--- "Walke, John" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> From: "Walke, John" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:59:58 -0400
> Subject: [air-mail] FW: ACTIVISTS THREATEN SUIT OVER
> EPA PLANS FOR RELAXED ETHANOL PERMITS
> 
> ACTIVISTS THREATEN SUIT OVER EPA PLANS FOR RELAXED
> ETHANOL PERMITS
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Date: May 12, 2006 - 
> 
>  
> 
> A major environmental group is threatening to sue
> EPA over a
> controversial proposal to raise the threshold under
> which fuel-producing
> ethanol facilities can be permitted as "minor"
> sources not subject to
> Clean Air Act requirements for major
> pollution-producing facilities, as
> state environment officials join the activists in
> criticizing the plan
> for weakening clean air standards.
> 
>  
> 
> But Midwestern and other lawmakers are strongly
> supporting EPA's
> proposed rule, which corn state lawmaker Sen. John
> Thune (R-SD) urged
> the agency to promulgate in an effort to boost
> ethanol supplies. (Inside
> EPA, March 10, p3).
> 
>  
> 
> The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
> indicated in May 8 comments
> that it would likely challenge the rule on legal
> grounds. NRDC notes,
> "EPA does not and cannot provide a justification for
> the proposal on air
> quality, public health or environmental grounds.
> Rather, EPA explains
> that it is undertaking this action because 'some
> industry stakeholder[s]
> believe' that it would be a good idea."
> 
>  
> 
> The group adds, "Astoundingly, EPA has turned the
> rulemaking process on
> its head -- introducing little more than an idea and
> a preferred outcome
> -- and then placing the burden on the public to
> develop the technical
> record to support EPA's proposed rulemaking
> decision." Relevant
> documents are available on InsideEPA.com.
> 
>  
> 
> EPA's rule, published March 9, would raise the
> "major source" permit
> threshold for ethanol fuel facilities from 100 tons
> per year (tpy) to
> 250 tpy, and would also exempt fugitive emissions,
> such as dust, from
> all permit limit requirements.
> 
>  
> 
> EPA said it was correcting a discrepancy between how
> facilities that
> mill corn for food and those that use corn to
> produce fuel are
> addressed. Food producers are already subject to the
> 250-ton threshold.
> EPA would redefine "chemical plant process" to
> exclude ethanol
> production and thereby exempt those facilities from
> the stricter air act
> requirement. EPA limits the change to plants located
> in areas that meet
> national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The
> effort comes at a
> time when demand for ethanol is growing due to
> energy law mandates and
> other efforts to reduce foreign oil dependence.
> 
>  
> 
> NRDC challenges EPA's claims about correcting a
> discrepancy. "[S]ince
> fuel- and food-ethanol plants do not really compete
> for the same market
> share, the rule has no such effect. Conversely,
> EPA's rule has the
> potential to create inequity within the fuel-ethanol
> market by allowing
> new plant[s] to avoid installing and operating
> emissions control
> equipment that existing plants were required to
> use."
> 
>  
> 
> The group Clean Air Watch adds that the proposal
> "appears to have its
> origins in political pressure from a United States
> senator," referencing
> a 2005 earlier letter that Thune sent to EPA
> Administrator Stephen
> Johnson seeking the permit threshold change.
> "Indeed, Senator Thune
> issued a press release taking credit for the
> proposed rule change," the
> group wrote in May 8 comments.
> 
>  
> 
> And in its May 8 comments, the State & Territorial
> Air Pollution Program
> Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution
> Control Officials
> (STAPPA/ALAPCO) writes that the proposal "will allow
> -- and, in fact,
> invite -- substantial increases in emissions, and
> interfere not only
> with efforts to attain and maintain the health-based
> NAAQS, but also
> with compliance with increments under the
> [prevention of significant
> deterioration] program."
> 
>  
> 
> The group adds that the 250-ton threshold would mean
> that "it is
> unlikely that these facilities will ever trigger
> major source
> requirements -- the installation of modern pollution
> controls . . . and
> an analysis of air quality."
> 
>  
> 
> STAPPA/ALAPCO also notes that EPA has issued
> enforcement actions over
> ethanol plant emissions, including entering into a
> 2005 consent decree
> with Cargill Corp. requiring pollution cuts at 81
> percent of previously
> uncontrolled facilities.
> 
>  
> 
> Additionally, the Nebraska Department of
> Environmental Quality -- which
> says it is neutral on the plan -- warns that the
> change could
> inadvertently hamper production of cellulosic
> ethanol because it does
> not address facilities that use materials other than
> corn. "The future
> of ethanol appears to be in the use of biomass,
> i.e., cellulosic
> material. The only difference would be the feedstock
> is a biomass
> material other than corn. . . . If left as it, the
> rule change could
> negatively impact the growth of cellulosic ethanol.
> This could have an
> unintended complication as the energy balance favors
> ethanol from
> cellulosic feed stock over ethanol by corn."
> 
>  
> 
> Meanwhile, members of Congress from the Midwest and
> other regions are
> urging EPA to finalize the rule.
> 
>  
> 
> A May 3 letter to Johnson spearheaded by Thune --
> and also signed by
> Sens. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Dick Lugar (R-IN), Norm
> Coleman (R-MN),
> George Voinovich (R-OH), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Pat
> Roberts (R-KS), Jim
> Talent (R-MO), Christopher Bond (R-MO), Saxby
> Chambliss (R-GA), Charles
> Grassley (R-IA), Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Ken Salazar
> (D-CO), and Reps.
> Mark Kennedy (R-MN), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Leonard
> Boswell (D-IA),
> John Kline (R-MN) and others urges the agency to
> finalize the plan to
> help boost ethanol production.
> 
>  
> 
> "The current classification of fuel ethanol plants
> under the Clean Air
> Act unnecessarily constrains ethanol production,"
> the lawmakers write.
> "Congress has recognized the enormous role that
> domestically produced
> ethanol can play in reducing our dependence on
> foreign sources of oil
> with enactment of the renewable fuels standard in
> the Energy Policy Act
> of 2005." 
> 
>  
> 
> The lawmakers' letter also identifies safeguards in
> the proposal they
> say "will ensure that existing state and federal
> rules will continue to
> protect the public health and safety, as well as the
> environment." 
> 
>  
> 
> And Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt (R ) is also supporting
> the plan, writing
> May 4, "I want to recognize the wisdom of the EPA in
> moving forward with
> this clarification in a manner that recognizes the
> importance of air
> quality."
> 
>  
> 
> The ethanol industry weighed in largely in support
> the proposal. The
> Iowa Renewable Fuels Association says in May 5
> comments, "Some groups
> mistakenly believe changing the emissions thresholds
> from 100 to 250
> tons per year will lead to additional air pollution.
> This issue is not
> about pollution; it is about regulation. . . . there
> is no policy
> justification to continue regulating wet and dry
> mill ethanol plants
> differently."
> 
>  
> 
> An EPA spokesman says the agency has no time frame
> for issuing the final
> rule.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Source: Inside EPA via InsideEPA.com
> 
> Date: May 12, 2006 
> 
> Issue: Vol. 27, No. 19 
> 
> (c) Inside Washington Publishers
> 
>  
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]