The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection issued a construction permit to PPD of WV One LLC on October 7, indicating plans to construct the biomass plant near Sam Black Church.
The facility is described as a “biomass to synthetic diesel fuel plant” located in Crawley, just north of the Sam Black Church exit of I-64. The permit authorizes construction “in accordance with West Virginia Air Pollution Control Law [22-5-1]” and “shall remain valid, continuous and in effect unless it is revised, suspended, revoked, or otherwise changed.”
Amid the emission unit descriptions, the year installed lists 2020, which may indicate an approximate construction completion date.
The facility was first announced in 2017, with groundbreaking on the facility expected in spring 2018 by the Greenbrier County Commission and representatives of the potential factory’s owners, PPD of WV One. The West Virginia Economic Development Authority (WVEDA) passed a resolution to allow PPD of WV One to sell bonds to fund construction of the plant, up to $80 million in potential fundraising.
The facility, according to representative of PPD of WV One, takes advantage of Cellulose to Hydrogen Power (ChyP), a technology created by Tennessee-based company Proton Power, which uses biomasses like plant materials and wood to synthesize #1 diesel fuel. The method also produces another product called biochar, a carbon-based product that is used in both agriculture and manufacturing.
Soon after however, concerns were raised by residents of Sam Black and nearby parts of Greenbrier County about the facility’s potential ecological impacts. A group of residents approached the Greenbrier County Commission about blocking the plant, saying it would have major implications for their properties and families. The Commission noted that they would not be able to block the plant without implementing zoning throughout the county.
Jason Perry, a representative of PPD of WV One, approached the Greenbrier County Commission in early 2018, explaining numerous parts of the plant’s decision and technology processes. The proposed plant will produce diesel and biochar from wood slash, a byproduct of the timber industry in West Virginia. According to Perry, timber companies currently do not have a viable means of disposing of slash waste, with much of it being burned off or placed in a landfill. The proposed plant would instead purchase up to 120,000 tons of slash per year from timber companies and convert it to diesel and biochar.
“We looked at numerous sites in Greenbrier County,” Perry said. “The one closest to the interstate, to be perfectly honest, that had the least amount of impact on the community, housing, is why we chose the site. We’re not here to upset the community. We won’t create noise, there are no smokestacks, there’s no smell. There are trucks that come in and out, about 24 trucks a day, that come in and empty biomass or pick up fuel, but they’re coming in to empty and fill up and get back on the interstate as quickly as possible.”
Perry also outlined the specifications of the proposed plant, a newer model of the equipment used in older Proton Power plants in Tennessee and California. The generation four plant will be set up to produce 6.5 million gallons of diesel fuel each year and 7,200 tons of biochar, an organic fertilizer that, according to Perry, studies have found increases crop growth by 60 to 70 percent while reducing water inputs by 80 percent. A study at the University of Tennessee allegedly found that biochar put in the ground seven years ago continued to be potent throughout that time period.
Smoke stacks and air pollution coming off the plant were the focus of many questions with surprising answers.
The ChyP process takes place inside of a sealed chamber – the plant will not have any smoke stacks because the technology in the plant does not burn the wood slash it receives. Instead, the plant uses a slower process at much higher heat, up to 2,912 degrees Fahrenheit, to vaporize the slash, which is then reformed through a chemical reaction into diesel and biochar. Any surviving organic material leftover from the process is run through the system a second, third, or fourth time until 100 percent of the input material has been converted. Perry also claimed that many inorganic substances, such as mercury, that are run through the system are usually rendered back into a benign, inorganic form by the system and are filtered out through the biochar.
The lack of emissions and open burning in the plans is also addressed by the permit, which stipulates that “open burning of refuse by any person, firm, corporation, association or public agency is prohibited except as noted in 45CSR96-3.1. … Upon notification by the Secretary, no person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit any form of open burning during existing or predicted periods of atmospheric stagnation. … No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit the discharge of air pollutants which cause or contribute to an objectionable odor at any location occupied by the public.”
The permit also notes the process by which testing for emissions and any byproducts the process would create.
“As per provisions set forth in this permit or as otherwise required by the Secretary [of the Air Quality Board], in accordance with the West Virginia Code, underlying regulations, permits and orders, the permittee shall conduct test(s) to determine compliance with the emission limitations set forth in this permit and/or established or set forth in underlying documents. The Secretary, or his duly authorized representative, may at his option witness or conduct such test(s).”
In an informational meeting of the Greenbrier County Commission shortly after Perry’s visit, locals Kirby Funderburke and Houston Adkins voiced additional concerns with the potential plant.
Funderburke specified that although he came to listen to Perry as a resident and concerned citizen of Greenbrier County and that he wasn’t completely against the plant, he had concerns based upon his 10 years of experience evaluating biofuel plants in his position with WestRock, formerly MeadWestvaco.
Funderburke claimed that the technology is not able to meet Perry’s claims, citing several studies and the Wood Bioenergy US Database prepared by Forisk Consulting. The database issued a “yes/no” passing grade for each of the 442 plants it evaluated on financing, permitting, and more, and Funderburke cited this study, which included a “no” for PPD of WV One, as part of the basis for his concern. Many of the biofuel plants mentioned were on hold or shutdown, while many of the operational plants listed were pilot or demo plants, rather than fully functional plants.
Funderburke also cited a Mississippi biofuel plant, the center of a lawsuit and much controversy in the state. KiOR, the Mississippi plant owner and operator, sold the idea of the first ever commercial-scale biofuel facility in the U.S., and were backed by a $73 million loan from the state of Mississippi and by venture capitalists. Both KiOR and its sister company would later declare bankruptcy and be found guilty of fraud. KiOR is currently being sued by the state of Mississippi over the $75 million loan, of which KiOR only repaid $6 million. Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood called the loan “one of the largest frauds ever perpetrated on the State of Mississippi.
Despite these potential issues, Funderburke also stated he was not for or against the plant, just wanted to make sure the potential issues were examined.
“I just don’t want to see the state or Greenbrier County get to a point where they say ‘we wish we hadn’t done this,’” Funderburke said.
According to Adkins at that time, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection does not inspect air quality for plants classified as minor emitters, as the PPD of WV One plant would be, specifying that the DEP director can call for one, but the process is majorly cost prohibitive and atypical in DEP operations.
“[In general, what happens] is a permit is submitted. It’s not tested, but just taken at a general number, then it’s never followed up on or verified,” Adkins said of the DEP permitting process. “So if we’re looking for the DEP to protect us, it doesn’t.”
The plant is not expected to see any more environmental review – according to WVDEP Chief Communications Officer Jake Glance, environmental impact studies are typically performed for larger projects than one plant, such as for a highway project. At that time, Glance stated the more likely requirement for the project would be permitting from the Division of Air Quality or Division of Water and Waste Management, which was issued on October 7. These permits would require “unique pollutant analysis,” and would require future inspections and would also include enforcement requirements.
“The permitted facility shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the plans and specifications filed in Permit Applications R13-3442 and any modifications, administrative updates, or amendments thereto,” reads the permit. “… Any person whose interest may be affected, including, but not necessarily limited to, the applicant and any person who participated in the public comment process, by a permit issued, modified or denied by the Secretary may appeal such action of the Secretary to the Air Quality Board pursuant to article one 199 22B-1-1 et seq.).”
Read more in the Friday, November 15, edition of The West Virginia Daily News.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.