Motie, This is a regulatory matter not a court of law. Innocent till proven guilty only applies in court matters and seldom in day to day business matters. As far as I know no charges are pending and YBD has only been warned that he is producing biodiesel without the proper permits. He applied for the proper permits alleging his product was the same as that which is produced by NBB members who must agree to a quality control progam and post a $100,000 bond that is forfeit if they fail to live up to this assurance of quality. The producer in question could not afford the bond and felt that the contract required by the NBB was too burdensome in other ways and yet wished to use the NBB assurance of quality to get his permit from the EPA. His permit was denied because he had no proof that his product is in fact identical to the NBB sanctioned biodiesel as far as pollutant emmisions are concerned.
He has not been charged nor is he being prosecuted. If he decides to continue producing and SELLING biodiesel he will most likely be charged with commercial production of biodiesel without the required permits. At that point the burden of proof will lie with the EPA once a court action commences. I doubt they will have a diffcult time proving up thier case as all they would need to do is prove that there was prodcution and sale of a fuel product without the required permits and that has already been admitted. They could have charged him and did not choosing instead to attempt to lay out the requiments he would have to meet in order to receive a permit from the EPA to produce biodiesel. All in all I think they were pretty gental and understanding considering that they could have charged him and levied fines that would have run into the millions of dollars. The EPA does not seem to want to keep the small producer out of the biodiesl business...thay just need to fulfil thier mandate of not allowing fuel production without a permit and have requirments that are not practical for such a small scale production facility. I also often take a manufacturers assurance that thier product is safe. Usually this is due to the fact that I know independent tests have been conducted and a quality assurance program is in place. I suppose that I don't know how a small unbonded biodiesel producer would handle a customer complaint. I doubt they could aford to replace even one damaged engine if they inadvertantly distributed a bad batch given the low volumes and thin profit margins of a 40 gal per day production. And yet if one is not in compliance with the law I suppose one would have no choice since the potential for coercion is huge in that situation.(Give me a new engine or I'll turn you in) I doubt that any consumer complained in this particular case...more than likely the denial of his permit triggered the warning once the EPA discovered that he had for some time been producing fuel from an unpermitted facility. It is not a good idea to apply for the permits less than six months before you might need them and cerainly an even worse idea to produce and sell fuel without the required permits. In my opinion this is just a backyard producer that got in over his head when he decided to go COMMERCIAL without doing enough research to know what to expect might happen as a result.I feel sympathy for him but until he stops blaming the EPA and accepts primary responsability for his predicament little can be done to help him out. Ironically I think that several simple solutions exist that would probably allow him to keep making and selling his product and might even net him more profit per gallon than he was making previously. Oh well... My offer to help him still stands. Dana > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dana Linscott > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jim, > > I doubt that this is true. Sloppily made BD can > not > > only ruin an engine but spew much more crap into > the > > air than commercial petrodiesel. More importantly > > sloppily made commercial BD will ruin the chances > of > > any small producer of BD to gain the confidence > needed > > for public acceptance to spread. > It seems he has gained his customer's confidence. If > this was a > customer complaint, I might see it differently. > > It is just this type > > of argument that large commercial producers cite > to > > support thier argument that small scale BD > producers > > need MORE regulation. > The small producer is much more accountable to his > customer, than > the 'Big Guys' are. Have there been any customer > complaints? > > > > Somehow we need to prove that the current > regulations > > are more than enough rather than argure "we don't > need > > no stinkin' regulations" and unless there are > > alternative organizations to the NBB it is > currently > > our only hope to do this. > I don't know what the current Regs, if any, are. If > someone (EPA) is > making the allegation that he is NOT in compliance, > isn't the burden > of proof on the entity that is making the > allegation? Have they > offered any evidence that his product is > out-of-spec? > > > > I cannot for the life of me understand why any > > commercial BD producer would refuse to comply with > > pollution control law. > I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that his > product is NOT in > compliance. > >It would seem contrary to the > > ethos of "care for the land" that I constantly see > > among those searching for more responsable energy > > sources. I freely admit that I am a bit skeptical > of > > anyone that says "trust me...its' perfectly safe" > but > > refuses to provide independent verification of > thier > > products safety. > I too, am skeptical of many things. I don't insist > that every time I > buy a vehicle, that it be crashed into a wall to > prove > crashworthiness before buying. I'll take the > manufacturers word for > it, that it is similar to the ones they did crash. > If someone were to > allege there is a difference, wouldn't they be the > one required to > provide some evidence to support their allegations? > > > > > > > > > > I wish I were a YBD customer. I would probably be > > working to help get it back on track instead of > trying > > to alienate potential allys. In spite of the fact > that > > I have nothing to gain personally I am the only > poster > > that has offered to help and that offer still > stands. > > I personally commend you for this. I don't think I > am qualified to > offer assistance in what may turn out to be a legal > matter. > I guess I really don't understand what the problem > is. He is in > business, selling a product to satisfied customers. > Someone (EPA) has > complaned he is not in compliance. I have seen NO > evidence to support > their contention. In my understanding of law, the > complainant has the > burden of proof. Until they provide some evidence, > it is an > unsubstantiated allegation, and the defendant should > not be deprived > of his livelihood on that basis. > If I were to file a complaint against the station > down the street, > would they have to shut down until they could prove > they were selling > clean fuel? Or would I have to provide some evidence > before the > business would be closed? If my allegation turned > out to be false, > wouldn't I be liable for the loss of business > income? > > Motie > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
