tourism  -   rails to trails   -   the ethanol issue -  computer deconstruction  -   think about it   -  options   -   contact

VISIT OUR NEW BLOG

Should we welcome Sunnyside Ethanol with open arms and not be asking some really tough questions?
allowable pollution is safe pollution?         ethanol fact sheet         ethanol basics

Click the links above to go directly to those sections of this page below.  Directly below are clips and commentary from recent public meetings that pertain to the Sunnyside Ethanol controversy.

Does the "allowable pollution" mean "safe pollution"?
So what does all of this gobbly-gook mean in layman's terms?  That's simple.  When the pollution spreadsheet proclaims "no limits" on the most dangerous pollutants such as dioxins, for instance, that's exactly what it means.  This is not us proclaiming some indictment against the good people at DEP, mind you.  We're not bashing them.  They are dedicated people doing the best job that they can within the parameters set forth by Federal and State legislation regarding pollution. The real problem here is our public and leadership's propensity to believe the press releases from the ethanol companies rather than digging in and finding our the facts for themselves.

This is easily illustrated if you read below.

In an article than ran on Gant Daily last year, you'll find this statement:

"DEP looks at the production process and emissions controls to ensure that emissions are minimized. The emissions must meet the “lowest achievable emission rate,” which is actually a federal standard. That standard means that the Sunnyside emissions must meet the lowest rate of any similar emission sources in the nation. Looked at in particular are emissions that produce ozone and volatile organic compounds. The new emissions must also meet best available technology standards for sulfur oxides, particulates, carbon monoxide and hazardous air pollutants."

This is a good example of what we mean when we say the the previous public meetings and most of the subsequent press coverage after the fact were not sufficient to fully explain to the people of Curwensville the full scope of the issue.  What this article doesn't get into is exactly what that 'federal standard" is or what "best available technology standards" mean.  We interviewed Dave Aldenderfer from DEP, the fellow who permitted these plants,  for 3.5 hours a few weeks ago and he explained it.  The video above also does a great job at explaining how DEP doesn't have to, by law, consider any 'human health standards' when permitting a plant of this size ass long as the estimated pollution provided by the company submitting for a permit "meets EPA's clean air standards".  If it meets these standards, they don't even have to consider it.

Okay, so what's that mean?   Well, this is what most people didn't learn at our "open public meetings" and what we believe most people didn't know PRIOR to these meetings either.

Here are the EPA standards that they're referring to above and referenced in the video clip.  This is called the National Amient Air Quality Standard:

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

Cross reference the "allowed pollution" that is being estimated by Sunnyside against the EPA's list of screened pollutants and you'll see that the EPA standard does NOT address many of the allowed pollutants at all in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards including some of the most dangerous such as Dioxins.

So, are we being lied to?  No.   They're telling the truth, but just not explaining it fully and it seems that we have local leadership who simply isn't asking these questions or bothering to dig deeper.   YES, they are meeting "federal standards", but when you look at the federal standards along side of the pollution comparison chart we've distributed, you'll note that most of the pollution on that chart, and, in fact, some of the worse and deadliest (dioxin, etc) isn't included in the EPA's list of screened substances!

So when it says "No Limits" set on Dioxins ... it means NO LIMITS on Dioxins.

Why?  Not because this nasty stuff isn't being released into our air through the burning of waste-coal, but because they don't HAVE to... EPA says they don't have to, and DEP follows EPA's lead so it simply doesn't have to be regulated.  Why should this concern you?  Well, learn more about dioxin and figure that out yourself.

Now couple this with the  "1 time a year testing" in many cases and ask yourself whether you trust that this is safe for your family?  Oh, and what happens the other 364 days of the year, by the way?

Fact Sheet from www.energyjustice.net

Pollution-Belching Biorefineries

Ethanol production is very energy intensive, requiring mini-power plants just to produce the steam they need. Some proposed ethanol plants have sought to locate next to existing trash incinerators, waste coal power plants or other industries capable of sharing steam with their new industrial neighbors. This may save energy, but it results in the concentrating of polluting industries in already poisoned communities. Most ethanol plants have their own power production facilities, usually burning natural gas, but nearly all of the proposed new facilities would burn coal, due to high gas prices.¹⁹ Some of the proposed ethanol plants are seeking to install gasification-style incinerators capable of burning anything from very toxic waste streams like trash, tires, plastics, construction and demolition wood waste to lesser contaminated wastes like animal, crop and food production wastes and forestry residues. All of these fuels have their own set of contaminants that would be released into the community through air pollution and the production of toxic ash. Since the facility can make more money serving as a waste disposal site by taking the more dangerous waste streams, this economic incentive will encourage these plants to become de facto incinerators for trash and tires.

Other parts of the biorefinery production process release pollution as well. Prodded by hundreds of complaints at the Gopher State Ethanol plant in St. Paul, where residents complained that the plant smelled like "rubbing alcohol mixed with burning corn," the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency began testing emissions from the plant. They found high levels of carbon monoxide, methanol, toluene and other Volatile Organic Compounds, including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, both of which are known to cause cancer in animals.

The EPA then tested other ethanol plants and concluded that "most, if not all" ethanol plants are emitting air pollutants at many times the rate allowed by their permits. Between 2002 and 2005, EPA settled cases with ADM and Cargill, the largest ethanol producers, over their 9 ethanol plants, forcing them to pay out over $485 million for these and other facilities, mostly to invest in afterburners to burn off the exhaust gases that cause most of the odors. Settlements with 12 Minnesota ethanol plants resulted in similar requirements to cut back on emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, particulates, and other hazardous pollutants.²⁰

Even after installing new equipment, neighborhood residents continue to complain of odors and ill health effects, since emissions still continue through leaking pipes and through vents when the pollution control equipment isn’t working.²¹

Water Use and Pollution

For each gallon of ethanol produced, typical ethanol plants consume 3.5 to 6 gallons of water ²² and produce 12 gallons of sewage-like effluent in the fermentation and distillation process.²³ Syrup, batches of bad ethanol, and sewage are dumped into streams, threatening fish and plants with chloride, copper and other wastes which deprive waters of oxygen when they decompose. A state inspector in Iowa reported that a creek next to the ethanol plant in Sioux Center was milky and smelled like sewage.²⁴

Ethanol Vs. MTBE

For years, ethanol was promoted as the only alternative to MTBE, a oxygenate used in gasoline to meet federal requirements for controlling ground-level ozone. These requirements were kept in place despite overwhelming scientific evidence that modern blends of gasoline without ethanol or MTBE burn more cleanly than the reformulated gasoline that was required in ozone non-attainment areas. A National Academy of Sciences report concluded that the "commonly available ethanol and MTBE blends do little to reduce smog.” They also found that, compared with MTBE blends, ethanol blends result in more pollutants evaporating from vehicle gas tanks.²⁵ The Energy Bill finally scrapped the oxygenate requirement, but mandated a doubling of national ethanol production and use.²⁶

Ethanol - The Fuel

Ethanol evaporates faster than gasoline. So while gasoline reformulated with ethanol may release less carbon monoxide, it releases more volatile organic compounds, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. You have more vapor emissions when you're refueling and when your car is sitting in a parking lot on a hot summer day. And ethanol can degrade systems in cars, so you'll get more leaks.²⁷

Ethanol costs three and a half times as much as gasoline to produce²⁸ and contains only 60% as much energy per gallon as gasoline.²⁹ So, while a gallon of ethanol-blended gas may cost the same as regular gasoline at the pump, it won't take you as far.

Ethanol must be blended with gasoline. But ethanol absorbs water. Gasoline doesn't. Therefore, ethanol cannot be shipped by regular petroleum pipelines. Instead, it must be shipped separately and mixed on-site. Shipping by truck, rail car, or barge are far more expensive than pipelines.³⁰ They also carry larger risks of accidents during shipping.

Fires, Spills, and Explosions

Numerous fires, explosions and spills have occurred at ethanol plants and in shipping.³¹ In October 2003, a tank holding 40,000 gallons of corn mash exploded at a Benson, MN ethanol plant, killing one worker and causing a nearby 2,000 gallon ethanol tanker truck to burst into flames.³² In January 2004, an explosion caused a fierce fire at an Australian ethanol storage tank that took 14 fire crews over 20 hours to extinguish. Tail lights melted on -> cars parked 200 feet away.³³ In February 2004, a tanker carrying 3.5 million gallons of ethanol exploded and sank off of the coast of Virginia. Only six of the 27-member crew survived.³⁴ In May 2004, firefighters spent 16 hours battling a fire at an ethanol plant in Caro, MI.³⁵ In September 2005, a tanker truck spilled at least 2,000 gallons of ethanol onto the ground and into sewers in Brentwood, OH, displacing 300 residents in the subsequent evacuation and loosening up the tar on the road, required that it be repaved.³⁶   more on Fires, Spills, and Explosions

Ethanol Storage Tank Blaze, Port Kembla, Australia ...remember...the proposed Sunnyside plant is located directly adjacent to our school.

Magnets for Corporate Factory Farms

Among the waste by-products of ethanol production is a corn mash. The large volumes of this waste product have to go somewhere. Ethanol plant operators – to save costs – seek to use this as animal feed, regardless of whether it’s nutritious and appropriate for such use. Iowa – the nation’s #1 state for ethanol plants – is seeing a large influx of corporate dairy operations now. Researchers have also found ways to produce hog feed with 30-40% gluten (ethanol plant protein mash). Ethanol plants could sever as magnets for attracting factory farms.

Net Energy: More Harm than Good?

Ethanol production using corn grain requires 29% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produces. Using switchgrass requires 50% more; wood biomass: 57% more.³⁷ Inefficient solar cells produce about 100 times more electricity than corn ethanol.³⁸

Billions in Subsidies

Many billions of dollars go to subsidizing the corn industryand ethanol production. This money could go much further if invested in the transition to conservation, efficiency, wind and solar. The need for combustible fuels in transportation can be eliminated with the use of electric cars (and plug-in hybrids in the short term), using windpowered electricity, at a cost less than $1/gallon gasoline equivalent.³⁹

Increasing the average mileage of passenger cars and SUVs by 3-5 miles per gallon would dwarf the effects of all possible biofuel production from all sources of biomass available in the U.S. Inflating passenger car tires properly today will have more impact on the energy independence of U.S. than the 2012 ethanol production requirements.⁴⁰

Ethanol Basics

Water Use and Pollution

Citizens for a Clean Curwensville is not a formalized group.  We are a group of concerned citizens pulling some resources together to try to move our town in a better direction.  Citizens for a Clean Curwensville is not affiliated, endorsed or supported in any way by Curwensville Borough Council or Curwensville Economic Development or any local or regional government entity or agency.  The content of this site is open source and free to all.  Copyrights and ownerships are retained by those contributing the material as may be expressed by those parties.