Prospective Views of the Fibrowatt Stack

When I first came to the Valley, I did so after looking down at the town of Luray from Skyland at Shenandoah National Park.  What a lovely place we saw down below, and my wife and I took a drive down to check it out.  Here we are three years later, having restored a unique one-of-a-kind home for a getaway.

It's a community I've come to love and enjoy.  I want what's best for the people there and do everything I can to promote the Valley back here in the DC area.  

I came across some images that a friend put together using Google Earth to mock up the view of this proposed Fibrowatt plant on the Shenandoah Valley region.  I wish I was skilled enough to make similar ones...but reprinting them here to reinforce my point about the potential for devastating impacts on tourism in the Valley.

An Open Letter to Fibrowatt

Today, my note in response to comments I received from Terry Walmsley at Fibrowatt.
----
Terry,


As I mentioned privately last week, I appreciate your candor and support in the research. I'm dissappointed now that we'll be calling into question the language I use to describe the potential impacts of industrial uses of land that is currently open farmland and part of the overall character of Page County.

I gave you and Fibrowatt a fair shake and treated the research with an arm's length approach. While I read the press and other side's perspective, I avoided the use of the word "incinerator" to describe the furnace process. I have argued here that maybe Fibrowatt's process is part of a solution that bridges the fossil fuel society we currently are to a sustainable zero impact society of the future.  I have come to a fairly complex conclusion and stand on middle ground about this prospect.

In the end I didn't even draw on the Yadkin River Keeper or the other Fibrowatch material to make my decision. The "alleged" shake-down violation and "alleged" late compliance with self reporting that I read about on your own site led me to the Minnesota permitting document and the list of what's allowed in the plume coming out of the 300-foot stack.

Today, I am posting some marked up images of views so that readers can imagine for themselves the impact a plant here will have on tourism...since Shenandoah National Park attracts 1 million visits annually and Luray Caverns another half million; and we now have 3 triathlons, 2 state level bike races, and quite a few 5 and 10Ks going on in the area,

I think the impact of a 300 foot stack and a plume - no matter how benign one might say that plume is - will have a very serious impact on a County that has no other economic advantage. Have you modeled the economic impact your plant would have on these industries upon its prospective arrival?

Those triathlons would end when groundbreaking occurs. That means several hundred room nights and meals go up in smoke, since the triathletes come for the weekend and enjoy the area before and after their event.

Now, I don't hold you entirely responsible for this potential impact - it is Page County EDA that is trying to change the balance with the discussions you are now having.

I'll stand by my descriptions. I have written my stand against any industrial use of the Project Clover property long before I heard about Fibrowatt. Any industrial use of that site is going to have a devastating impact on the Page County economy - including a Fibrowatt plant.

Best,
"Cabin Jim"

An Open Letter to My Page County Neighbors re: Fibrowatt

Here's an excerpt of a message I sent to local business owners yesterday.  While this focuses on the retail, hospitality, and tourism industry in the County, farmers can also expect impacts from the proposed plant. 
--- 
...As you probably have read in the Page News and Courier, a company called Fibrowatt is making a presentation to the Board of Supervisors in Luray next week on March 2. Fibrowatt builds power plants that burn poultry farm waste to produce electricity – and they proposing to build a plant at Project Clover. Now, the plant will bring some jobs with it to the County, which is generally a good thing, but it will also have a significant impact on tourism here, and your retail business, in two ways.

First, the easy, visible one: the plant Fibrowatt built in Minnesota has a 300-foot smokestack (for comparison, the smokestack at the old tannery in Luray is 60 feet tall). A 300-foot smokestack in the center of the Valley will be visible for more than five miles. Tourists at the Luray Caverns parking lot will see it. Families enjoying the Hawksbill Pool in Stanley will see it. Hikers on the AT in Shenandoah National Park will see it from points south of Big Meadows all the way to Compton Peak – about four hiking days! And the bike riders in our popular bike races will see this smoke stack for just about their entire route.

The second one, which is not as visible and is probably more of a concern: among the emissions that will come from that smokestack are materials such as hydrochloric acid, nitrous oxide, and sulphur dioxide. Some of these are merely components of acid rain, but others can have pretty serious health effects. The prevailing wind pattern in the area blows to the northeast or to the southwest – these emissions will blow directly onto Luray or Stanley proper from the proposed location at Project Clover. The plant will produce much less of these materials than a coal plant, but how much of this kind of stuff is okay?

Page County’s Economic Development Administration is going to argue that this project will bring much needed jobs to the county, and that is important in today’s economy. But if the project is approved, it seems a pretty sure bet that the tourism, hospitality, and retail industries here in the county will suffer – and that’s your business and livelihood that we’re talking about.

Okay, I do have one more thing to mention. To haul the poultry waste, which will come from as far away as West Virginia, Culpeper, and Waynesboro, an additional 80 trucks a day will have to drive on Business 340 through Stanley and Luray…that’s up to 12 trucks an hour!

I worry that the promise of a few new jobs will lead to an easy approval by the Board of Supervisors, even though it seems clear that the plant will have a devastating impact on tourism here…so the Supervisors need to hear from you about your opinion of a plant like this. I did a lot of research on the topic before coming to my conclusions on the plant, and you can take a look here: http://hawksbillcabin.blogspot.com/search/label/Fibrowatt if you’d like more information to help you make up your mind.

However you feel about the potential for a power plant like this (and its associated 300-foot smokestack) in Page County, please get in touch with your District Supervisor and let them know. A list of the Supervisors and their contact information is at http://pagecounty.virginia.gov/files/agendas-minutes/board%20of%20supervisors.pdf

Thanks for your attention. Here’s to a prosperous 2010 in Page County.

Best regards,
“Cabin Jim” Jim Turner
Hawksbill Cabin blogger

More thoughts on Fibrowatt impacts

Following up on the discussion of potential emissions from a power plant in the Valley, today I wanted to think about some different supporting infrastructure that will need to be constructed. The starting point for this analysis is Homeland Renewable Energy’s website, Fibrowatt’s parent company, specifically the technical data sheet about the Minnesota plant, which is the first reference link at the end of the post.

There are two points to call out specifically, both of which will require specialized infrastructure: (1) the stack height of 300 feet, and (2) the voltage that power generated at the plant is delivered to the grid – 115kV.

Starting with the stack height, it’s hard to get a perspective on how tall 300 feet is in Page County, since the Valley is surrounded by two mountain ridges. The nearby peaks in Shenandoah National Park, notably Stonyman and Hawksbill, are 4,000 feet tall. Two easily identifiable peaks in the shorter Masssanutten ridge are Kennedy peak and Duncan Knob, at between 2,500 and 2,800 feet tall.

There are numerous photographs of panaoramic views from these summits on the Hiking Upward site (www.hikingupward.com) or from Google Earth. From those heights, tall constructed objects are visible, but for the time being there are none over 150 feet tall, these being cell towers. As I drove through Luray last weekend I made a mental inventory or a few of them – the Tannery stack, at about 50 feet, the Luray Caverns Bell Tower, also about 50 feet tall, the cell tower on the ridge above downtown about 100 feet, and the tower near Wal-Mart, about 120 feet tall.  There are also water towers in Luray and Stanley, both of which are well below 100 feet.

Three hundred feet is pretty hard to quantify in Page County, because there is simply nothing that tall here – roughly equivalent to a 30 story building. This stack is five or six times as tall as the tannery stack, and nearly three times as tall as the tower near Wal-Mart. A smoke stack of that height would immediately draw attention from all of the panoramic vistas along the Shenandoah National Park ridge, including several of the historic overlooks on Skyline Drive. Hikers on the Appalachian Trail, when they are on the west side of the ridge, would see it from a few miles south of Big Meadow all the way up to the Rileyville area, perhaps as far as Compton Peak – four or five hiking days.

Down to earth, in the Valley, this smokestack would easily be visible from the Luray Caverns parking lot, where 500,000 tourists a year would take in the view. And families and kids at the Hawksbill Recreation Center in Stanley, which is very close to the proposed location at Project Clover, would also have a very clear perspective on the stack. The bike crowd in for state qualifiers – about a thousand of them, would see the stack from all along their route, and it would surely be a topic of conversation for the thousand-plus tri-athletes in June and August, putting an end to these emergent tourist activities.

The second infrastructure issue that draws my attention is the electrical transmission equipment that will be required. The voltage that will be delivered to the grid – 115kV, is considered high voltage and will require high voltage transmission lines. The Valley already has a few of these – but none running through the center area at Project Clover.

A Google search for pictures of high voltage towers to me to a Minnesota state permitting site, which is linked below. There are photos with a couple of examples like this one, and there are some images of big open country towers in the Wikipedia article cited in the references. A string of these (smaller ones!) will be needed to transmit the power to the national grid and to the end customer – a quick note here that that customer could be anywhere in the United States that is connected to Fibrowatt’s entry grid.

As indicated by this simple graphic from the Department of Energy (also found on Wikipedia), there will also need to be a substation, or transformer, built in proximity or on the grounds of the power plant. There's a photograph of a typical transformer station below.  While altitude won’t be significant here, the necessary towers will begin from there, radiating out through the Valley. I suspect that the transmission line will impact the Massanutten Ridge in some form, as I doubt that clearing space for this construction would be allowed in the Park. On the other hand, there are lines in Thornton Gap, so this may be the point of entry for the power to the grid.

In the research I’ve been doing, I have tried to keep an open mind to Fibrowatt and the opportunity to have a biomass plant in Page Valley. The proposed location, as I understand it, at Project Clover is my major point of concern. It is dead center in the Valley with prevailing winds to the northeast and southwest, which means any emission particulate matter will fall on the neighboring towns of Stanley and Luray. The height of the building and smokestack will be visible from throughout the Valley, including prime tourist attractions.

I’ve always been against the use of the Project Clover land for any industrial use, but I am against it even more when that use will require obtrusive construction such as this. If the plant were to come to the Valley in a location with less impact, I might support it – but since the Page County EDA has pushed this site into consideration, I have to make a stand against it.

At this point, I’ve done enough research on Fibrowatt to have an opinion. I foresee devastating economic impacts to the tourism and agriculture industries in the Valley, and the potential for significant environmental degradation. To put it simply: I’d rather not see a plant here.

http://homelandrenewableenergy.us/pdf/fibrominn-tech-data.pdf

http://www.mnpower.com/regulatory_matters/transmission/tower_fact_sheet.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pylon

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

Page County Board of Supervisors Meeting and Fibrowatt Presentation

My friends in the Valley tell me that there is a meeting at Luray Middle School March 2, 7 pm in the cafeteria. It is a planned working session, which means public questions will not be allowed, and Fibrowatt will be giving a presentation there. 

I am going to try and attend, but no guarantees. 

I was told that if you have questions for the Board, they need to be submitted in advance, and they may or may not be dealt with at the meeting.  As far as how to get the questions to the BOS, their addresses are available from http://pagecounty.virginia.gov/files/agendas-minutes/board%20of%20supervisors.pdf

I hope the information that I've provided on this site is useful to Page County residents in understanding the nature of power plant operations and Fibrowatt.  So far I haven't gotten into the environmental discussions that continue in North Carolina and elsewhere - those are comming once I have a bit more time.

Losing Part of the Apple Tree

Just last month I was starting to think of some Spring chores, including getting our apple tree pruned - http://hawksbillcabin.blogspot.com/2010/01/february-pruning.html ...

It turns out that the weight of the snow on some of those branches caused one of the main trunk branches to break and fall, luckily only hitting the house with a glancing blow and no damage.  So we had Ricky Dinges come up and cut the fallen tree out of there.

While he was there, we had him cut down a very gnarly old Dogwood in the back, that was trying to wrap itself up in the power lines.  It's sad to lose a 50 year-old tree like that, but there was a real danger there so we thought i was a good idea. 

While we were talking about his work and paying him, we took a closer look at this pine tree next to one of the white oaks.  Two years ago, the pine in a similar pairing fell during Spring thaw - so we've decided to have Ricky and his crew back in to take this tree down before it falls on its own. 

Looks like I am going to have another bunch of camp logs for Chris -

Interview with Benson, part 2

For this post, continuing with the second half of my interview last week with the city of Benson, MN about the Fibrowatt plant there. I had shared my draft notes with Mr. Worthington and he provided some clarifications for me, so I updated the earlier posts with regard to the infrastructure construction.


4. Tell me a little bit about the Citizens’ Advisory Council in Benson. Who was on it, and how were they chosen? What were some highlights of their work? Were there aspects of that process you might improve in the future?

• Council is now operating as an independent organization, separate from city government
• Formed from citizens who had stakeholder groups (barbers, accountants, clergy) so they could draw input from their networks
• Met once a month during permitting, which took longer than expected, still meets under company sponsorship
• Members now sometimes give plant tours
• Fibrowatt showed focus and optimism during a long process, stuck with it, committed
• Negligible community complaints during construction process

5. Share some insights on the job impact that the Fibrowatt plant has had in the area.

• Employment stands at around 35 jobs at the plant, some originally from outside but seeing a transition to more localized work force
• Power plant jobs are technology jobs – workers in white coats and with growing expertise
• Anecdote about a person who started as a security guard and has worked her way up into new opportunities
• Proximity impacts – neighboring fertilizer plant (North American Fertilizer) with 6-8 permanent employees and seasonal boost of 30 or 40 part-timers; trucking company relocated, estimate of 100 driver jobs and 10 or more mechanics, plus management; new to area (synergy) is an Ethanol gasifier plant that also uses biomass plant materials – 100M gallons sold as E85
• Litter spreaders still have work, the plant does not take all of the litter

6. Is Fibrowatt a good citizen in Benson? Can you give some examples of their impact?

• Good citizen in Benson
• Fibrowatt now is 25 to 35 percent of local tax base
• With the 50MW plant and the Ethanol plant, the city of Benson is now energy independent

Remember to drop a note in the comments if you would like a copy of this transcript in a Word doc.

Interview with Benson, part 1

Earlier in the week, I was able to hook up by telephone with Rob Worthington and Elliot Nelson, who are both part of Benson, Minnesota’s city government. Our conversation was centered on six questions, and they generously gave me 45 minutes of their time for this discussion. On the whole, these folks consider Fibrowatt to be a good citizen in Benson, and the plant there is the centerpiece of an evolving concentration of energy firms.


Today, I am posting the first half of the interview…in the interest of getting this material on-line quickly, I’ll just put it up as raw notes – one takeaway I have from the information they shared is a need to do a bit more work, specifically to try and get a better understanding of the environmental activism springing up around Fibrowatt’s planned opening of three plants in North Carolina. Some of my Page County neighbors have expressed an interest in trying to develop some financial pro-formas around a deal like this to try and evaluate the costs and benefits, both to the community as well as to Fibrowatt, and I am looking forward to digging into that issue.

1. How was Benson selected? Was there a state or regional competition?

• We had a brief discussion of how Fibrowatt came to the US in approximately 1990 (JT note – summarized in a previous blog post)
• Fibrowatt was invited to Minnesota by the turkey grower association, who was concerned with managing the waste from their production processes
• Benson has dealt with essentially the same team at Fibrowatt and HRE since 1990
• Following Fibrowatt’s introduction to the industry and farmers, there was a statewide competition, with about 30 locations submitting proposals. There was a down-select process, and Benson was shortlisted with two other towns
• Benson went after it, crafting a proposal to show why they were the best choice; mainly based on distance/location in proximity to the industry and on time to deliver
• Proposal included few incentives; during plant build-out the town provided some support on surveys, a grant of 50% of infrastructure costs was obtained, a sales tax abatement on purchased construction materials; during operation there is some relief from a state “personal property” tax that applies to power plants (tax targets a nearby nuclear plant)
• Sold the land a current commercial rates
• Town’s infrastructure construction costs were about $350-$400K for water (JT note: I want to follow-up, I had the sense that the town has been reimbursed for these costs) (Clarification from Benson follows) The sewer and water capital improvements needed for Fibrowatt cost about $550,000 total. The state paid half the cost with a grant to the city and the company reimbursed the other half from financing proceeds at financial closing. The company is charged city regulated utility rates for back-up power, water and wastewater services.


2. A big part of the discussion in Luray is a concern about potential emissions. I’ve seen some information about a violation and a settlement at the Benson plant. Can you offer any insight to this?

• Benson is a small town of 3,500 people, the plant is in the city limits
• Understanding of this violation was that it stemmed from commissioning and start-up activities, early stage shake downs
• Commissioning contractor at fault, but Fibrowatt is the permitted company so bears responsibility
• Fibrowatt agreed to pay fine and upgrade equipment
• May be some minor penalties related to being a day or two late in compliance
• Town has had no odor or emissions complaints by citizens in the 2.5 years of operations
• During longer permitting process, had the opportunity to redesign a high water use aspect of the plant to use less water

3. Going hand in hand with these concerns, there is a lot of activism from environmental groups in North Carolina related to the three Fibrowatt plants slated for that state. Were these interests present in Benson? Why do you think these causes are involved in North Carolina?

• A plant like this is going to encounter resistance from individuals
• In the NC case, appear to be well-funded interests, no similar issues in Benson
• Farmers recognized the nutrient value of the litter, but saw regulation coming up about its use and the prospective loss of its value
• Discussion here about the ability to apply litter only twice a season in Minnesota due to climate, issues about storage, risk of run-off due to large storage “dumps”
• As a farming community, Benson recognized the value of the opportunity as a job creation impact, less concerned with other potential impacts

I'll post the second half of the interview over the weekend.  Comments on this issue are welcome, and I am glad to share a copy of these notes in MS Word by request.

Clarendon Construction Update - February 2010

Taking a break from the Fibrowatt coverage to update the neighboring construction around my office. 

Things are moving fast now, the courses of brick masonry are nearly at the top of the larger building, and a lot of the fenestration is nearing completion.  Soon the outside construction will taper down and appearances of progress will be harder to detect.

On the mid-block building, I think they are close to topping out on the structure. 

Another project has begun within a block of these, that is creating some real traffic problems when combined with the snow.  I got news that my team (many of my economist colleagues work downtown in DC) will be moving to my building in Arlington in the late summer. 

Fibrowatts Citizen Council in Minnesota - Part 2

For today’s post, I am taking another look at the Citizen’s Advisory Panel in Benson, MN, this time for the period January 2005 – January 2007. For Page County readers who may be interested in checking them out, the minutes are an easy read and you can get through the four years of meetings in less than 2 hours; of course I have summarized them here and yesterday for convenience. The Benson, MN CAP is shown in the photograph here – as with the plant photos, if anyone has a copyright issue with my using this image, please let me know in the comments and I will work with you to make it right.

After Fibrowatt had established itself in the area, the city’s sponsorship was ended and the group operated under the company’s sponsorship. During this period the plant was constructed, and progress tours were a frequent part of the agenda, along with safety and percentage complete briefings. Meetings were not held on a monthly basis, taking place on more like a bi-monthly basis, since efforts were mainly focused on construction at this time and there were few community issues coming up.

The first meeting, January 2005, reported on the financing from Prudential, John Hancock, and others, which was completed in December 2004. Long-lead items had been ordered and were in fabrication, with on-site construction scheduled to begin in the Spring. After selecting the EPC contractor, Fibrowatt arranged introductions for the local companies with the contractor for procurement opportunities.

During the remainder of the 2005 meetings, topics included:

• Discussion of Fibrowatt’s receipt of a request for information regarding a Maryland Eastern Shore plant
• Boiler fabrication status and construction of the supporting facilities
• Public review of plant exterior color
• Piling status and coordination of schedules to ensure noise management
• Plant tours, viewing structural steel and foundations progress, as well as computer renderings of major components
• The lack of community complaints, and the desire of Fibrowatt to keep an open-door policy to allow for resolution should they arise.

In 2006, construction continued in earnest, with 80 craft workers reported as being on site during January. This number grew during the year to 115 in March, and approached 300 by October. Progress continued with a very safe record, the CAP minutes indicate no injuries on the site. And the record does not include any references to community complaints or any issues during the plant construction stage.

There are a couple of references to the stack height at the plant. It was designed to be 300 feet tall, and since the plant site is near the Benson airport, there were FAA compliance issues that needed to be completed, mainly regarding the lighting.

In July, there was discussion of the sourcing area for litter, and the need for a wider geographic area in case of disease or other issues with the growers. Also, there is a reference to the other types of biomass that could be used to mix in with litter, augmenting it and ensuring a consistent fuel supply.

A last item that was covered in significant detail was the ash processing. Ash from the plant contains most of the same chemical and nutrient content as the raw litter, with the exception of the Nitrogen. The ash can be processes into fertilizer, and a company called North American Fertilizer planned to locate a processing plant in close proximity to the Fibrowatt plant. This company met with the CAP to explain how its operation was conducted and to show renderings of the future plant.

The last CAP meeting recorded in these meeting minutes was in January 2007. The plant was at 80 percent complete at that time. No public complaints had been received, and further meetings postponed until later in the Spring, when the plant was anticipated to be complete and in operation.

These meeting minutes can be found at:

http://www.fibrominncap.org/minutes2.html

Fibrowatts Citizen Council in Minnesota - Part 1

I spent some time over the last few days reviewing the Fibrominn website – this being the Minnesota power plant built and owned by Fibrowatt (I borrowed the plant photo from their site - if anyone has objections or views this as a copyright issue, let me know by comments, please).

My intention was to learn of the Citizens Advisory Panel (CAP) operated and dealt with potential community issues, including truck traffic, odors and emissions. In general, the meeting minutes are short on details regarding the technical discussions that were surely held, especially during the meetings where environmental permitting issues were raised, but in general, they report a straightforward process that engaged and informed the community.


The CAP process happened in two phases, first as a City of Benson effort that started in April 2001 and went through October 2003. After that, and the subject of a future post, the effort was sponsored by Fibrominn for the remaining time it was in operation. The first group was a 12 member panel of local citizens chosen to represent the Benson community and provide public input during the development, construction and operation of the Fibrominn project. Their mission statement was: “Citizens and Fibrominn working together to transmit and receive information and provide feedback to ensure community ownership and awareness.

During the very first session of the Benson CAP, the following assumptions, concerns, and issues were discussed:

• The trucks will be cleaned and disinfected before leaving the plant
• The goal is to have zero discharge of water
• The signing of the Excel Energy purchase agreement, with a reference to Minnesota’s Biomass energy mandate
• Assumptions that other types of biomass would be used at the plant
• Goal of 500K tons of biomass/manure fuels annually
• About one half of the manure contracts were signed
• Storage period for litter of 5-10 days

At the conclusion of this first meeting, a progress report was given regarding the site plan, and the procurement of a construction contractor, which was to begin immediately.

As the meetings progressed, the discussions moved on to the types of fees that would be paid to the city, including: land lease, backup power and generation fees, sewer fees, four kinds of water fees. There is also a discussion about the arrangement of various tax exemptions. The types of real estate property taxes to be made, and wetlands management requirements, since the site had proximity to an airport where designations had been previously made – this also created a downstream issue on permitting the plant’s exhaust stack.

A couple of the meeting minutes that might be of particular issues to Page County readers are the September 2001 meeting, which specifically discusses odors, steam emissions, and the like; and the March 2002 minutes, which discusses the selection of the construction contractors, time frames for construction and questions about construction labor. These links follow today's post.

As the CAP effort continued, permitting occupied a lot of the discussion. The process took upwards of a year with periods of public review and comment and revision to the submissions. In July 2002, there was a discussion of exhaust limits, permissible types of biomass fuels, and even road dust and noise impacts. At one point during the permitting process, enough time had passed that the design of the exhaust systems was reviewed and changed – with a positive impact on overall water use at the plant by changing to an air cooled system.

The final meeting under Benson sponsorship was held in October 2003. By that time, apparently construction was underway – I should mention that a Canadian firm was selected, and there was broad discussion about this decision. The other main issue at the time was the FAA clearance for stack height due to proximity to the Benson airport – this issue had been resolved by that time.

Next post will look at the Fibrominn CAP process, which began after the Benson group ended in 2003. Reference links in today’s post:

Main page about the CAP process:  http://www.fibrominncap.org/index.html

September 2001 minutes with discussions about odors, steam emissions, etc.: http://www.fibrominncap.org/minutes/2001-09-25%20Benson%20CAP.pdf

March 2002, selection of Canadian contractor and general questions about construction:
http://www.fibrominncap.org/minutes/2002-03-26%20Benson%20CAP.pdf

Chimney Chore

Weather and work deadlines kept us away from the Hawksbill Cabin for a longer interval than usual, and Mary and I needed to get out there to check in and see how things had fared during the snowpocalypse. Mary had made arrangements for the driveway to be plowed – twice, and she’d had our roofer Alan come out and shovel the snow off of the roof after the first big snow this month. Between the big December and January snows Alan had come up to install ice breakers and to upgrade the flashing at the base of the chimney, so this visit was also the first time we’d be able to check out his work on this small project.

The back of the house is partially below grade, so the above ground portion of that wall is between six and seven feet high. The snow that I shoveled off the roof in December lay back there in the shade, forming what ski resorts would call a respectable base of between two and three feet. In these approach photos, you can see that with the additional snow and from Alan’s shoveling, the snow was as deep as five feet behind the house, nearly blocking the clerestory windows.

We’ve had leaking on the chimney wall during heavy summer rains and also after the December snow began to melt. So my goal was to go up, shovel some snow from the roof, and then clear the chimney cap – where there was about two feet of snow remaining. I worked on this for about an hour – a wet and icy standing seam metal roof is slippery, so be warned, sports fans – and finally had the area cleared well enough to take a look at the new flashing job.

This is a technical solution to our leak problem, and it is often used for stone chimneys. The uneven surface doesn’t allow for a standard flashing installation to be effective, so you cut into the stone, inserting the edge of the flashing inside of the chimney. There is a mechanical attachment of the flashing to the base of the chimney, and then the overlap extends to the surface of the roof.

We talked to a couple of architect friends about the problem, including a couple of historic preservation specialists, before we settled on this approach. Fortunately, Alan was familiar with the method and was able to execute it for us. While there was no trace of the old leaking inside the house this time, I cleared the chimney cap off for good measure. Seems to be working so far.

Some Fibrowatt Anwers, Part 2

Pulling out another comment from Terry at Fibrowatt as a stand alone post.  This one refers to some questions reader Jay posted a few days ago:

To permit and construct a modern biomass power plant, it requires a very extensive permitting process that will look at potential emissions under worst-case conditions and demonstrate that even under these conditions the plant will meet very stringent environmental requirements. These plants require very extensive emission control systems that are far more protective of air quality than older existing coal plants. Furthermore, one of the important considerations with a plant in the Shenandoah Valley is the consideration that must be given to protecting visibility in this area. As part of the permuting process, a plant of this size located in the Valley would have to demonstrate that it would not adversely effect visibility in nearby "Class 1 Federal Areas" such as the Shenandoah National Park.


You are right to value the resources of the Shenandoah Valley as would we. One of the reasons a Fibrowatt project would make sense in this area is the important benefits it can offer to protecting local water resources, providing an important new source of renewable energy that could displace existing coal-fired power plants, and can support poultry growers efforts to be good environmental stewards.

Terry Walmsley - Fibrowatt LLC

Some Fibrowatt Answers, Part 1

I am pulling this response from a comment I received from Terry at Fibrowatt:

In response to Mr. Shoemaker's comments ---


In regard to jobs: One of the important aspects of a Fibrowatt plant is jobs - construction jobs and permanent employment associated with fuel receipt and fuel processing, fuel procurement, electrical and instrument technicians, plant maintenance, plant operators, control room operators, and plant management. At the forum Mr. Shoemaker refers to we were asked about the job potential and I explained that the typical plant employment is between 30 - 35 people. Many of these jobs are very skilled jobs which pay well. If Mr. Shoemaker is suggesting that only a few of these jobs (entry-level jobs) can be filled by the local work force I think he is selling the labor force in Surry County North Carolina short. As we have said many times, we value qualified and skilled workers, workers that likely already exist in the region. Furthermore, these are skills that can be gained in anticipation of a plant that will likely not be up in operation for 2 years or more. At our plant in Minnesota, we have seen dedicated and hard working individuals living in Benson move up through the plant work force. As an example, one of the general contractor's security guards (that grew up in Benson), after they began working at the Fibrominn plant, has risen from the fuel receipt position to a plant operator, several grades above what they started at. We value local workers as they have the roots in the community that will lead to good job retention.

Furthermore, his reference to what was said about construction jobs is far from accurate. As I explained at the Dobson forum, the plant will be built by an engineering, procurement, and construction company and they will have responsibility for the construction labor force. Construction jobs will go to qualified and skilled trade workers that can meet the needs of the EPC contractor. These too are skills that will exist within Surry County and this region of NC. What is important is that this is likely a 24 month construction period that will employ locally and bring in labor resulting in a significant flow of money into the local economy.

As also mentioned in previous posts, there are a number of supplemental jobs associated with transportation and the manufacturing of the ash by-product fertilizer. Studies in NC indicate that for every one of the jobs at a renewable energy plant as many as 1-2 additional jobs are created or supported.

If readers are interested in the challenges experienced in Minnesota regarding plant start-up and emissions, I suggest they go to the Fibrowatt website where they will find a discussion on this issue.

Finally, feel free to investigate what the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League says but do this with caution. As we have found on several occasions, BREDL has made a number of accusations that have been riddled with wrong assumptions and misinformation. Please spend a little time on the Fibrowatt website and you will get a flavor of how BREDL has inaccurately portrayed Fibrowatt as explained in our October 5, 2009 release.

Terry Walmsley, Fibrowatt LLC

A list of questions for Fibrowatt

Commenter Jay has raised a great list of due diligence questions, so I am pulling them out into a post.  Here we go:

I would love to see a couple clear pages of known facts from Fiberwatt.


--how many tons of chicken litter will be burned each week.

--How many tons of other combustibles?

--What exactly will these other combustibles be?

--How many trucks will be driving into their factory each day?

--How many fulltime local jobs will be created and maintained once the plant is built?

--How many of these jobs will go to people who live in Page Co currently vs. jobs given to people who are imported from out of the area. It's common for corporations to bring in management and technical staff from outside headquarters.

--Provide pollution results from their plant in Minnesota. They have more than enough data now to back up any claims they make. Independent studies would of course be more believable.

--Who will build the transmission lines, industrial roads, and other infrastructure needed at Project Clover to support their plant.

--What projected taxes to they plan to pay annually that will benefit Page County? Would like to see it projected over a 10-year period.

--Explain how they dispose of the burnt materials from their plant. Will it be sent to Battle Creek dump?

--Where will they get the water they need to feed such a large energy plant?

--Where will they dispose of their dirty water?

--What tax breaks are they asking for from Page County to come here.



These are the answers anyone would need to begin having an informed opinion.

You can probably see it from space

One of the things I remember about snowfalls like the ones we've had last week - and like the DC area had in '96 and '03 - is the big piles of snow that are left behind after the plows come through.

Yesterday at the Arlington shopping center where I get my shirts done (there is also a Starbucks there, and the famous Italian Store deli) I noticed the piles were taking up about a third of the lot.  They'll be there into March, and as the days warm up and people sit at the cafe tables, lingering in the shopping center, there will be traffic making it unpleasant to run errands here.  The snow gets pretty ugly while it's waiting to melt too.

Then, when I got home, I found that they'd come back through and plowed the streets in our neighborhood.  While we were lucky and they didn't block our driveway, they did add to the pile in front of the house - it's over 7 feet tall now.  I couldn't even begin to guess when this will melt away!

When I first became aware of Fibrowatt, one of the questions a friend raised was this one: “You would be removing thousands of tons of poultry litter from the ground that might otherwise have found its way into the Chesapeake Bay. What is the effect of poultry litter on the Chesapeake Bay? More importantly, what is the effect of poultry litter in the more immediate area of disposal?” So I thought I might take a few minutes and look into this further.


Another friend wrote me about the impact of chicken litter as fertilizer, and why its use is regulated:

“The whole reason that litter is being regulated is the P (Phosphorus). P binds to negatively-charged soil particles and thus becomes unavailable for plant uptake. This is why our soil levels are high in P – it is not mobile, and litter in general is high in P. Farmers are using the litter as a cheap source for N, but the problem is the buildup of P. When we get heavy rains and soil erosion, the soil, laden with P, flows into the river and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay.”

High level scans of a few Wikipedia articles on pollution in the Chesapeake Bay reference Phosporus as a major component. This issue is also referenced in a Washington Post article I found about a potential Fibrowatt plant on the Eastern Shore (link at the end of the blog post):

“If successful, the project also will help reduce a source of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. Although the raw waste has long been recognized as a top-notch fertilizer, if applied too heavily, it can flush into waterways and eventually the bay. That has led to severe restrictions on its use.”

My friend closed his message with a thought about using the litter ash as fertilizer: “…the idea that the farmer is going to buy the P back is doubtful, since that is the exact nutrient that is causing all of the problems.”

Another source of information on these impacts can be found on the Yadkin River Keeper website (link below), where the organization has taken an aggressive approach to inform the public about Fibrowatt’s combustion processes and other impacts. Noteworthy is a white paper document that can be found on their site (by scrolling to the bottom and clicking on “APPENDIX” – I could not get this link to work from my blog), which lists a wide range of chemical emissions, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid, and hydrochloric acid. The Yadkin River Keeper document cites a number of sources for this work, specifically permitting documents that outline how and when these emissions can occur.

Another point of interest from the Yadkin group is the requirement for water to operate the plant. The town of Elkin, where one of the NC locations is proposed to be located, had agreed to provide approximately 300,000 gallons of water per day for plant operations. This is a requirement and an impact that Page County will need to examine in further detail, both from a supply standpoint and a waste discharge standpoint.

This data suggests that significant work needs to be done on negotiating the prospect for a Fibrowatt plant here, and raise the same issues that a number of blog readers have commented on:

• Can these emissions be managed so that they don’t impact Page County’s primary industry – tourism (both for the Caverns and other private stakeholders as well as for the Shenandoah National Park)?

• Can the county and neighboring towns afford to make the infrastructure investments that are needed to support a plant like this?

• How will the proposed plant impact the agricultural sector, including growers, poultry farms, and supporting industry?

These are just a few of the questions the information in today’s post brings to mind. My next step is to review the citizens’ council records in Minnesota and North Carolina to see how the company and communities engaged these issues – that will help shed some light on what might happen in Page County.

On a closing note, I mentioned yesterday that my purpose is not to advocate one way or another on the prospect of a Fibrowatt plant in Page County. I’m going to stand by that statement and want the blog to be a source of information for due diligence on the question. But there is one opinion that I still hold, and want to repeat, regarding Project Clover as a destination for industrial use.

From the information above, it is clear once again that the real estate at Project Clover is not suited for industrial use – Fibrowatt or otherwise. For one thing, the potential for visible emissions in the center of the Valley is an unacceptable impact to the area’s natural beauty. The land there is in the “viewshed” of the National Park, visible from Big Meadow Lodge and Skyland Lodge, as well as several important summits (Hawksbill, Stonyman, and Miller’s Head) and historically significant overlooks on Skyline Drive.

The infrastructure is not present at Clover to support these uses. The roadways cannot sustain increased vehicular traffic and loads. The geology may enhance the risk of negative environmental impacts. It’s much better to see this kind of development elsewhere in the county, closer to highways that can handle truck traffic and where power and water infrastructure likely already exist.

I’d note again that this is a general statement of my opinion, not specific to the Fibrowatt plant, although if the issues cannot be resolved, it makes additional industrial development in the county unfeasible.

References today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042003284.html
http://www.yadkinriverkeeper.org/fibrowatt

Biomass Energy Stakeholders - for and against

The biomass energy question is one that hits a lot of stakeholder sensitivities – those concerned with the environment (whether that is at a basic level of awareness, or involves a broader, systematic concern); those concerned with continued development and the accompanying growth in energy use (sustainable or not); and of course, the industries that would be affected by legislation and would see operating costs increase.


So for this post, I want to spend some time looking at environmental issues around the biomass combustion process, focused on poultry litter. I won’t be comprehensive here – the blog format doesn’t really provide for that, but I will touch on the things I have become aware of so far during the research.

There are quite a few “alternative energy stakeholders” that have weighed in on these questions. Some have active campaigns going – organizations like www.energyjustice.net and Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (www.bredl.org ). They seek to raise awareness of issues and actively campaign against the initiatives that affect their constituency. As I’ve perused their materials and websites, I categorize them as “against” generally – and also “without answers” to some of the pressing issues in society today.

Some of their arguments are unsourced, and there are differing opinions on the accuracy of their analytical models. Frankly, it’s naïve to deny that there is a growing demand for energy in the world, and to think that we can pop up a wind turbine anywhere we want to answer that demand – and if that’s the only answer that can be given to why wind energy is better than biomass combustion energy, we’re not going to get very far.

Let’s take a look at two outputs of the combustion process: dioxin and nitrogen oxide. I read a paper (link below) analyzing dioxin sources in Denmark today – it looked at large-scale waste incineration and “residential wood combustion plants” as the two main sources of dioxin emissions. Emissions regulation increasingly requires filtration and treatment at plants, decreasing emissions by 17 percent by 2003. On the other hand, increasing residential use of pellet stoves and other wood fired heating appliances caused the impact from households to increase by 16 percent during that timeframe. My takeaway is that this is an example of an output that can be managed through regulation…first target is commercial and industrial users…but who is going to take on the residential part of this issue? It has to be a systematic approach, doesn’t it?

On the nitrogen oxide side of this analysis, from a Biomass Magazine article (linked below), I learned that managing this greenhouse gas was one of the reasons the Fibrominn plant took so long to become operational. Operating at this scale was part of the problem, but work on managing the gas was aggressive. In the end the plant was approved by the citizens’ council there in Benson.

There’s a lot more ground to cover on this topic. There is the issue of arsenic residue in chicken litter – where does that go in the process? I think it’s safe to say that if the litter is simply spread on the ground, it goes in the ground, then via runoff into local aquifers, into the Shenandoah River, Potomac River, and then to the Chesapeake Bay. So there’s an element of responsibility for problems inherent in the status quo, too. The problem is relevant to both sides of the question – using litter as a simple fertilizer or using it as fuel for electricity production, which suggests that both stakeholder groups should manage it.

For my next post on this topic, I want to try and find some information about how poultry litter impacts the Chesapeake – and what sorts of regulation are in place to manage those impacts. I’ll be looking at a paper from a “river keeper” organization in North Carolina in that post as well.

Remember, this blog is not in the business of advocating, so don’t get the wrong impression – I’m simply trying to consider these questions with an open mind.

Today's sources:
http://espreme.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/homepage_old/workshop/papers/Illerup%20et%20al%20-%20Dioxin%20from%20stationary%20combustion.pdf
http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=2658
http://www.bredl.org/
http://www.energyjustice.net/

New Reader Comments on Fibrowatt

From the comments that we’ve been collecting on all the Fibrowatt posts, I’ve been pulling some of them out as standalone posts themselves. Here are two that I received today – thanks readers, for getting involved in the topic.


From Ralph Shoemaker:

“When Mr Walmsley appeared at the Commission meeting in the high school gym in Dobson, N.C. he was asked about jobs that might be made available with the building of a plant being considered in Elkin, N.C. His responce when pinned down to facts and not broad statements was that the would be 10 to 12 entry level jobs available at the plant site. When questioned about the construction jobs being mentioned he admitted that those would be imported from a firm out of state. The man has to be pinned down to get a truthful answer. I bet he has not mentioned the fact that the plant in Benson, Minn has been charged with violations of the pollution standards established by the company to obtain a permit and was fined by the Attorney Generals Office for the state of Minn. for these violations. The thing any community must be concerned with in dealing with Fibrowatt LLC in air and water pollution the plant will bring. A recent study by the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) shows the burning of chicken manure to be dirtier than burning coal. Please be sure to consider all aspects before buying into a health problem for your citizens.”

From Jay Dedman:

“Here's the obvious questions people are asking: will a biomass incinerator produce an abundance of smoke? We live in a valley and it's not crazy to imagine a thick haze build up. We already have reduced visibility with haze from coal plants in the region.

“There's a reason why trash incinerators are not common anymore. We bury garbage for a reason.

“It would be a shame if we sacrificed the biggest treasure of Page County--the beauty of the Shenandoah Valley--for less than full-time 100 jobs.”