Fernandina Beach is embroiled in a high-stakes battle with Rayonier Advanced Materials (RYAM) over its proposed ethanol distillation expansion at the kraft pulp mill. What looks on paper like a zoning fight is in reality a test of the City’s ability to apply its code consistently, defend its procedures, and balance public risk with industrial growth.

The denial has triggered lawsuits in state and federal court, plus a $6.6 million Bert Harris Act claim, exposing Fernandina Beach taxpayers to significant liability. Understanding this dispute means looking at the code, the process, the optics, and how similar pulp mills worldwide already integrate ethanol production.

The Code and Comp Plan: Prohibition Language Is There

The City’s Comprehensive Plan explicitly prohibits “chemical or petroleum manufacturing or refining.” The Land Development Code (LDC) mirrors that language in its heavy industrial district. On the surface, that gives the City a clear basis to reject an ethanol distillation plant.

The weakness is definitional. The LDC does not tightly define what counts as “chemical manufacturing” versus a permitted “industrial operation.” Ethanol fermentation/distillation is arguably either — a chemical refinery or a logical extension of pulp production. In ambiguous cases like this, courts often turn to whether the City followed its procedures consistently and applied the code without bias.

The TRC Issue: Skipped Steps and Litigation Risk

The City’s LDC requires Technical Review Committee (TRC) review of site plans, with a compliance report documenting deficiencies. RYAM argues that step was skipped — instead, the City Manager and staff issued denial letters and interpretation memos without a full TRC record.

That omission is more than a technicality. Courts tend to punish municipalities that bypass their own codified processes. A skipped TRC makes it look like the City reached a conclusion first and found a rationale later. If discovery produces emails between staff and commissioners strategizing how to block ethanol before an application even went to TRC, it will reinforce RYAM’s “bad faith” narrative and weaken the City’s defense.

Timing, Politics, and Targeting

Reports suggest City Attorney Tammi Bach and commissioners discussed blocking ethanol well before the application was filed. If internal emails show City Hall coordinated to target RYAM specifically, that shifts the case from a zoning interpretation fight to an allegation of predetermination.

Under the Bert Harris Act, that is a serious problem. If RYAM can demonstrate that the City effectively changed its enforcement stance or skipped required steps to stop one project, it strengthens their claim of an “inordinate burden” on reasonable, investment-backed expectations.

Hazards: Chronic vs. Acute

It’s important to compare pulp mill hazards with ethanol plant hazards.

Pulp mills are inherently chemical-heavy: kraft pulping, bleaching, sulfur emissions, caustic recovery. Hazards are chronic (odor, air emissions) but familiar and regulated under long-standing permits. Ethanol plants are simpler in chemistry but carry acute risks: flammable alcohol in bulk tanks, tanker truck traffic, and potential explosion/fire hazards.

For nearby residents, pulp mills mean bad smells and chronic exposure; ethanol units raise the specter of fire and catastrophic events. Both can be justified or denied — but the City needed to document this hazard analysis through TRC. Without it, the denial looks arbitrary.

Is Ethanol at Pulp Mills Unusual?

Not at all. Ethanol has been integrated into pulp operations for decades. Globally, it is a well-documented extension of sulfite and dissolving pulp mills. In the 1940s, Sweden alone had more than 30 mills producing “sulphite spirit” ethanol from spent sulfite liquor. Today, major companies market themselves as “biorefineries” producing pulp, lignin, chemicals, and ethanol side-by-side.

This makes Fernandina’s denial look out of step with industry practice. That doesn’t mean it must approve ethanol, but it does mean the City must show why ethanol in Fernandina is fundamentally riskier or prohibited under its code.

Twenty Pulp Mills with Ethanol Elements

Here is a clean list of pulp mills that have produced or still produce ethanol:

Borregaard – Sarpsborg, Norway – Operating ethanol from spent sulfite liquor since 1938.

Domsjö Fabriker – Örnsköldsvik, Sweden – Operating biorefinery producing pulp, lignin, and ethanol.

AustroCel Hallein – Austria – Operating advanced ethanol integrated with sulfite pulp.

Témiscaming (RYAM, ex-Tembec) – Québec, Canada – Operating SSL-to-ethanol facility.

Tartas (RYAM) – France – Operating since 2024, producing 2G ethanol. Sniace –

Torrelavega, Spain – Historical sulfite viscose complex with ethanol (closed 2020).

Georgia-Pacific Bellingham – Washington, USA – Historical sulfite mill with ethanol fermentation.

International Paper (pre-Tembec, same Témiscaming site) – Historical ethanol production.

Sappi Saiccor – South Africa – Evaluated ethanol integration in techno-economic studies.

Flambeau River (Park Falls, WI) – Planned DOE-backed pulp/ethanol integration (never built).

Billerud Säffle – Sweden – Historical sulfite mill producing ethanol.

Slottsbron (Billerud) – Sweden – Historical sulfite mill with ethanol.

Brattne Bruk (Billerud) – Sweden – Historical sulfite mill with ethanol.

Kyrkebyn (Billerud) – Sweden – Historical sulfite mill with ethanol.

Gävle Sulfite Factory – Sweden – Historical sulfite pulp site with ethanol.

Pietarsaari – Finland – Historical sulfite pulp mill with ethanol by-products.

Swedish Sulfite Mills (22+ sites) – Sweden – National practice of ethanol from SSL in 1930s–50s.

Borregaard (legacy note) – Norway – First SSL-to-ethanol plant in 1938.

Domsjö/SEKAB cluster – Sweden – Historical and current ethanol production around pulp. General European cohort – Europe – Academic surveys confirm widespread ethanol at sulfite mills.

Fernandina in Comparison

RYAM’s proposed Fernandina ethanol unit would bolt fermentation and distillation onto an existing kraft pulp operation. This is not unusual. RYAM itself already runs ethanol at Témiscaming (Canada) and Tartas (France). Borregaard, Domsjö, and AustroCel prove ethanol integration is mainstream.

The difference at Fernandina is not the novelty of ethanol, but the local code language and political context. If the City had routed this application through TRC, built a hazard-based record, and explained why ethanol storage and transport risks exceed acceptable levels, it could defend its decision. Instead, it skipped procedure and looks like it targeted RYAM specifically.

Settlement vs. Litigation

The City has a defensible textual argument — ethanol as “chemical/refining.” But the skipped TRC, potential political targeting, and the fact that ethanol is common at pulp mills worldwide mean litigation risk is high.

The Yulee News editorial urging settlement oversimplified but was directionally correct. A structured settlement allowing ethanol under strict safety conditions — tank spacing, truck routing, real-time emissions and hazard monitoring, emergency response bonds, and automatic shutdown triggers — would protect residents while capping taxpayer exposure. Digging in for a clean win in court, with a shaky record and political optics, risks another expensive loss.

Conclusion

This case is less about whether ethanol is chemical manufacturing and more about whether Fernandina Beach can apply its rules consistently. Ethanol at pulp mills is neither new nor exotic — it’s been done at more than 20 sites worldwide, including two other RYAM mills. The City’s prohibition language may give it a case, but skipping its own review process and looking like it targeted a single company leaves it vulnerable.

What’s on trial here isn’t just ethanol. It’s Fernandina’s process, credibility, and willingness to learn from its history of costly courtroom defeats.

Disclaimer: This post is based on AI-assisted analysis of publicly available information, planning documents, and industry history. It is not legal advice. Final conclusions should be drawn by licensed attorneys and planning professionals with access to the full administrative record.