Kohler, R. (16 January 2008). Biodiesel matter going to court. Washburn County Register, Washburn County Register, pgs. 1-7.

Biodiesel matter going to court

By Regan Kohler 16.JAN.08

SHELL LAKE - Due to pending litigation from ACP Environmental Fuels, LLC, a conditional-use permit request for the company’s biodiesel plant was tabled by the Shell Lake City Council Monday, Jan. 14, in city hall.

ACP owners Allan and Cheryl Pippin, Spooner, had proposed putting a biodiesel plant in Shell Lake’s Industrial Park, in the building formerly owned by Harco. They told the plan commission and city council they would be using the facility to manufacture biodiesel fuel using methanol and soybean oil, and conduct research as well. The Pippins said the plant would also provide more jobs in the area.

Citizens were concerned about potential hazards that could stem from the plant. Many attending the hearings on the CUP brought up the fact that the plant would be 1,000 feet from the lake and were worried a spill could get into it. Citizens cited articles at these hearings about explosions in similar plants and the potential dangers of methanol. The consensus from many was that biodiesel was a good idea, but not at that location.

The Pippins addressed the concerns brought up, detailing the mandated cautions they had taken to ensure no spills, research they had done on biodiesel and other aspects.

The plan commission and the council both approved the CUP this past fall. Six people, two of whom were on the council, appealed the decision. In November, the zoning board of appeals heard from the appellants and from the Pippins, the city and their attorneys. The BOA then overturned the request for the CUP.

Last Monday, the Pippins approached the plan commission again. Allan Pippin told the commissioners and audience that they had changed some things. He said there would no longer be an underground tank, as planned before, and they would add extra space to one of the indoor ones. He said they planned to use a different method of mixing some of the chemicals, reducing the methanol content by 32 percent to make it less volatile.

After hearing from citizens, the commission approved the CUP 4-3. All commission approvals must go before the council for a final approval before moving forward.

Monday night, before the matter came on the agenda, it was discussed during public comment. Randy Baker, one of the appellants, cited a zoning ordinance on how the issue belonged in circuit court, and told the council it was their duty to uphold the laws.

Mary Ellen Ryall read reports from publications about soybean oil. She said that though biodiesel is a great alternative fuel, its use of soybean makes for less food in the world. She said that though it has been reported that soybean is a renewable resource, it isn’t because it is genetically engineered. She said grass is an example of a renewable resource.

Ryall also spoke about ACP’s compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s clean air standards. She said she was happy they checked this out, but said processing plants create odors, especially if oil goes rancid.

Ryall said natural resources are disappearing all over the globe, and she didn’t see where the plant, at that location, could play into natural resources.

Ryall is a member of Happy Tonics, an organization that works with plants, gardening and environmental matters.

Linda Ferris, who spoke before the plan commission last week, reiterated what she had said then: that the city’s management plan included guidance and stewardship for the lake, which the plant at the proposed location didn’t seem to fit into. Ferris said she wanted to see good jobs and wasn’t against a biodiesel plant in Shell Lake, just not at that site. She added that she didn’t want to see taxpayers dealing with cleanup from a possible spill.

Donna Barnes-Haesemeyer said she hadn’t heard anyone speak to the matter of ACP handling methanol.

“Methanol is a hazardous chemical,” she said.

She cited an article in Biodiesel Magazine that said the production process can be dangerous and should be treated with utmost care, as with any chemical, and carelessness could cause fires or explosions.

Barnes-Haesemeyer said ACP is indicating they will be taking precautions, but there is no guarantee there won’t be an accident. She told the council they are obligated to keep the city safe. The only advantage seemed to be more jobs, she said, but asked the Pippins what they would tell people if an accident did occur.

When the matter came up under new business, Mayor Dave Zeug said that BOA Chair Vern Redlich was notified the previous Friday of a summons and complaint from ACP versus the BOA. Redlich, who was present at the council meeting, confirmed this. Zeug said there were two issues at stake: the BOA’s original motion, which he called round one, and the new request, which he named round two. Zeug, who is also the plan commission’s chairman, said if he’d known about the litigation last Monday, he would have voted differently.

Council President Mike Pesko suggested tabling the CUP request until litigation is taken care of.

Alderperson Dan Hubin made the same motion he did at the start of the plan commission’s Monday hearing: that the council not hear the request for reasons including the BOA’s motion and the proper course of action needing to be district court, but table it until the council gets the outcome of the litigation from round one. He added that there was no reason to hear the request at that time since it was in the appeal process.

Zeug stressed to the council that they were not killing the matter, just waiting for the resolution.

Greg Kittelsen, a commissioner, said the second round was filed under protest.

“Maybe you should terminate the second round,” he said.

Allan Pippin, when asked for his thoughts, refrained from commenting without an attorney’s guidance at that time.

Baker said the law he gave the council at the beginning of the meeting states that the matter must go to court.

“The second round is illegal,” he said. “You certainly have the right to uphold the law.”

City Administrator Brad Pederson said the city’s attorney told them a person can apply for a CUP as many times as they want, as long as the filing fee is paid.

Hubin said that according to the Washburn County Board, this is true unless there is a rule stating otherwise. He added that the plan commission doesn’t have to hear a request.

Hubin’s motion passed unanimously.

The council then approved purchasing a copy of the court reporter’s transcription of the BOA hearing.

Pederson said the following day that the complaint and summons were filed Dec. 27, but the BOA hadn’t been served as of that morning. The first court date hadn’t been set as of Tuesday morning, either, though Pederson said a letter was received from the court about a change in judge.