Ethanol Production

This web page was last modified June 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM.

Ethanol production is a multifaceted operation. From the processing and storage of incoming raw materials through to the storage and shipment of the final products, many industrial processes come into play. Ethanol production combines aspects of both the grain handling and chemical production industries.

Despite producers’ claims that they’ll use the best available technology and pay strictest attention to safety procedures, human error and mechanical failure must be taken into account when considering potential hazards to employees and the surrounding community.

Ethanol Production Issues

What is Ethanol?

Back ↑

• Ethanol chemical fact sheet  It will biodegrade in soil, probably to acetic acid and formaldehyde.

Water issues

Back ↑

• June 25th, 2006 – A thirsty fuel by Dennis Lien – St. Paul Pioneer Press –

  Officials know a lot about the groundwater capacity in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. But the picture is sketchier in rural areas, where they must rely on a patchwork of already–drilled wells for most of their information.
  “In some places, there just isn’t the density of wells for us to accurately map the boundaries of these aquifers,” said Dale Setterholm, assistant to the director of the Minnesota Geological Survey.

  and

  In retrospect, the Granite Falls plant’s water problems aren’t that big of a surprise.
  When it was proposed, the plant and the state knew the aquifer below it had limited potential as a long–term source of water. But the DNR gave the plant a temporary permit, knowing it eventually would need other sources of water.
  Problems emerged sooner than anyone guessed.
  “It looks like the aquifer is even less able to handle pumping than I felt, and I was very conservative,” said Jay Frischman, a hydrogeologist for the DNR ’s waters division. “The reality is this: Granite Falls was a unique situation. If they had not had other sources available nearby, I would not have recommended a permit for them.”
  Peter Bullene, a spokesman for Granite Falls Energy, declined to comment.

• June 19th, 2006 – Experts: Ethanol’s Water Demands a Concern by Jim Paul – Associated Press – CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — City officials in Champaign and Urbana took notice when they heard that an ethanol plant proposed nearby would use about 2 million gallons of water per day, most likely from the aquifer that also supplies both cities. ’There was concern about impacting a pretty valuable resource,’ said Matt Wempe, a city planner for Urbana. ‘It should raise red flags.’
• February 18th, 2006 – Ethanol expansion could hinge on water – Grand Forks Herald – ‘If we’re in a drought, there’s lots of places that have the potential’ to be prohibitive to new industrial plants, said Doug Emerson, a hydrologist in Bismarck with the U.S. Geological Survey. ‘Even if water exists, it might be appropriated for some other use.’
• December 26th, 2005 – Water supply can't meet thirst for new industry – Star Tribune – ‘People can see they’re running out of water,’ said Tim Cowdery, a Minnesota–based hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. ‘They’d like to build more industry. They’d like to build more ethanol plants. They just don’t have the water to do it.’
• August, 2004 – Permit to Pollute : How the Government’s Lax Enforcement of the Clean Water Act is Poisoning Our Waters by Richard Caplan – U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund To get the data for this report, the author had to file a Freedom of Information Act request, wait several months, and correct mistakes. The data received from California, Wisconsin and Vermont was deemed unusable. This is unacceptable for data on whether facilities are operating in accordance with the law.

Some industrial considerations

Back ↑

• The Environmental Analysis ordered for the United Wisconsin Grain Producers Friesland facility, despite occasionally exuding the new business friendly WDNR regulatory atmosphere, is a detailed look at the nuts and bolts implications of the industrial scale production of ethanol. it is estimated that the facility could have up to the following level of air emissions: 76.2 tons per year ( TPY ) of particulate matter, 0.7 TPY sulfur dioxide, 97.5 TPY nitrogen oxides, 90.9 TPY volatile organic compounds ( VOCs ), and 97.3 TPY carbon monoxide. In addition, emissions of any known federal hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs ) are estimated to be less than 10 TPY for any one HAP , and less than 25 TPY for all HAPs combined. That’s close to 388 tons per year of pollutants emitted into your neighborhood which weren’t there before.

  The economic benefits cited in the analysis are, however, lifted directly from industry–supplied figures contained in a report which is erroneously cited in the EA as having been prepared specifically for UWGP . I think it’s scandalous that a document which is the deciding factor in whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement is required, would use unproven numbers supplied by the very industry under scrutiny. What is most galling about such slipshod science, is that this EA will be used as a stand–in evaluation for future ethanol plant proposals propagating the suspect numbers throughout Wisconsin, and precluding a more thorough examination of future plants.

  (June 28th Update: Please read the June, 2006 study, “Input–Outrageous: The Economic Impacts of Modern Biofuels Production” by University of Iowa economist Dave Swenson found elsewhere on our web site. He singles out John Urbanchuk’s studies (used almost verbatim in the UWGP Environmental Assessment above) as outstanding examples of inflated economic benefits claims.)

  And finally, if you happen to live within a few miles of the plant, Some of the pollutants identified above may result in odors from the facility. In addition, it is believed that this facility is likely to have some amount of odors associated with it most of the time. However, odors are regulated as a nuisance, not as a health concern.

  Enjoy!

• ConocoPhilips Material Safety Data Sheet for ethanol–blended fuels

Notes in passing regarding the Delta-T Corporation,

• designer of many of our nation's ethanol plants:
  

  Back ↑

• Delta-T Corporation designs ethanol plants. An older version of their web site included a page outlining the benefits of choosing Delta-T. In the years ahead, you"ll find our overall design is the most forgiving in the industry. You"ll be able to add capacity or upgrade to the highest purity with minimum cost and production interruption. Your facility will also accommodate the innovations now on our drawing boards such as simultaneous production from different feedstocks. One day soon we"ll even recycle organic landfill into ethanol.  

• Ethanol Plant Operator Fined
  North Platte (Nebraska)
  10:28 AM Jun 10, 2005
  Associated Press
  

  The former owners of the Sutherland Ethanol plant have been ordered to pay money for dumping ethanol by-products into waterways. The Department of Environmental Quality said the company that owned the plant, the Delta-T Corporation, pumped ethanol by–products into irrigation canals.

  Delta T- founder and CEO R. L. Bigg Swain was ordered to pay $100,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Nebraska.

  Officials say the company violated orders by disposing of thin stillage waste from the Sutherland plant onto surrounding farmland. This was considered an environmental risk.

  The Delta-T company did not have to admit any wrong-doing.

  In 2003, Swain was ordered to pay the state $780,000 for dumping pollutants near its plants.

  From Delta–T’s website, Of all the outstanding features built into the Benson plant, we’re proudest of those that protect the health and safety of the workers and reduce the environmental impact on the community. Couldn’t you use more of this kind of thinking?

More industrial considerations

Back ↑

• Ethanol Plant Incidents
• OSHA resources on grain handling safety
• (web site disappeared) September 20th, 2002 – U.S. Chemical Safety Board Votes 5-0 to Recommend New OSHA , EPA , and Industry Standards to Control Chemical Reaction Hazards  Just 38 ‘highly reactive’ chemicals are currently covered by the PSM standard. But the CSB study documented numerous examples where chemicals considered to be less reactive nonetheless caused runaway reactions, explosions, fires, or toxic gas releases, often with fatal consequences.

General information from other States

Back ↑

• 2005 (?) – FAQ – Greater Ohio Ethanol, LLC . – Unusually candid series of questions and answers from an Ohio ethanol start-up. – How many acres of land will be required to construct the facility? Answer: The facility will set on 30 acres or less, but from a practical standpoint it will require at least 40–60 acres or more to allow for a buffer zone around the facility and for possible future expansion or companion businesses.
• October, 2002 – Air Quality and Ethanol Production: Nebraska’s Experience – Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality – Overview of Nebraska's permitting process and overview of the industry
• September, 1999 – Unstudied Risks… Economic Assessment of Conversion From MTBE to Ethanol in California by Monitor Company – Prepared for the American Methanol Institute – Converting from MTBE to ethanol in California
• February 6th, 1997 – Ethanol Programs – Report # 97–04 – State of Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor – Minnesota study of their ethanol industry

Back ↑

NOTE: Some of the preceding links are to Adobe® Portable Document Format files. If you don't already have the Adobe Reader® installed on your machine, it is available as a  free download  for many different platforms.