In an effort to get as much information as possible about the Fibrowatt plant proposed for Montgomery County, county commissioners and economic development officials recently received the results of an independent study of Fibrowatt air emissions.
The study was done by Conrad Carter, an Albemarle-based physical engineer registered in both North and South Carolina, who has worked mainly in air quality for private industry since 1978 and in recent years has worked through his own consulting firm.
Approached by Commissioner Jim Matheny to conduct the study, Carter said initially he thought it would take just a day or so and offered to do the work at no cost. “It turned out to be way more than I expected,” said Carter, noting that he’d spent approximately 100 hours on the study. The $3,000, a partial charge for his time, was split evenly among agencies in the three N. C. counties chosen for Fibrowatt facilities, Montgomery, Sampson and Surry.
Carter said his original intent had been to compare air emissions from coal-fired boilers to similar sized poultry litter-fired boilers such as Fibrowatt plans. After looking at N.C. Division of Air Quality data and Duke Power’s more than 700-page N.C. DAQ permit application for its proposed Cliffside facility, he realized such a comparison would take far more time and funding than local officials could afford. At that point, Carter changed his focus to whether a Fibrowatt facility can meet current air emission regulations.
“The good news is that there is stack test data on the combustion of poultry litter in a boiler,” Carter’s letter to Commissioner Matheny states. “The bad news is that it all is from one source, Fibrowatt.”
In a recent phone interview, Carter explained that although he searched, the technology is new and he could find no other company burning poultry litter for energy so he had to base his study on Fibrowatt data.
His research includes stack test data from Fibrowatt’s Benson, Minn. plant, FibroMinn, from July 2007 to March 2009; FibroMinn’s computer modeling information derived from their plants in England, and the company’s Minnesota air quality application and permit.
“They seem to take environmental compliance seriously,” Carter said. “From the information I’ve seen on the Minnesota plant and parts of their application and air permit, they’re trying to do it right.” He noted that the Minnesota facility provides a closed building where fuel, in this case poultry litter, is unloaded instead of being dumped outside the plant. “I don’t know anybody who does that and I don’t think they have to do that and that’s a good example of their efforts,” he added.
Based on his research, Carter found one major compliance issue, the amount of particulate matter exceeding their permit as well as one non compliance situation for nitrous oxide which occurred after their first annual plant shut down in 2008. Carter said the company is working to improve both issues through the use of correct dust collector equipment.
Carter’s study also looks at air toxics, a lengthy list of substances from ammonia and arsenic to hydrochloric acid, lead, mercury and others. Of those substances, Carter’s study states that ammonia, “appears to be a challenge not yet met in Minnesota.” All the others appear to meet either the Minnesota permit requirements or the company’s model, which calculates ground level concentrations of the individual substances and on which their permit is based.
Carter said he could not find specifics for some air toxics listed in the Minnesota permit, “but I expect there are limits the state holds them to.” Of those, the stack test data shows emissions less than the model “by an order of magnitude,” including arsenic, an issue which has been raised by Fibrowatt opponents.
Regarding air toxics, Carter said it’s not possible to know how FibroMont, the proposed plant east of Biscoe, would meet N.C. DAQ permit standards because permits are “site specific. It all depends on the individual facility,” he explained, with the state taking into consideration such things as size of the facility, size of the property, air flows and topography.
“They have done a fair amount of testing in England and Minnesota,” Carter said. At some point, the company will have to prepare a model for the local plant and apply for a N.C. air quality permit. “Typically, the standards (state and federal) are very restrictive and there is constant monitoring. In my opinion, North Carolina has very stringent requirements developed to protect all human health,” Carter said. “I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it’s as good as we can do right now. And if they don’t pass the model, they don’t get the permit.”
