• 
• CLASS
• JOBS
• AUTO
• HOMES

One year later, battle lines still drawn on ethanol plant

Photo

Photo by Al Hoch

The Milton Ethanol plant along County M in Rock County.

Photo

Photo by Al Hoch

The Milton Ethanol plant along County M in Rock County.

Photo

Photo by Al Hoch

The Milton Ethanol plant along County M in Rock County.

MILTON — When Gina Frank found out about the ethanol plant going up in her neighborhood, she put her home of 19 years up for sale.

The home at 6516 E. Highway 59 was on the market for six months with no offers, she said.

After all, she asked, who would want to live with a noisy, smelly plant in the backyard?

"Nineteen years, and now we can’t use our backyard,” she said.

One year after the United Ethanol plant started production in Milton, the battle lines still are drawn.

Neighbors still say their complaints are being brushed off by the plant and the city.

The plant still touts the benefits it offers to the community—such as 34 new jobs and hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in future taxes—and to the environment by producing an alternative to gasoline.

And the city still hears it from both sides.

Several neighbors said their quality of life has gone down since the plant opened. A meeting with a Janesville Gazette reporter drew 12 plant neighbors from nine homes to share their concerns.

The concerns centered on three areas:

-- Noise.

“It’s like a jet engine,” said John Dorn, 6617 E. Milton-Harmony Townline Road. “If the wind’s blowing your way, I’d be hollering at you in my own backyard.”

-- Odor

Neighbors said the plant often smells of yeast or “bad beer.”

“When the wind’s out of the north, we smell it,” said Pat Kumlien, 6327 E. Bingham Road.

The plant investigates every odor complaint to determine its source, Dori Lichty, a spokeswoman for United Cooperative, wrote in an e-mail to The Janesville Gazette. (United Ethanol is a subsidiary of United Cooperative.)

“We have found that there is a range of odors from those that are not ours to odors from our plant that have resulted from start-up problems,” she wrote.

The plant is evaluating its mechanical systems and making changes to help solve the odor issue, Lichty wrote.

-- Pollution

“The list of chemicals that are coming out of that stack is frightening,” Dorn said.

Neighbors’ concerns grew when they learned the plant had failed emissions tests from the Department of Natural Resources on particulate matter and volatile organic compounds, two emissions that can contribute to smog and respiratory problems.

Those tests were done in October, and the plant has since fixed the problems, Lichty wrote.

But that’s not good enough for some neighbors. They worry the long-term effects of exposure to ethanol emissions aren’t known and the pollutants will make their children or pets sick.

The city has heard complaints from about 10 people concerning the plant, not many considering Milton’s population of 5,600, City Administrator Todd Schmidt wrote in an e-mail.

In fact, most of the neighbors complaining about the plant aren’t city residents. Although the plant is in city limits, most of the homes around it are not.

Still, the city takes the complaints seriously, Schmidt wrote.

Schmidt wrote a letter to the plant dated Feb. 22 asking it to address and correct the noise, odor and emissions issues.

United Ethanol has responded to the letter and intends to comply with the city’s requests, Lichty wrote. It plans to start monitoring sound levels at the plant soon to see if it’s in compliance with city ordinances and is working to fix the odor problems.

“United Ethanol wants to be a good neighbor and is committed to solving these noise and odor complaints,” Lichty wrote.

As for the emissions complaints, the plant follows DNR regulations, she wrote. It is completing work on a carbon dioxide plant this spring that will collect and sell virtually all of the carbon dioxide emitted.

The plant has lived up to its promises over its first year, Lichty wrote. It produced 26 million gallons of ethanol in its first eight months and is very close to its maximum output of 42 million gallons a year.

It employs 34 people, she wrote. Of the employees:

-- Four already lived in Milton.

-- Nine already lived in Janesville.

-- Four moved to Milton or Janesville to work at the plant.

The rest live in “Edgerton and other surrounding cities,” Lichty wrote.

The plant has benefited other locals as well.

James Churchill, owner of James Churchill and Sons Trucking, said in December that he’s added a third truck to his company to handle the business he gets hauling wet distilled grain from the plant.

Keith O’Leary, a Rock Township dairy farmer, said he buys distilled grain from the plant because it’s cheaper than getting it from plants that are farther away.

The plant will benefit all of Milton in the long run, Schmidt said.

The city loaned the plant $811,000 in tax incremental financing, meaning the plant will pay back the loan in lieu of taxes until it’s paid off.

Once the loan is paid off, the city expects about $93,000 a year in taxes from the plant based on 2007 tax rates. The plant also would pay about $119,000 a year to the Milton School District and $84,000 a year to Rock County, Schmidt wrote.

The city is satisfied with the plant’s response to the odor and noise issues so far and happy with its presence in Milton, Mayor Nate Bruce said. He expects the noise and odor issues to be resolved by June, he said.

“It’s been a little bit slow, but in the end it should be fine,” he said.

Plant neighbors remain unconvinced.

Ginny Goodman, 6706 E. Highway 59, said she doesn’t think the plant or the city are taking them seriously.

“It’s more pacifying us, I think,” she said. “When I leave, I feel like I haven’t gotten any answers, but I’ve been told ‘It’ll be taken care of.’”

Several neighbors said they won’t be happy until the plant closes shop.

“I want to see it shut down,” Frank said.

Failed emissions tests

United Ethanol in October failed emissions tests in three areas, but those problems have since been taken care of, a spokeswoman for the plant said.

Tests done in October for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources showed the plant as out of compliance for volatile organic compounds, particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. The results for volatile organic compounds and particulate matter were more than twice the allowable limit.

Volatile organic compounds are pollutant gasses, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Particulate matter, or particle pollution, is extremely small particles and liquid droplets made up of acids, chemicals, metals, soil or dust.

The DNR completed a review of the tests in late February and sent a letter to the plant asking it to submit a plan to retest.

Although a chemical plant is expected to operate within acceptable limits from day one, it’s not uncommon for a plant to experience some hiccups, said Bill Baumann, DNR chief of compliance and enforcement.

“This is not unheard of—for any new plant to have some startup issues—and I’m assuming that’s what’s going on here,” he said. “Still, that does need to be corrected.”

Experts aren’t sure yet what chemicals were in the volatile organic compounds in the October tests. The eight most prevalent chemicals in such compounds didn’t appear to be over the limits in this case, said Jeff Myers, environmental toxicologist with the DNR.

Volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides contribute to haze, smog and ozone formation, especially on hot days, Myers said.

Particulate matter places stress on the lungs and can cause or aggravate respiratory problems, especially for people with asthma, Myers said.

The plant discovered some leakage in the October tests and has since fixed the problem, said Dori Lichty, a spokeswoman for United Ethanol and its parent company, United Cooperative. The plant performed diagnostic tests in December that showed it as in compliance with DNR standards, she said.

“It’s kind of like a brand-new house, where you get to wintertime and you discover there’s an air hole somewhere,” she said.

The plant intends to install meters this month at the request of the DNR and retest emissions soon after, Lichty said.

Until that time, the plant is considered out of compliance with the DNR, said Eileen Pierce, regional air and waste leader.

Even if the plant has returned to compliance, the DNR still will take action based on its non-compliance in October, she said.

“You will see action, and it will be proportionate,” she said. “If it is the case that the company has made a timely return to compliance, yes, that would certainly be taken into consideration.”

Open meetings ruling

It’s been just over a year since a state appeals court ruled Milton held too many closed meetings in its discussions with United Ethanol, but the case still is receiving attention.

The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council bestowed an “Opee” award this month on Citizens for Responsible Development, a group of Milton residents who opposed the plant, naming them “citizen openness advocates of the year.”

The group sued the city over closed meetings the city held to discuss the proposed plant in 2004 and 2005.

Wisconsin law states all government meetings and records should be open to the public unless there are compelling reasons to keep them closed.

Milton cited a statute that allows closed meetings “whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session” to justify its closed meetings with United Cooperative, United Ethanol’s parent company. The company had requested confidentiality, and city officials were afraid the company would build its plant elsewhere if they didn't promise it, according to court documents.

But the appellate court ruled that wasn't good enough to keep all discussions behind closed doors.

“United Co-op may have wanted to avoid an acrimonious debate about its proposed plant by keeping discussions with Milton secret, but that is not a permissible reason for closing Milton's meetings,” the court wrote. “Indeed, contentious issues are those most in need of public discussion.”

Citizens for Responsible Development and the city reached an agreement outside of court that the city would pay the group’s legal fees. The city’s liability insurance picked up most of the city and citizen group’s fees.