Ethanol facilities agree to $1.05 million settlement
MADISON — The Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office announced Monday it had settled an environmental enforcement action against two Columbia County ethanol production facilities accused of air and wastewater violations.
In separate agreements, Didion Milling and Didion Ethanol each agreed to pay $525,000 in penalties and costs to the state for a long list of environmental violations referred to the attorney general in complaints by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
The agreement comes as the attorney general is reviewing a February 2009 referral by the DNR of air permit violations at United Ethanol in Milton. The referral was based on a 2008 enforcement action and report by the agency citing over 160 air permit violations at the facility.
Attorney general spokesman Bill Cosh wouldn’t comment on whether United Ethanol and the attorney general are working on a settlement similar to Didion’s. He said the attorney general expects any decision on United Ethanol still could be months away.
“That’s not unusual on these types of proceedings. The (attorney general) wants to do a thorough legal analysis,” he said.
Didion owns and operates an ethanol plant in the town of Courtland and a corn milling facility in Cambria. Both facilities had a variety of air pollution and wastewater permit violations, civil complaints filed by the DNR said.
According the attorney general, the complaints claim Didion:
-- Failed to conduct required air monitoring.
-- Violated particle emission limits.
-- Failed to control fugitive dust at its facilities.
-- Failed to comply with air permits for bag house operations and recordkeeping.
-- Falsified certifications, and failed to make note of violations.
-- Violated wastewater permit limits on effluent, additive and floating solids.
-- Operated a grain dryer outside of permitted hours.
Cosh said while the decision on the Didion case is not binding, the attorney general could draw from the case “to come up with offers and dispositions for other cases” involving ethanol facilities in Wisconsin.
“The environmental defense bar is also very tuned into our dispositions and (the attorney general) has already received calls wanting more details on Didion,” Cosh said.
Apr 30, 2010 at 4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
I’m not that confidant BP will be paying back the government any too soon billnewbie. According to a Seattle Times report in 2008 regarding the Exxon Valdez oil spill, “The original jury award of $5 billion was intended to be the equivalent of about a year's average profits for the company. Last year, Exxon Mobil made $40 billion, the largest annual profit of any corporation in U.S. history.” In 2009, twenty years later, Exxon eventually agreed to pay around $375 million to those affected by the oil spill.
The fragile ecosystem of Prince William Sound has yet to fully recover, especially on the hardest-hit beaches. More than 200 tons of oil remain in beach sediment. Herring — which are vital as food to 40 species of birds, mammals and fish — have never returned to pre-spill populations.
By the way billnewbie, although some of the government subsidies go for exploration a portion also consists of a manufacturing (production) tax deduction for oil and gas companies.
Apr 29, 2010 at 1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Not so, Lovemycountry. Wisconsin has a 20 cent per gallon subsidy for ethanol production.
As for the federal subsidy, I have seen the ethanol subsidy reported to be as high as $1.95 a gallon, or $82 dollars per every 42 gallon barrel.
Apr 29, 2010 at 12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
I don't think they get a subsidy for oil production, PanamaRed. But the government will be taking a bite out of their profits for that mess, I'm sure.
Apr 29, 2010 at 12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gee billnewbie, don't you think BP is using their federal subsidies to pay for the oil cleanup in the gulf? You really expect them to dip into their record setting profits?
Apr 29, 2010 at 8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
BabyMom: This is exactly what I think. I want our AG to worry more about us and less about these companies.
Apr 29, 2010 at 8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
So the Wisconsin government gets a little more money, and the people whose health has been damaged, with the acquiescence (through poor inspection and slow action) of the State of Wisconsin get illness and medical bills. Great deal, huh?
Apr 29, 2010 at 8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Falsified certification!?! That sounds like a criminal act to me. Boy, we throw the book at little-time embezzlers, but we make a non-binding gentlemen's agreement with a polluting corporation?! Reading into the story, it seems we're not even going to have any kind of disclosure of what they did and of what kind of particles were released into our air.
Apr 28, 2010 at 5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ethanol producers don't receive state subsidies, only the federal $.40 per gallon.
Apr 28, 2010 at 4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gee, that's tough for this ethanol producer. They'll probably have to dip into their state and federal subsidies to pay this steep fine. Maybe they can get Gov. Doyle to give them an increase in that subsidy before he leaves office to help cover this unexpected cost.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.