Janesville ethanol plant delayed for environmental hearing

Mickey Tibbits
The Free Press

WASECA November 27, 2006 12:12 am

— US BioEnergy expected to be pushing dirt around its ethanol plant construction site this fall. Instead the developer is pushing paperwork through state agencies.
Comments in response to a state environmental review, from nearby residents, Mankato officials and others questioned the quantity of water required to produce ethanol as well as possible pollution of Mankato’s drinking water.
Company officials say neither is an issue.
A review of the project by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has delayed the project, said Bruce Boyce, Waseca County coordinator. Plans for the ethanol plant to be built just east of Janesville had been delayed earlier by acquisition of some of the land by eminent domain.
“The project is on hold,” said Boyce, noting the county can not rezone the land or issue any permits until a decision is made on the environmental review.
The MPCA received 13 comment letters and two letters requesting an Environmental Impact Statement during the recent comment period, noted Kelly Garvey, the agency’s project manager.
Because of the two letters requesting an EIS, the Citizens Board will hear testimony about the project Dec. 19, Garvey said.
Ground water
The two letters requesting an EIS came from Nancy Prehn, who was defeated in the recent election for Waseca County commissioner, and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, a nonprofit environmental group based in St. Paul.
“The common theme of the comments we received was about the ground water,” Garvey said, summarizing the contents of the letters.
The comments from Prehn questioned whether the effects of natural gas storage in the same aquifer had been studied.
Other people living near the US BioEnergy site questioned whether the large amount of water needed to produce ethanol would cause a shortage in their water supply.
The one-week testing conducted in September at two wells drilled on the site pumped 950 gallons of water per minute. One neighbor noted that after the test, the water in their well fell 5 feet.
“There are ample amounts of water in the aquifer,” said Bernie Bowles, US BioEnergy director of engineering. He noted the company followed strict DNR regulations during its one-week testing.
Nitrate concerns
George C. Rosati, Mankato’s director of public works, noted the proposed ethanol plant is within the Blue Earth River watershed. Mankato relies heavily on the Blue Earth River for the majority of its drinking water supply.
“Nitrogen-nitrates levels in the Blue Earth River fluctuate greatly throughout the year and are of great concern to the City,” he wrote. He questioned whether the expected increase in corn production would increase the levels of nitrogen-nitrates in the Blue Earth River.
A similar comment by Bruce M. Olsen, supervisor of Mankato’s Source Water Protection Unit, focused on the potential impacts that increased corn production may have on water quality in the Blue Earth River.
“The Blue Earth is a source of drinking water for the city of Mankato and the city cannot treat for nitrate contamination,” Olsen stated in his letter.
An official from the Minnesota Department of Health also commented on the potential impacts on drinking water as the result of increased corn production needed to support the ethanol plant.
The Department of Health letter noted that “nitrate-nitrogen levels that exceed federal and state drinking water standards in Mankato’s source water is an ongoing drinking water management issue with Mankato water utilities staff.”
Bowles said that US BioEnergy does not believe their discharge water will increase the level of nitrate contamination in local drinking water, including Mankato’s, because it will not be necessary to produce more corn in the area.
“Based on USDA data, the current acreage of corn is more than adequate to supply the demand,” Bowles said.
Water supply
MCEA, the environmental group, wrote a lengthy letter regarding the proposed ethanol plant challenging the MPCA’s permitting process in general as well as issues specific to the Janesville site.
“Every single ethanol plant in Minnesota has significantly expanded from its initial size and MPCA has yet to order an EIS on any of them,” the environmental group stated.
“US BioEnergy represents the single largest proposed ethanol plant in Minnesota so far and is the largest by a significant degree. It is proposed in a troubled watershed and the figures given for water usage suggest its intent to be much larger than the 120 million gallons proposed for the initial phase,” the group stated.
MCEA noted the US BioEnergy proposal to manufacture 120 million gallons of ethanol per year (from 43 million bushel of corn) is just 5 million gallons of ethanol under the threshold for a mandatory EIS. The group noted that in its application US BioEnergy stated it would need 788 million gallons of water per year, which is almost 7 gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol made. Since the rule of thumb for water use by ethanol plants is about 4 gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol, based on other ethanol plants, the environmental group questioned the figures used by US BioEnergy.
“Such an enormous water need suggests to MCEA that US BioEnergy, like other ethanol plants, has every intention of expanding in the near future,” the letter signed by the group’s legal director stated.
“Our water consumption is based on the design of our plant and is what we need to operate,” Bowles said. Bowles said this is the maximum rate, worse case scenario, on the hottest summer day when all the cooling equipment is in operation. He estimates actual usage will be about 80 percent.
He said, however, that the Janesville plant will use more water than other ethanol plants because of strict discharge limits on the total dissolved solids in the water.
“As the water evaporates it concentrates solids, so we have to continually refresh our water.” Bowles explained.
“We have no intention of expanding at this time,” said Bowles, denying MCEA’s accusation that US BioEnergy will increase production once it is up and running.
If the MPCA requires an EIS for the ethanol plant, the project will be delayed longer until the comprehensive review is completed.
According to the MPCA, the review process is designed to disclose information about the potential negative environmental effects of a proposed development and ways to avoid or minimize them before the project is permitted and built.