Bio-refinery issue begins to heat up
Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:46 PM PDT
Larry Meyer Argus Observer
ONTARIO
The procedure for the siting of a proposed bio-refinery south of Ontario moved into its second phase Wednesday as the first of two public hearings kicked off before the Malheur County Court at Four Rivers Cultural Center.
The FRCC meetings are designed to give members of the court the opportunity to receive public comment on whether to accept a recent county planning and zoning recommendation regarding a change to the county’s comprehensive plan. The zone change — essentially the creation of a new industrial zone for agriculture processing plants and an exception to the statewide planning goal 3 — would affect 115 acres of land south of Ontario and east of Alameda Drive.
The Malheur County Planning and Zoning Commission passed the issue on to the court with favorable recommendation after two hearings in October. The court must now make a final, binding judgment, because of the proposed changes to the county’s comprehensive plan and code.
Wednesday, the court listened to nearly three hours of testimony from proponents and opponents of the venture, plus statements from various representatives from state agonies, including Scott Fairley, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Jon Jinnings, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development.
John Hamilton, the manager of Treasure Valley Renewable Resources, the company pushing the bio-refinery concept opened the meeting with a brief explanation of the project and introduced consultants for the company. The consultants then gave testimony for answered questions from the court.
Dan Meader, land use consultant, said the company supported the finding of fact and conclusions of law submitted in its application. TVRR, Meader asserted, had submitted enough information for the court to make an affirmative decision.
He noted the application analyzed several industrial sites and compared the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Larry Groce, a consultant from Illinois, said he is involved in ethanol production, and is an equity investor in two ethanol plants in Iowa, one of which is in operation. He said the odors are under control, with one plant using an thermal oxidizer because grain is dried there. He reiterated that TVRR officials do not plan to dry the grain used in processing.
Darell Luther, rail consultant, said TVRR, which plans to use the Oregon Eastern Railroad to move rail cars in and out of the plant, always carried a vision of being situated on a shortline railroad, because they are more service oriented.
“They care about your business,” he said. “It translates into cost savings.”
In answer to a question about using local crops, rather than bringing in grains from other regions, Hamilton noted the local area can produced all the crops required at the facility for the different products. Also, he said there is not enough room on the property to bring in a large number of rail cars which would be required if grain was shipped in from the Midwest.
Addressing the issue of emissions, Bill Fox, environmental engineer, said the plant will not exceed 100 tons per year on any one pollutant. The emissions will not be out in the air, he said, but controlled in the plant. “You’re not going to know the plant is operating,” Fox said.
The applicant testimony was followed by a series of individual comments in support of TVRR. Most speakers supported the company’s position and said the chosen location is the best one. Many supporters also talked about the need for the jobs which the company has said it will provide and pointed out the need for the expected new market for local crops.
Opponents take aim
Leading off the opposing testimony, Tom Okai, attorney representing the Concerned Citizens of Malheur County, a small coalition against the bio-refinery, read a memorandum challenging the findings of fact, and the conclusions submitted by the planning commission to the county court.
Okai said the commission incorrectly characterized the proposed use by TVRR as rural and considered only one factor when making that determination. The commission, Okai asserted, should have considered other factors including hours of operation, traffic generated by the facility and the need for city water.
“The information submitted by TVRR does not support a conclusion that the proposed use is ‘rural’,” Okai said.
The bio-refinery will operate around the clock every day of the year, and it will generate truck trips of 150 more to and from the plant plus more than 100 tons of atmospheric pollutants will be emitted he said.
“Thus the proposed use is more properly characterized as ‘urban.’ Because the use is urban, an expectation to rule 14 is required. The recommendations do not contain such an exception. Therefore the application must be rejected.”
Rule 14 focuses on transition of land from rural status to urban.
Additionally, Okai said the extension of the city water line to the property would require an exception to goal 11 to allow the urban development on the proposed site.
In his next objection, Okai cited the county zoning code which required a finding that the level of development in other locations has reached a point where additional land is need for the proposed use. He said the planning commission did not cite any evidence that development of industrial land is so advanced the proposed parcel must be taken for the proposed use.
Also, Okai said, in two places, the record contains no evidence, other than TVRR’s assertion, for the need for 70 to 75 acres of land, and a study conducted for the Western Regional Biomass Energy Project in North Dakota showed a similarly size bio-refinery can be placed on parcels of 17 acres in an urban setting.
Okai and several members of the Concerned Citizens of Malheur County said they believed there are several sites in the county suitable and available for the bio-refinery.
Members of the group also cited pollution concerns, traffic concerns and the possible loss in property values as reasons for their opposition for approving the rezoning of the proposed bio-refinery location. They also said they believed the site is too close to residential areas and schools.
The hearing will be continue Dec. 17 with rebuttal statements.
