A Fibrowatt plant as a potential source of emissions

As a follow-up to the conversation I had with Benson, MN officials last week, I thought I would look further into the reference to emissions problems at the Fibrowatt plant there. The permitting documents describe a range of chemical compounds and proscribe “acceptable” amounts of them in emissions – an issue to carefully weigh against any promise of new jobs for the County. My notes about this problem include a reference to citations during commissioning and shakedown operations at the plant, reporting timeliness, and an agreement by Fibrowatt to pay a fine and upgrade their equipment.


The Minnesota incident is reported on the Fibrowatt website under the headline, “MPCA & Fibrominn Settle Issues Related to 2008 Notice of Violation,” which says that Fibrominn and the MPCA have reached a Compliance Agreement that resolves alleged violations largely related to the startup, commissioning, and equipment and system optimization (”shakedown”) of the Fibrominn Biomass Power Plant in Benson, Minnesota.

I’ve also heard the compliance agreement referred to as a stipulation agreement, which is often used to achieve compliance with environmental laws. These agreements consider whether violations are first time incidents or repeat violations, reporting promptness, seriousness of the environmental impact, and then assess fines and prescribe corrective actions.

Noting the use of the word “alleged” on the Fibrowatt page, I took a moment to ensure that I knew the definition; alleged has three definitions on the Webster.com site: asserted to be true or to exist, questionably true or of a specified kind, or accused but not proven or convicted. My take on this is the third definition applies, and the stipulation agreement stopped the process from going further, which may have resulted in a finding of violation or conviction - I am pretty sure that the record in Minnesota would show that the chemicals were present, so the question becomes more about whether this was a spontaneous incident or accidental.

So my research took me a step further. I’ve scanned the Minnesota permit, and understand what the output of biomass combustion or incineration is comprised of – but I’ll quote from a New York Times article, which was written about a proposed Fibrowatt plant in Maryland: “…according to its air permits, the plant is a major source of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrogen sulfide.” In the permit itself, several other emissions are noted, including sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid.

The next step for me was to take a look at the risks associated with these outputs, and I consulted the Wikipedia articles on them. (It is my practice to source many articles at the end of my posts – here I have not sourced the Wikipedia articles specifically, but you could perform the same search using the chemical names below.) In each case, there is a lot of technical information about the components, various uses, and risks from the chemicals.

It turns out that many of these compounds are greenhouse gases, meaning they will impact visibility and have a long-term impact on the larger environment. But some of them are used as industrial corrosives and are also identified as health risks. Consider the following from Wikipedia:

• “Sulfur dioxide is associated with increased respiratory symptoms and disease, difficulty in breathing, and premature death.”
• “Sulfuric acid is a component of acid rain, and is highly corrosive.”
• “Hydrochloric acid - Both the mist and the solution have a corrosive effect on human tissue, with the potential to damage respiratory organs, eyes, skin, and intestines.”
• “Carbon monoxide is a major atmospheric pollutant in some urban areas, chiefly from the exhaust of internal combustion engines (including vehicles, portable and back-up generators, lawn mowers, power washers, etc.), but also from improper burning of various other fuels (including wood, coal, charcoal, oil, paraffin, propane, natural gas, and trash).”
• Finally, nitrous oxide was also noted to be a greenhouse gas.

I assume, and my Page County friends can let me know if I am right or wrong on this impression of mine, that the state of Virginia and Page County authorities will ensure that the permitting process is designed control these outputs. I know that the mere fact of a reference to these chemicals in permits has inspired a range of environmental reaction to the proposed development of plants in North Carolina, and in general to the company itself (I've yet to visit these sources). For its part, Fibrowatt asserts good neighbor policies and a commitment to minimize this problem.

So what about the group of stakeholders that I’ve overlooked in this statement, the Page County residents and farmers who will live and work near the proposed plant at Project Clover? I took a quick look at the runway orientations at Luray airport to have a look at prevailing wind patterns in this part of the Valley. The runways are aligned on 40 degrees and 220 degrees, roughly a northeast and southwest orientation – and the old runway that can be seen from the air at Project Clover has a similar orientation.

This suggests that due to the prevailing winds, emissions from the plant will basically blow into and onto Stanley, population 1,326 in the 1990 Census (again from Wikipedia), or Luray, population 4,871 in the 1990 Census.  The Clover site is in the middle of productive farm land, mainly beef production sites.  So those animals would likely spend some time in the plume as well.

The presence of these chemicals in the plant’s emissions poses a serious question in my mind, one that hasn’t yet been answered satisfactorily. A commitment to mitigate and attempt to reduce the risks is there – Fibrowatt’s commitment to being a good neighbor, and its corrective actions in Minnesota – but that doesn’t eliminate the risks of an accidental output, or likely increased levels of output during plant maintenance periods and restarts after downtimes.

The plant would have an impact on our way of life as residents and farmers.  While I haven't touched on the potential impact to our major economic activity yet - tourism - I think that sponsors and organizers of our three triathlons and two major, statewide bike races, which easily bring more than a thousand visitors to the Valley on event weekends, would be inclined to think twice about this as a location for their events.

Tomorrow I am going to take a look at the concept of “viewshed” impacts. Meanwhile, here are some of the URLs I referenced in the development of this post:

http://homelandrenewableenergy.us/pdf/fibrominn-tech-data.pdf
http://www.fibrowattusa.com/announcements/975/mpca-fibrominn-settle-issues-related-to-2008-notice-of-violation/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/world/americas/06iht-manure.1.6019729.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alleged
http://www.airnav.com/airport/W45