The Waste-to-Energy Working Group Meeting, Part 1

A front-page article in the PN&C February 17, 2011 issue says “The Commonwealth of Virginia wants to know from if the Shenandoah Valley would be an ideal place for a power plant that converts animal waste from poultry farms into electricity.” With that idea in mind, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) convened a meeting in Charlottesville to initiate a study with the goal of finding a way to reduce the nutrient pollution that comes from animal wastes in the watershed without increasing air pollution.

This article generated Delegate Gilbert's letter to the editor in the next week's PN&C, which I posted on yesterday.


After reviewing the notes I received from the initial meeting, it appears I’ll need two posts to cover the topic in enough detail. I’ll also ask the folks over at the Page County blog to make an MS Word version of the notes available for download, and then will publish the link here. Today I’ll cover the purpose of the group, an overview of the meeting process, and attendees; tomorrow, I’ll dig a bit further on the issues that were raised during the commentary.

When I first opened the email with these notes, and then I scanned the attendees on the official list, two questions came to mind…I’m simply going to ask them rhetorically. First – and this is a question that was raised by many people – if the concerns are centered on the Valley and the discussion is about locating a plant here, why was the meeting in Charlottesville? Second, Terry Walmsley of Fibrowatt was invited to participate in the panel, while no other (competing) technologies were represented equally – why is that?

The concerns about the non-Valley location have resulted in the decision to have the second meeting in Harrisonburg, at the location here: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/regions/valley.html. The closing remarks from the first meeting invites comments and questions, which are due by March 3. I’ll see if I can find an email address or street address for those and post it.

Now on to summarizing the notes from the meeting.

Rick Weeks, from DEQ and panel co-advisor, provided opening remarks by explaining the group’s purpose: to develop a scope for a study focusing on how siting a waste-to-energy poultry litter facility in the Shenandoah Valley will impact/benefit air quality and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. He advised the group to look at what questions need to be answered to determine if a project like this will work, and the group dug into questions on this topic later in the meeting.

The following people were identified as the panel:

• Jeff Corbin - Senior Advisor to US Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
• Katie Frazier - Agribusiness Council
• Don "Robin" Sullenberger - Shenandoah Valley Partnership
• Darrell Marshall – Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
• Martha Bogle and Jim Schaberl - Shenandoah National Park Service
• Angela Navarro – Southern Environmental Law Center
• Terry Walmsley – Fibrowatt
• Kristen Hughes – Chesapeake Bay Foundation
• Mark Dubin - Chesapeake Bay Program
• Tony Banks – Virginia Farm Bureau
• Hobey Bauhan - Virginia Poultry Federation
• Tim Moore – Virginia Military Institute
• Jeff Kelble - Shenandoah Riverkeeper
• Emil Avram – Dominion
• Jim Pease – Virginia Tech
• Dave Frackelton - Shenandoah Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) council
• Susan Bulbulkaya - Chesapeake Bay Commission

As I mentioned above, I will summarize the discussion the panel had in a post tomorrow. Jumping ahead, I will simply cut-and-paste the Q&A portion of the meeting. Despite the Charlottesville location, at least three Page County – Shenandoah Valley residents – were in attendance, and they offered remarks and observations. In addition, the audience included people interested in other waste-to-energy technologies, alternatives to incineration; and there were requests for additional statistical information about the amount of waste and its impact – and the potential impact of an incinerator-based plant on air quality, based on the violations the Minnesota Fibrowatt plant experienced.

• Lee McWhorter – a citizen from Page County: Objects to burning of poultry litter as the pine shavings, when burned, release Dioxin and Furan. He is a Vietnam Veteran on disability for being exposed to Agent Orange. Public health is a major concern with the burning of the litter. He suggests we stabilize the litter for safe land application. He mentioned that in Page County, Fibrowatt was kicked out, and the Economic Development Authority was fired.
• Josh Frye - Owns a poultry gasification process in West Virginia: The Bio-Char byproduct is an activated carbon that can be used to clean water and air (mentioned land reclamation). The Nitrogen and Phosphorous is stabilized so it is safe for land application. These systems can produce income for the growers. He suggests forming small cooperatives in various parts of the region where such a unit can be used by various growers.
• Joy Lorien – a citizen who works in the Shenandoah National Park area:  Has seen air quality deteriorate over the past 30 years. Can no longer see Massenuten Mountain from the SNP. Citizens of Page County do not want an incinerator at the foot of their mountain. She also stated there are a lot of empty chicken houses in page County now. Concerned about arsenic that is fed to chickens to get rid of parasites.
• Mike Waver - President of Poultry Growers organization. States this issue is a regional issue, not just a Virginia issue. Mentioned that the Minnesota plant had air emission issues. Concerned that no poultry growers were asked to participate. His organization is meeting next week to discuss a pilot project that will look at bio-char or composting of litter. Economic impacts to growers must be evaluated.
• J.D. Cave – Page County Board of Supervisors: Asks that the next meeting be held in the Valley. Page County does not want a Fibrowatt Plant.
• Dave Libble from the Eastern Shore: Requests for Fibrowatt to share some of its information on fertilizer.