Revisiting a Poultry Litter Power Plant

Looking over some old posts, it's been nearly a year since I posted anything about the ongoing studies in Virginia regarding "what to do with all the chicken s***" -  so when a few friends and alert readers recently sent along the first work product coming out of the litter-to-energy working group (label LEWG at the end of this post will take you to the other material I have on this topic, and there's tons more under the label Fibrowatt), I knew it was time to refresh myself on the facts.  First, though, I want to begin this new series of posts by saying thanks to those alert readers who sent me the recently completed Virginia Tech report designed to estimate just how much chicken litter might be available in the Valley for various purposes, whether that is for use as a directly applied fertilizer or as a component fuel for firing an electric plant.

This Virginia Tech report is the first output of the scope laid down by the LEWG.  Since it has been over a year since we've heard anything out of this group, let's start out with a quick review of what they are up to: this is working group that is chartered by the Virginia governor to determine the feasibility of establishing a power plant in the state that would be fueled by poultry litter, a waste by-product of poultry farms in the area.

I've written up that sentence about the charter in a very cynical tone - but when you read much of the work, it's easy to come to the conclusion that the LEWG has been chartered as an industry-friendly working group, and the goal envisioned for it is the establishment of a power plant - whether the public here wants it or not.  I can determine no other justification for including Fibrowatt representatives in the initial working sessions for that group, and even the project title suggests a predisposition to that outcome.

Full disclosure:  the prospect of a Fibrowatt plant in the Valley, and specifically in Page County, is what got me started on the topic in the first place.

The LEWG scope is characterized by their project title:  "Evaluating Net Benefits/Impacts of a Shenandoah Valley Poutlry Litter to Energy Power Plant on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Air Shed: -  a Google search for Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) in 2011 should pull up the scope for those who are interested, but I will summarize the five-part task here:

1. Conduct baseline analyses and projections related to supply and usage of poultry litter in the Shenandoah Valley;
2. Determine the net nutrient load reduction levels to the Chesapeake Bay - taking into account reductions from litter-to-energy system as well as potential new load from replacing land application with commercial fertilizers;
3. Analyze various waste by-product handling options to determine impact on the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
4. Analyze effects from emission deposition on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed; and
5. Analyze and quantify potential air emissions from a large poultry litter combustion facility.

The new report from Virginia Tech is the result of task one, a strictly agro-economic assessment of supply and demand for chicken litter.  This post will be the first in a series of five or so I plan over the next two weeks to summarize the report and revisit some conclusions I've made in the past.

I welcome comments or discussion on this topic - it's one that will have a surprising big impact, not just on Page County and the Shenandoah Valley, but also on the state of Virginia - indeed, the entire Chesapeake Bay Watershed, which covers seven states!

Poultry Litter Advisory Group - Follow-ups Part 4

Today, for my fourth post number on the thread about comments provided to DEQ on the scope of work from the poultry litter working group, I have reviewed and will summarize the letter sent by the Southern Environmental Law Center and the Shenandoah Valley Network. This letter was dated April 25 and signed by Cale Jaffe and Kate Wofford; the version I have is a PDF, so I cannot cut and paste the entire document, thus the summary below.


The letter begins by acknowledging that the DEQ’s and DCR's efforts are meant to restore the Chesapeake Bay and this study is part of that, contributing by analyzing options to reduce net nutrient load from the Shenandoah Valley. The letter also “acknowledges and incorporates by reference” comments that were provided by other significant stakeholders, specifically, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the National Park Service.

The letter outlines three general concerns about the scope:

1. The focus on a single solution – a proposed 55MW litter to energy “incineration and power generation facility” – the draft scope of work says “The purpose of this work plan is to guide research to determine the net environmental benefit of a major litter to energy project. The letter goes on to compare that to a neutral focus considering “the net environmental impacts of a major litter to energy project.”

2. The “short shrift” given to a review of alternatives – the only alternative mentioned in the scope they reviewed was a subsidy for bulk transport of litter out of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The alternatives that should be considered include on-farm technologies, smaller centralized incinerators, improved land application and management methods at the farm level, anaerobic digestion, gasification or thermal oxidation.

3. The draft scope ignores air quality and public health concerns. Here there is a reference to public and stakeholder comments at the 2/11/11 and 3/28/11 meetings which were focused on these potential impacts, yet the DEQ scope ignores them.

Additionally, the letter offers six further comments:

a. The scope of the study should consider air deposition of nutrient loads, since nitrogen compounds can be distributed this way and would likely make their way into the watershed;

b. The scope should include the use of an approved EPA modeling technique for the air deposition analysis by looking at three alternative potential sites and the impacts that result from local climate conditions at them;

c. The scope should provide an expanded description of how land application alternatives will be evaluated; there is a reference to the use of alternative commercial fertilizers “in correct agronomical rates” but appears to assume that there would be no net impact from them;

d. The scope needs to include an evaluation of the storage and transport stages is considered, those handling activities that occur prior to incineration, since there is the potential for watershed impacts here;

e. Since a litter-to-energy plant is not proposed as a replacement for any retired generator facilities, it is an additional source of pollution – there is no real benefit of reducing emissions from the impact of new technologies, only the impact of adding to them, given this situation; and

f. The scope should analyze the ability to meet other standards for poultry litter feedstock generating units.

The letter concludes with and encouragement to strive for the best possible study – as opposed to outright opposition to the plant.

For my fifth and final post on this short series, I hope to have a summary of the scope of work – this will be the draft version these recent posts were responding to – and I will try to have that up on the blog by Monday.

Poultry Litter Advisory Group - Follow-ups Part 3

By way of post number three in the continuing on the thread about comments provided to DEQ on the scope of work from the poultry litter working group, here are excerpts from another stakeholder’s comments.


“…I thoroughly agree with the feedback that you are receiving from the National Parks, the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Shenandoah Valley Network and others regarding your focus exclusively on a 55-MW Fibrowatt incineration facility, and your decision that the study group should ignore air emissions. Your minutes from the comments made by both members of the Advisory Group and the public during the March 28th meeting indicate that "emissions" were mentioned 22 times either directly or indirectly (e.g. indirectly via the word "health"). If you continue to dismiss the thoughtful comments of the members of the Advisory Group and the public, you risk the appearance that a final decision has already been made, the Advisory Group's analysis will be ignored, and that the DEQ's decision will be in Fibrowatt's favor. I am sure that you want to avoid that impression, especially since a proposed scalable, NRCS best management practice (BMP) called animal waste gasification is a [low-emission], economically-viable alternative to incineration.

I am still trying to obtain a copy of the comments sent by the Southern Environmental Law Center and the Shenandoah Valley Network, as well as a copy of the scope I can review and summarize.

What’s telling in this note is the DEQ’s decision to delete a review of air emissions from this scope. Emissions are obviously an important element of the discussion…that is where acid rain comes from, as noted by the NPS in the comments they sent, and as this writer says, emissions were discussed multiple times in the advisory group’s meetings.

Whether or not the emissions released by a proposed plant of this type are within a range that DEQ can acceptably permit, it is important for the public to be made aware of the risks – early and often. DEQ’s deferral of discussion on this point raises the questions the writer above proposes – and may even be a dereliction of responsibility.

Here’s a summary from a previous post about the emissions that have been authorized in the other Fibrowatt permits:

“…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.

As for the risks associated with these emissions, I consulted the Wikipedia articles on them, and the results are bulletized below. 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.

• “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

Back to the comment from the writer at the beginning of this post.  Maybe the correct name for this advisory group - I've posted this before - is "Virginia DEQ's Fibrowatt Site Selection Communication Strategy Group" - especially if it's one where Virginia DEQ is talking at their advisory partners rather than listening to them.

Poultry Litter Advisory Group - Follow-ups Part 2

Continuing on the thread of the scope of work that was recently circulated by the poultry litter working group, I’ve come across the transmittal message that Rick Weeks of DEQ sent out, although I haven’t seen the scope of work itself. So that is the basis of this post #2 in the thread – here are excerpts from Mr. Weeks’ message.


“…In reviewing the draft please note that the elements of Task VI (formerly Task V) are being deferred in order to avoid duplicating costly work that would be re-done, if DEQ receives a permit application. The new language for this initial effort focuses on the proposed project’s impact on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The analysis of a project’s impact on Shenandoah National Park resources is a required element of the air permit review, should any proposed project reach that stage.

“In addition, the evaluation of human health is integral to the air permitting process. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are established for specific pollutants to protect human health. An air quality analysis would be performed on the projected emissions from a large plant to insure that the emissions are below those standards. In addition, a large plant would have to comply with Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards that are established to protect human health from hazardous air pollutants.”

Mr. Weeks asked that comments be returned by April 25 – so this is old news for some readers. I understand that in addition to the National Park Service response I posted yesterday, there are responses from the Southern Environmental Law Center and the Shenandoah Valley Network – I will see if I can obtain a copy of their comments, and I will work on getting a copy of the scope itself that I can summarize here.

Poultry Litter Advisory Group - Follow-ups Part 1

The poultry litter advisory group’s work has continued over the last month, and apparently the scope of work for the study has been drafted and circulated. I have not seen it made available for public review, although I have seen some of the comments – starting today, I will publish summaries of three of them, in full text. Even without seeing the scope of work itself, from these comments it is easy to draw conclusions about the direction of the scope of that study.


This first one is from an NPS stakeholder. I found it insightful not only for the commentary on the scope of work - the DEQ has apparently ruled out the consideration of air pollution in the current draft scope - but from a more general perspective on the health of Shenandoah National Park.

"…Although we do not have time for a more formal response to your email and the indicated changes to the scope of work, I do want to express that the National Park Service is disappointed in your decision to defer elements of air quality impacts in this review. Although we fully understand that it is difficult to assess air impacts without specific details that are normally provided in the regulatory/permitting process, we believe that some elements of air quality impacts need to be retained to inform the process.

"As you may know, Shenandoah National Park has been a research and monitoring site for air quality impacts for decades. There are few if any other sites in Virginia (or the mid-Atlantic) that are better studied.

"For example, the park and Western Virginia datasets provided by UVA are used by EPA as one of two study sites in the nation to evaluate Acid Deposition Recovery. The National Park Service, colleagues, and cooperators have developed hundreds of related publications on air quality trends and impacts. The impacts are chronic and, depending on the pollutant, few trends are improving.

"In a feasibility study as proposed, we believe that context is important. With the study focusing on a plant in the Shenandoah Valley - the information available from the decades of work noted in the above paragraph needs to be considered. The body of knowledge available is significant and important to use - even if a detailed air impacts modeling effort is not included in your study. The information available is wide ranging and covers many pollutants of concern - especially acid deposition.

"The focus of this group's work surrounds the impaired waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Shenandoah National Park has at least six watersheds that are listed by your agency as pH impaired due to acid deposition (air pollution). Other park data indicates that there are likely many more streams that should be included as impaired. A quick tally of the VA DEQ's 2010 report on statewide impaired waters indicate that roughly 150 or more watersheds in Virginia are currently listed as pH impaired. I wasn't able to tally the cause of impairment for all - but I suspect a significant portion [is] a result of acid deposition.

"Permitted poultry litter fired generating facilities in the U.S. and United Kingdom emit significant amounts of pollutants which are precursors to acid deposition. Annual permitted emissions from poultry incineration facilities compare to levels of some coal-fired generating facilities in VA. Again, without a basic review of these air pollutants in the study - in the context of cumulative effects to the airshed or how it may exacerbate already impaired systems - essentially avoids the widescale air pollution issues until the permitting process begins.

Fibrowatt: More Questions than Answers

Today we will close out the “month of Fibrowatt” on Hawksbill Cabin with a post that feeds back a few questions from the dialog over on Facebook, and then a look again at the 2008 Chesapeake Bay Foundation report I referenced in yesterday’s post and linked below.


Susan G. is a reader on Facebook who has been following the Fibrowatt developments in Page County and elsewhere for the last year or so. She wrote with a couple of insights about the current economic and financial situation, raising questions about the viability of a Fibrowatt plant venture in the Valley. She notes that there have been price increases on agricultural inputs to the poultry industry in the range of 30 percent since 2008, and connects this issue with questions about the public financial commitment to a proposed plant – capital intensive as it would be.

Susan admits, as I will, that the full scope of the working group isn’t well understood; for example, are these questions about public finance part of what the ultimate study will address? Costs of poultry waste to energy systems were an area of “recommended further research” in the Chesapeake Bay Foundation paper…minimal calculations of net present value, payback periods, return on investment, etc. all need to be put together to get an understanding of this part of the question.

In the Hawksbill Cabin Fibrowatt research, I have found two references to these questions – in the interest of a timely post I won’t source one of them today, although I have referenced it in the past. In a recent North Carolina newspaper article there was a notation about Fibrowatt’s failure to come to terms with a power company on pricing for the energy produced; this created a delay in project approval and development. Also, in the Foundation’s 2008 report, competition for raw materials and the inability to agree on the amount of public subsidy were noted as reasons for the delay in a Maryland plant.

As Susan writes, emphasizing the scale and duration of the public commitment that would be required – and the risks the public would likely take on for this plant:

“…it would be interesting to know what provisions exist for the possibility that the plant [ceasing to] operate due to an inability to obtain raw materials. Would the entire burden fall onto the public?”

These are examples of some questions that remain unanswered. Maybe in a few weeks I will return to the topic and see what research has been done in this direction. For now, let’s move on to the findings and recommendations in the Foundation’s 2008 report, where the result was summarized as follows:

“Both farm-scale and commercial-scale litter-to-energy systems may be a potential way to use the excess litter found in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The findings of this report suggest that litter-to-energy systems are, for the most part, technologically feasible; however, there are other challenges that must be overcome to make these systems a viable option in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including high system cost and the issue of litter availability. In addition, there are still a number of variables that need to be better understood in order to determine whether litter-to-energy systems are truly feasible in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and whether or not they should be promoted by organizations such as the Chesapeake Bay Program.”

I should note that the Hawksbill Cabin blog and Chesapeake Bay Foundation coverage had some similarities (although I didn’t have a grant to do the research…maybe I should look into it): we both looked at alternatives to the Fibrowatt approach using some case studies, and we both considered supply and demand impacts. And, we both close with a few more questions that remain unanswered – in the Foundation’s report, these are areas for future research, which I will summarize here for brevity.

• What level of nutrient load reduction can be achieved through the use of a litter-to-energy system? A more in-depth analysis is needed to quantify the reduction resulting from the use of litter-to-energy systems versus the status quo (e.g. land application).
• What sort of air emissions do these systems release (type and amount)? Although there is already some information on this, additional information would be useful.
• What impact do the air emissions from these systems have on water quality?
• Are there potential toxic air pollution concerns that need to be better addressed (such as those resulting from the release of airborne arsenic)?
• Are state and federal air permitting programs set up to allow for these types of operations?
• How much excess litter is available in different regions of the Chesapeake Bay watershed? What other factors affect litter supply (e.g. price of energy and other market forces)? Is there enough excess litter to support a large commercial-scale litter-to-energy plant?
• How much does an on-farm litter-to-energy system cost? On-farm systems are still relatively new and many of the current systems have been constructed as part of demonstration or research projects, making it difficult to determine the cost of future systems.
• How much money would a farmer need to put up to get a system installed and operating on his farm?
• What is the potential payback timeframe for a litter-to-energy system? Several ongoing studies are expected to quantify this. Understanding this component is critical in determining the marketability of these systems.
• Are farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed willing to participate in litter-to-energy projects? If it is determined that litter-to-energy systems are viable and should be promoted in the watershed, then education and outreach efforts will be needed to encourage farmer adoption of these systems.
• How much time must a farmer devote to operating and maintaining an on-farm litter-to-energy system?

If readers have studies or other citations you'd like me to take a look at and post on in the future, your comments are welcomed here, or you can send them to me by email.  In the meantimes, the Foundation’s 2008 report can be found here for reference:

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_17018.pdf

Poultry Litter Supply and Demand in the Valley

From time to time I’ve heard mention of a report that was published by the Chesapeake Bay Program in January 2008. Informally, I understand that the report has been mentioned in the working group’s discussions; in fact, some of the stakeholders acknowledged in that report are participating in the current Virginia effort. I found a copy of the report online (link below), its lengthy title – merited because this is a comprehensive report, worth the read if you are interested in this energy topic – is Turning Chesapeake Bay Watershed Poultry Manure and Litter into Energy: An Analysis of the Impediments and the Feasibility of Implementing Energy Technologies in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed in Order to Improve Water Quality.

Among the feedback I have heard about the second meeting was a discussion about the scale of a potential plant in the Shenandoah Valley. They are talking about a 55MW plant, which would be comparatively large, considering other plants that were discussed in the Chesapeake Bay Program report, summarized in the table below.

Location/ MW/ Annual Litter Requirements

• Eye, Suffolk, UK/12.7 /140K tons
• Glanford, UK/ 13.5/ Not reported
• Thetford, UK/ 38.5 /420K tons
• Westfield, Scotland/ 9.8/ 110K tons
• Fibrominn, Benson, MN/ 55/ 700K tons
• Fibroshore (Proposed, MD) /38.5/ 300K tons (plus 50K tons of biomass)
• Conectiv (Proposed retrofit, MD) /35 /400K tons

One point of interest is the litter requirements for this type of plant. According to the report, the Fibrominn plant requires 700,000 tons annually to generate 55MW of power; in the working group’s discussion, the requirement was identified as 400,000 tons. Beyond the apparent discrepancy in this litter requirement is the question of where would it come from.

The University of Minnesota report I referenced yesterday – dated 2000 and available at the ** link below – estimated that just over 450,000 tons of poultry litter are available in the Valley. The proposed plant, at this volume, would require the purchase of nearly all waste litter available in the Valley, unless the purchase radius were extended. The report estimated that another 110,000 tons are available if that radius is extended to 160 miles, for a total of 560,000 tons, which would be adequate for the level of demand discussed at the working group.

I'm out of time today.  However, there is one point of interest about the competition for litter - it is useful to some farmers as a fertilizer, after all, and with proper management of the impacts to the watershed this use would likely continue - in the case of the Fibroshore plant, a Perdue establishment also buys waste litter:

"Whether or not there is a sufficient amount of poultry litter available in the region for a power plant of this size is questionable. A large portion of the region’s litter is already being used by Perdue AgriRecycle, which is a large-scale litter pelletizing operation located in Sussex County, Delaware. Perdue Incorporated invested more than $13 million in Perdue AgriRecycle, which started operation in 2001 and can process the equivalent of 400 poultry houses worth of litter each year."

More to follow, stay tuned...

* http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_17018.pdf  


** http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/14825/1/rr000048.pdf

Working Group Reports - and the Optimal Location of a Fibrowatt Plant

While we await additional information, there is a report up on WHSV this morning about the working group meeting held yesterday in Harrisonburg at the DEQ offices.  The article, linked below*, says the working group is still in the scoping stage of the study.  Seventy people attended, including several of our Page County folks, including J.D. Cave and Lee McWhorter, who are quoted in the article.

Meanwhile, here on Hawksbill Cabin, I have been looking for a map of the major concentrations of poulty farms around the state.  Here is some 2009 data I found about the industry in the Shenandoah Valley on http://www.vapoultry.com/:

• Approximately 550 chicken farms
• Approximately 280 turkey farms
• Approximately $80,000,000 in grower pay
• 6 poultry processing companies (Cargill, George’s Foods, Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, Perdue Farms, Tyson Foods and Virginia Poultry Growers Cooperative, Inc) employ more than 6,000 people.
• Indirectly supports approximately 43,200 related jobs outside of the poultry industry, many within the Shenandoah Valley
• 5 poultry company feed mills produce more than 1,500,000 tons of poultry feed annually

While I haven't yet found a map of the industry as it stands today, I did find some 2000 research from the University of Minnesota (surprisingly, there are a couple of papers at that school about the industry in the Shenandoah Valley...of course, Minnesota is one of the country's largest poultry producers, it is also the location of Fibrowatt's first US plant) about operating a feed-to-litter exchange as a way to improve the economics of hauling both of these poultry inputs**.  The data likely need some updating, however, there is a map of the optimal location for the exchange on page 29 of the report. 

It proposed Harrisonburg as the optimal location, based on haul distances ranging from 64 to 185 miles - from locations scattered around the state in all directions.  So there is a precedent for this location and there is a longer term context for the feasibility study. 

We'll keep you posted.

* http://www.whsv.com/news/headlines/Study_To_Look_Into_Feasibility_of_Poultry_Litter_Power_Plant_118806854.html
** http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/14825/1/rr000048.pdf

A Better Name for the Waste-to-Energy Working Group

Thanks for the many of you that have engaged this topic so far, on Facebook and here on the blog.  It continues to be important for the Valley...

One commenter has mentioned that the working group that I've posted on a couple of times in this series has narrowed their focus to strictly consider the impacts of a Fibrowatt plant that would prospectively be placed somewhere in the Valley. 

Perhaps that group should be renamed the "Fibrowatt Site Selection Working Group."

Your elected officials need to hear from you if you do not think your voice has been heard.

The Waste-to-Energy Working Group Meeting, Part 2



Photograph of Fibrowatt's Minnesota plant.

 At the risk of over-summarizing the discussion at the work group, this (long, 1,000 words +) second post will highlight a couple of the topics of discussion that took place there. As a reminder, the next work session will take place in Harrisonburg, acknowledging that we are talking about a Valley issue here, and not a Piedmont issue…and you can find the full set of notes that I am working from on the Page County Blog at http://pagecountyblog.com/poultry-litter-meeting  (there’s also a recording of the work session there).  A full history of Hawksbill Cabin posts can be found by clicking the Fibrowatt label below.


On further review, the discussion points this panel is pushing around makes it sound like a Fibrowatt plant is the only way to go as far as addressing the chicken litter waste problem. At its simplest, the Fibrowatt concept only trades off water pollution for air pollution. That’s why communities where these projects have been proposed, like Page County – locations in Georgia, North Carolina, and now Delmarva – are rejecting the proposals.

It remains surprising to me that our governor has chartered this meeting without including alternative energy from litter approaches at the table. As second thought that comes to mind is the absence from tourism industry participants beyond the NPS representation.

Now back to the meeting notes – here is a summary of the questions this study will attempt to address.

• The study is supposed to determine net nutrient load reduction levels - taking into account reductions from litter-to-energy system as well as potential new load from replacing land application with commercial fertilizers.
• The study will analyze effects from emission deposition on the Chesapeake Bay watershed and effects on Shenandoah National Park air quality.
• The study will analyze various waste ash handling options to determine impact on Chesapeake Bay watershed.
• The study will analyze and compare costs of alternative solutions for nutrient reductions in the Shenandoah-Potomac watershed.

Once these basic scope questions were discussed, the session moved onto other topics, including a straightforward listing of the concerns of the stakeholders at the table. There was also a brainstorming session of ideas that might serve to flesh out the study, but due to space constraints I can’t include that full discussion; instead I will summarize after this list of concerns.

• Something needs to be done to improve water quality. Removing 75,000 tons of poultry litter/yr has already been determined as a necessary action.
• Must look at how this alternative affects air quality.
• What are the net impacts if 150,000 tons of poultry litter is removed from the watershed but replaced with commercial grade fertilizer? What are the impacts to the air from the current land application practices? There must be some ammonia currently going into the air with land application. What is the net environmental benefit of using litter as fertilizer versus using litter for energy? Will litter be replaced with commercial fertilizers? How much nitrogen and phosphorus is removed from agricultural application as litter vs. replaced by commercial fertilizer?
• What are the benefits to the Shenandoah River? Look at algae and odor as parameters. Is there an issue with the pesticides in the wood chips that might be burned? Is arsenic an issue?
• What is the sustainability of the fuel? Can emissions be determined from a pilot scale project, and then scaled up? What is the heating value of the fuel, compared to heating value of other fuels? What type of regulations does EPA have on this type of Biomass? Is Bio-char good for the soil? Look at emission depositions, and how it affects the soil. Analyze micro incineration emission as well as emissions from transportation.
• Arsenic has not been attributed to fish kills in the region. DCR has already evaluated the arsenic issue, and determined the poultry industry is not at fault. The poultry growers have nutrient management plans. Litter that is land applied must meet regulatory requirements as well. Who has measured the amount of N and P not making it into streams?
• Bay model is being revised. Make sure research is accurate, reflecting the latest models.
• Comparison of effects that ammonia emissions have on air and water when land applied versus effect on air and water from emissions coming from a large centralized waste-to-energy plant. Also must incorporate effects of the nutrient trading program (HB1102). If nutrients are being reduced in the agricultural sector, they should get the credit.
• Review agro economics of phosphorous and nitrogen.
• Review unintended consequences of each of the alternative solutions. We have baseline information on existing air quality and TMDLs; consider the information we already have.
• What happens to the chemical composition of the Nitrogen, Sulfur, Copper and other pollutants from poultry litter in a high heat environment? Are dioxin and furan an issue?
• Arsenic should be reviewed to rule it out as an issue. Also, need to evaluate how much poultry litter is currently being land applied and use math to determine what the actual excess amount available as potential fuel is.
• Evaluate why Fibrowatt was able to build in Minnesota, but is not having success in the Eastern Shore.
• Also, need to look at potential regulatory changes, such as the nutrient trading program, that might affect pricing, and the overall economics of any such project.
• Fibrowatt’s work on the Delmarva Peninsula is complicated since Fibrowatt needs to find a long term PPA. The Company is also evaluating what to do with the ash.
• Look at current legislative measure that might be outlawing phosphorous in fertilizer.
• Find the chemical composition of the ash.

Here’s a summary of the brainstorming list – actually, just highlights I’ve chosen. It seems like the panel seeks balance in some of these concerns despite the presence of Fibrowatt at the table. The question in my mind remains – why are they the only technology represented at the table here, when alternatives are available – efficient, scalable alternatives, that do not require so much public underwriting. At least those are questions the panel raised in this discussion.

• Can this study be funded for and produced by Universities and technical experts who are objective and have no stake in the outcomes?
• Should the study consider incineration technology only?
• Which technology will be used for the project and how will alternative technologies be evaluated?
• Can other biomass be included in addition to poultry litter?
• What scale? Centralized (large) or on-farm (small) and associated transportation issues?
• Evaluate other smaller, decentralized solutions?
• What are the costs of alternative solutions?
• Change the location of the next advisory meeting to Valley to increasing transparency?

Over the next few weeks, I am going to work on getting a few posts up about the alternatives to Fibrowatt for waste-to-energy plants. It was an oversight not to include them during the discussions last year – so we’ll correct that ASAP.

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.

Revisiting Fibrowatt - One Year Later

Page County readers have started to see a few indications that the Commonwealth of Virginia is still considering the use of electricity generated by poultry waste, which are sometimes called litter incinerators. Then approximately two weeks ago, a meeting with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Department of Conservation and Recreation held a meeting on a similar topic in Charlottesville.

I have a copy of the minutes from that meeting, which I will summarize in a post tomorrow. However, the presence of Fibrowatt’s Terry Walmsley at the table caused my eyebrows to raise, and I am sure I am not the only one. Honestly, it seemed for a time that all the work those many Page County residents put in last year to understand what a Fibrowatt plant would mean to our quality of life, and the Board of Supervisors’s letter of “thanks but no thanks” was being ignored by the governor and his administration - and I honestly had to question whether this governor had sold out to special interests.

The significance of the meeting being held in Charlottesville wasn’t lost on our delegate, Todd Gilbert, who sent a letter to the PN&C editor outlining his position and his commitment to representing us in the matter.

I am reprinting the letter here (thanks to Keith for getting up on the Page County blog so quickly!). The PN&C has the headline as:

Gilbert: I will continue to say “No” to Fibrowatt Plant
Delegate thinks Charlottesville meeting may have been held outside Valley to avoid public scrutiny.

Dear Editor,

Recently, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Conservation and Recreation sponsored a meeting in Charlottesville. The purpose of the meeting was to begin the process
to determine if the Shenandoah Valley would be suitable for placement of an industrial plant that would burn poultry litter in a process that would generate electric power.

I question why the meeting was held in Charlottesville, clearly not located in the Valley; a more convenient location for Valley farmers, elected officials and other stakeholders would have been the DEQ offices in Harrisonburg, in the very heart of the agricultural Shenandoah Valley. The reason for the location likely has much to do with avoiding public scrutiny.

Since the meeting, I have received communications from constituents questioning if the Charlottesville meeting was the start of a procedure to force the poultry litter incinerator on the citizens of Page or Shenandoah County. I have been told that the meeting was the beginning of a study only.

When I first heard of the Fibrowatt project, it almost sounded too good to be true. It would have provided
a few jobs, taken poultry litter off the hands of our farmers, generated some electric power and ensured fewer nutrients were making it into the Chesapeake Bay. What I have since learned about the proposed project and its 300 foot smoke stack spewing Lord-knows-what into the air quickly led me to the conclusion that this was not a good fit for us.

Regardless of the reasons for the meeting or its Charlottesville setting, I would like to assure my constituents that I will continue to oppose the construction of a Fibrowatt plant or other such contraption in our counties now, tomorrow, and as long as I represent the 15th House District.

Delegate C. Todd Gilbert
Virginia House of Delegates

I have yet to thank the delegate for this letter, a shortcoming I will take care of right away.  He has a Facebook page, for those who might like to pass along a note of support on this issue as well. 

For tomorrow’s post, I’ll summarize the notes I was passed along from the Charlottesville meeting.