EPA approves E15...
- Thread starter mariner36
- Start date
But only in newer cars in trucks.
Below is a link to the actual waiver as released by the EPA.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/e15/e15-waiver-decision.pdf
Below is a link to the actual waiver as released by the EPA.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/e15/e15-waiver-decision.pdf
It appears boats are exempt for the time being. HOWEVER, unless you have a way of testing your fuel for ethanol content, you can't be sure what is in the marina's tanks. Ironically, just prior to the BP GoMex spill, they were working on a recreational fuels project for just reasons cited in the study. BP would control the fuel from point of origin to point of delivery and ensure that fuel was ethanol free.
I read through it. Here's the real reason we're ultimately going to lose on this issue. The EPA can only legally consider impacts on emissions of their decisions. Safety isn't a factor at all so the Coast Guard's letter was completely irrelevant. And they don't really consider impact on costs to the consumer from equipment failure either, not directly. They can only consider degradation that may impact compliance with emission standards.
e.g.:
"After six months of soaking, the study showed 5-10% greater swelling and mass gained by gaskets and rubber parts for parts soaked in E20 compared to E0. The epoxy for the Welsch plug, a plug placed over the progression holes in the carburetor body, dissolved in E20 and coated the plug. In a running engine, that could result in the plug falling out and fuel leaking from the carburetor, resulting in a potential increase in evaporative emissions. The inlet needle seats and the fuel cap gaskets swelled, which could also lead to increases in evaporative emissions."
The bolded statement is unbelieveable. That it could also lead to several people getting burned up doesn't seem to matter. And legally, it doesn't so they can't even consider it.
There are other similar items about increased exhaust temps leading to catalyst failure. You think higher exhaust temps might have other impacts in a boat engine in a confined space? What about the margin for error when a raw pump fails? Not in the discussion.
It's also quite entertaining to read 15 pages of debate on what the word "any" means.
e.g.:
"After six months of soaking, the study showed 5-10% greater swelling and mass gained by gaskets and rubber parts for parts soaked in E20 compared to E0. The epoxy for the Welsch plug, a plug placed over the progression holes in the carburetor body, dissolved in E20 and coated the plug. In a running engine, that could result in the plug falling out and fuel leaking from the carburetor, resulting in a potential increase in evaporative emissions. The inlet needle seats and the fuel cap gaskets swelled, which could also lead to increases in evaporative emissions."
The bolded statement is unbelieveable. That it could also lead to several people getting burned up doesn't seem to matter. And legally, it doesn't so they can't even consider it.
There are other similar items about increased exhaust temps leading to catalyst failure. You think higher exhaust temps might have other impacts in a boat engine in a confined space? What about the margin for error when a raw pump fails? Not in the discussion.
It's also quite entertaining to read 15 pages of debate on what the word "any" means.
This is going to sound crazy, but I have to ask. Is there any value in the remnants of the fuel post phase separation? By that I mean if the alcohol absorbs water from the atmosphere and that solution resides at the bottom of the tank, what is left floating? Is it alcohol free fuel? Is it contaminated fuel with less octane than it was prior to separation? Is it of any value at all and if so, what value is it?
Ron;
I venture to guess a lot of folks smarter than me have considered your observation about the potential fire hazard and are waiting for the 1st person to die because of it. Lawyers will be on that like piranha on a cow. It will be interesting to see if the EPA can get off on an ignorance based defense.
I venture to guess a lot of folks smarter than me have considered your observation about the potential fire hazard and are waiting for the 1st person to die because of it. Lawyers will be on that like piranha on a cow. It will be interesting to see if the EPA can get off on an ignorance based defense.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2000
- RO Number
- 47
- Messages
- 192
Another entitlement funded by us tax payers. How much is the government subsidy on 10% ethonal $3.00 a gallon? With 15% ethanol is the dubsidy now $4.50 a gallon?
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2000
- RO Number
- 47
- Messages
- 192
Largest producer of ethanol is controlled by a large Democrat family, forget their name but I think they live in either Missouri or Nebraska
ADM is nothing more than a greed machine farquing the world with ethanol. To me it is not unlike the Hunt attempt to corner the silver market.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/21/28232.htm
Most of what ADM reported has lost money EXCEPT ethanol.
Add to that the cost to the taxpayer.....FMTT.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/21/28232.htm
Most of what ADM reported has lost money EXCEPT ethanol.
Add to that the cost to the taxpayer.....FMTT.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
Here's a little history about ADM, the biggest welfare receipient in the country and the largest ethanol producer. Buy ethanol knowing your money and tax dollar are going to these sorry, rotten SOB's. Notice what they have to say about their customers. Really nice people!:-(
Price fixing
A telling comment was made in the early 1990s by James Randall, who was ADM's president at the time:
"We have a saying in our company: "Our competitors are our friends. Our customers are the enemy" [10].
This non-competitive approach is also illustrated by CEO Allen Andreas' warm praise of Cargill's takeover of Continental Grain:
"The Cargill-Continental combination will bring new efficiencies to that business that previously did not exist. I see the combination as being a positive step forward in terms of improving the standards of living of people around the world by providing more efficient low-cost food and nutritious feeding materials and adding to the value of farmers' crops" [11].
In 1996, ADM pleaded guilty to price-fixing in the international markets for lysine (an amino acid used as an animal feed additive) and citric acid (a food additive), and paid a record US$100m fine, in one of the biggest scandals ever to rock the corporate world.
ADM was found to have conspired with its competitors - Ajinimoto and Kyowa Hakko Kogyo of Japan, and Sewon Corporation and Cheil Jedung of Korea - to fix prices to eliminate competition and allocate sales volumes between the companies. According to admissions from an Ajinimoto executive, executives from the five companies met in hotels around the world to discuss prices and production volumes; they knew this was illegal, and tried to cover up by claiming the meetings were, for example, on environmental issues and animal rights [12].
ADM's $100m fine was part of a settlement with the US Justice Department, in which the company also agreed to co-operate with the further federal investigations. In return, ADM got [13]:
• immunity from prosecution for chairman and CEO Dwayne Andreas, and his right-hand man James Randall (who made the comment above on customers being the enemy);
• no criminal charges against the company for price-fixing in high-fructose corn (maize) syrup (ADM's most important product, in a market worth $3bn, compared to the $650m lysine market);
• no further investigation into allegations that ADM stole trade secrets.
Other executives were not immune from prosecution. In 1998, three company executives were also found individually guilty for the lysine price-fixing: Michael Andreas (ADM's vice-chairman, and son of Dwayne Andreas), Terrance Wilson (group vice president in charge of corn refining) and Mark Whitacre (head of the bioproducts division, who for 3 years worked for the FBI as a 'mole', taping conversations and gathering evidence). Andreas and Wilson were each given two-year prison sentences, and ordered to pay a $350,000 fine; Whitacre was given 30 months, on top of nine years for embezzling the company whilst he was acting as a mole.
So far ADM has paid out over $120m in US civil cases to its customers and shareholders, and has been fined C$16m (US$11.3m) for price-fixing in the lysine and citric acid markets, in Canada's largest ever competition case [14], and fined eur 47.3m for lysine by the European Commission [15].
A federal grand jury in the Northern District of California is still investigating ADM in relation to lysine, citric acid and high fructose corn syrup. The European Commission has ongoing legal proceedings against ADM over citric acid and sodium gluconate. Mexico is investigating over citric acid, and Brazil over lysine. ADM is also facing many antitrust suits in the USA and Canada, mostly class actions by its direct and indirect customers: 31 suits over high fructose corn syrup; 3 over lysine; 3 over citric acid; 4 over both high fructose corn syrup and citric acid; 6 over high fructose corn syrup, citric acid and lysine; and 12 over monosodium glutamate and other flavour enhancers [16].
ADM has suffered from the scandal mainly through the loss of investor confidence: shareholders ceased to trust the management, and didn't know which of the company's earnings were from legitimate and sustainable activities, and which illegal.
Back to Top Other corporate crimes
USA - WORKER SAFETY: ADM was fined $650,000 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 2000, for safety violations relating to confined space procedures, at its railcar repair plant at Decatur, Illinois. Four workers died and were been hospitalised between 1993 and 1998. Describing the facility as an accident waiting to happen, OSHA had originally proposed a $1.6m fine, but reduced this when ADM agreed to change its procedures. The most serious violations involved 20 wilful violations (ie "committed with an intentional disregard of or plain indifference to") a requirement to use retrieval lifelines for workers entering confined spaces. Other issues included lack of monitoring, failure to inform the emergency services of hazards, inadequate storage of dangerous materials and lack of respiratory protection. ADM had previously been fined $690,500 by OSHA in 1996 over confined space procedures, and had agreed to make improvements [17].
USA - POLLUTION: in 2000 ADM agreed to pay fines of $1.5m to the Department of Justice and $1.1m to the State of Illinois over persistent exceedance of its pollution permits at one of its Illinois processing plants, between 1998 and 2000. In 1998, the State of Illinois filed a civil action against ADM over a major release of denatured ethanol at one of its distribution sites. In 2000, the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued a Notice of Violation on another ADM site, for emissions violations and for failing to obtain proper permits for equipment [18].
BRAZIL - POLLUTION: in 2000, ADM was fined US$5.6m by Brazil's federal environmental authorities, for the discharge of indust
Price fixing
A telling comment was made in the early 1990s by James Randall, who was ADM's president at the time:
"We have a saying in our company: "Our competitors are our friends. Our customers are the enemy" [10].
This non-competitive approach is also illustrated by CEO Allen Andreas' warm praise of Cargill's takeover of Continental Grain:
"The Cargill-Continental combination will bring new efficiencies to that business that previously did not exist. I see the combination as being a positive step forward in terms of improving the standards of living of people around the world by providing more efficient low-cost food and nutritious feeding materials and adding to the value of farmers' crops" [11].
In 1996, ADM pleaded guilty to price-fixing in the international markets for lysine (an amino acid used as an animal feed additive) and citric acid (a food additive), and paid a record US$100m fine, in one of the biggest scandals ever to rock the corporate world.
ADM was found to have conspired with its competitors - Ajinimoto and Kyowa Hakko Kogyo of Japan, and Sewon Corporation and Cheil Jedung of Korea - to fix prices to eliminate competition and allocate sales volumes between the companies. According to admissions from an Ajinimoto executive, executives from the five companies met in hotels around the world to discuss prices and production volumes; they knew this was illegal, and tried to cover up by claiming the meetings were, for example, on environmental issues and animal rights [12].
ADM's $100m fine was part of a settlement with the US Justice Department, in which the company also agreed to co-operate with the further federal investigations. In return, ADM got [13]:
• immunity from prosecution for chairman and CEO Dwayne Andreas, and his right-hand man James Randall (who made the comment above on customers being the enemy);
• no criminal charges against the company for price-fixing in high-fructose corn (maize) syrup (ADM's most important product, in a market worth $3bn, compared to the $650m lysine market);
• no further investigation into allegations that ADM stole trade secrets.
Other executives were not immune from prosecution. In 1998, three company executives were also found individually guilty for the lysine price-fixing: Michael Andreas (ADM's vice-chairman, and son of Dwayne Andreas), Terrance Wilson (group vice president in charge of corn refining) and Mark Whitacre (head of the bioproducts division, who for 3 years worked for the FBI as a 'mole', taping conversations and gathering evidence). Andreas and Wilson were each given two-year prison sentences, and ordered to pay a $350,000 fine; Whitacre was given 30 months, on top of nine years for embezzling the company whilst he was acting as a mole.
So far ADM has paid out over $120m in US civil cases to its customers and shareholders, and has been fined C$16m (US$11.3m) for price-fixing in the lysine and citric acid markets, in Canada's largest ever competition case [14], and fined eur 47.3m for lysine by the European Commission [15].
A federal grand jury in the Northern District of California is still investigating ADM in relation to lysine, citric acid and high fructose corn syrup. The European Commission has ongoing legal proceedings against ADM over citric acid and sodium gluconate. Mexico is investigating over citric acid, and Brazil over lysine. ADM is also facing many antitrust suits in the USA and Canada, mostly class actions by its direct and indirect customers: 31 suits over high fructose corn syrup; 3 over lysine; 3 over citric acid; 4 over both high fructose corn syrup and citric acid; 6 over high fructose corn syrup, citric acid and lysine; and 12 over monosodium glutamate and other flavour enhancers [16].
ADM has suffered from the scandal mainly through the loss of investor confidence: shareholders ceased to trust the management, and didn't know which of the company's earnings were from legitimate and sustainable activities, and which illegal.
Back to Top Other corporate crimes
USA - WORKER SAFETY: ADM was fined $650,000 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 2000, for safety violations relating to confined space procedures, at its railcar repair plant at Decatur, Illinois. Four workers died and were been hospitalised between 1993 and 1998. Describing the facility as an accident waiting to happen, OSHA had originally proposed a $1.6m fine, but reduced this when ADM agreed to change its procedures. The most serious violations involved 20 wilful violations (ie "committed with an intentional disregard of or plain indifference to") a requirement to use retrieval lifelines for workers entering confined spaces. Other issues included lack of monitoring, failure to inform the emergency services of hazards, inadequate storage of dangerous materials and lack of respiratory protection. ADM had previously been fined $690,500 by OSHA in 1996 over confined space procedures, and had agreed to make improvements [17].
USA - POLLUTION: in 2000 ADM agreed to pay fines of $1.5m to the Department of Justice and $1.1m to the State of Illinois over persistent exceedance of its pollution permits at one of its Illinois processing plants, between 1998 and 2000. In 1998, the State of Illinois filed a civil action against ADM over a major release of denatured ethanol at one of its distribution sites. In 2000, the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued a Notice of Violation on another ADM site, for emissions violations and for failing to obtain proper permits for equipment [18].
BRAZIL - POLLUTION: in 2000, ADM was fined US$5.6m by Brazil's federal environmental authorities, for the discharge of indust