levels of other chemicals that create
smog, which can aggravate respiratory ailments.
Existing clean-air rules consider ethanol plants as major sources of
air pollution if they emit more than 100 tons of toxic chemicals a
year. Those that do must go through an intensive--and
time-consuming--permit process.
They also must install equipment that burns off most of the emissions.
Under the proposed changes, ethanol plants wouldn't be subject to the
stringent federal requirements unless they spewed more than 250 tons of
air pollution per year. Most of the new refineries are expected to emit
a few tons less than that.
The difference in emissions could be substantial, in part because the
control equipment must reduce pollution levels by up to 95 percent.
For instance, a plant that releases 200 tons of pollution could have to
cut emissions to 10 tons under the current rules. But that same plant
would be required to do little if anything under the proposed changes.
Farm-state lawmakers, led by U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), argue the
new rule is needed to remove "considerable administrative burdens" that
can add costly construction delays for new and expanded ethanol plants.
"This rule would remove stifling regulatory barriers, while protecting
the environment, so ethanol production can increase and we can make
significant progress toward our goal of achieving energy independence
in the United States," Thune said in a statement.
`Looking the other way'
Some state regulators worry that the projected increases in air
pollution could make it more difficult for Chicago and other urban
areas to meet federal health standards intended to protect people
suffering from asthma and other respiratory illnesses.
"If anything, we need to be paying closer attention to these
operations, not looking the other way," said William Becker, executive
director of two associations that represent state air pollution
regulators.
More coal use expected
Environmental groups think one of the motives behind the new rule is to
make it easier to change the type of fuel used to produce ethanol. Most
of the industry now relies on natural gas, but several in the planning
stages would burn coal, which is less expensive but produces far more
pollution.
"If we are supposed to be creating a cleaner fuel, shouldn't we be
producing it in a way that's cleaner?" said Randy Doyal, chief
executive officer of Al-Corn Clean Fuel, a Minnesota company that
distills more than 30 million gallons of ethanol a year.
Four years ago, Al-Corn and 11 other Minnesota ethanol plants were
forced to install pollution controls as part of legal settlements with
the Justice Department and the EPA. He and other producers contend the
new rule would give the new wave of ethanol plants an unfair advantage.
Federal inspectors determined that after ethanol is distilled from corn
starch, the fermented mash produces toxic fumes as it is dried for sale
as livestock feed. The chemicals can be burned off with devices known
as thermal oxidizers.
The government later reached a similar agreement with Archer Daniels
Midland, the Decatur-based agricultural processing giant that dominates
the ethanol market. At the time, Bush administration officials vowed
the agreements would set tough standards for the entire ethanol
industry.
"Americans deserve clean air to breathe," then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft
said in 2003 when announcing the Archer Daniels Midland settlement."
Doyal said the Minnesota producers made the same arguments four years
ago that the EPA is using today to justify changing the rules.
But installing pollution controls at Al-Corn's plant turned out to be
less expensive than the company thought, Doyal said. And heat generated
by the thermal oxidizers helped cut the company's energy costs.
"It works really well," he said. "And our emissions are next to
nothing."
----------
mhawthorne@tribune.com