Poultry Litter Incineration: An Unsustainable Solution

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/31/2019 Poultry Litter Incineration: An Unsustainable Solution

    1/5

    Poultry Litter Incineration:

    An Unsustainable Solution

    In 2011, Maryland requested proposals through its CleanBay Power Project for a new 10 megawatt (MW) plantthat generates electricity by burning poultry litter, whichconsists of manure, bedding, feathers and spilled feed.Poultry processing giant Perdue Agribusiness, Inc., inpartnership with energy company Fibrowatt LLC, sub-mitted a proposal targeting Marylands Eastern Shore,

    with construction and operating costs estimated at $100million.1

    If approved, the project would allow Perdue and Fi-

    browatt to sell its energy to the state despite the well-doc-umented health and environmental hazards of burningchicken litter. Despite concerns that burning poultry litterdoes not provide clean energy, similar projects have beenproposed or are in planning stages in North Carolina,

    Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Texas,2 Con-necticut3 and Virginia.4

    In regions where factory farming is concentrated, toomuch animal waste is generated for crop fields and water-

    ways to absorb without significantly harming the healthof communities and of the environment, despite indus-try claims that burning litter for energy is a long-termsolution for agribusinesss waste problem.5 Building newpower plants to burn this waste only provides another

    band-aid for a corporate agriculture system that is envi-ronmentally damaging and unfair to farmers and workers.Moreover, such projects are not economically feasible

    without significant government subsidies.

    In order to improve the livelihoods of farmers and protectenvironmental and public health, state lawmakers shouldshift their attention to the unchecked power of Big Ag andreexamine the policies that have encouraged the transfor-mation of the nations farms into factories.

    Corporate Power and Abuse

    The poultry industry is highly concentrated, with fourprocessing companies controlling 58.5 percent of theindustrys broiler chickens.6 These vertically integratedcompanies own the birds and control multiple stages ofproduction including the delivery offlocks and feed tothe growers.7 Growers are hired by the poultry companiesthrough take-it-or-leave-it contracts that dictate howmuch growers get paid8 and when a grower must rebuilda chicken house, thus incurring new debt.9 In the broiler

    industry, production contracts are near universal, cover-ing 98.9 percent of growers.10 There has not been an opencash market for broilers since the 1950s.11

    Poultry companies also abuse the workers further downthe chain in their processing plants, an industry with ratesof injury and illness among the highest of any industry.12In addition to facing dangerous working conditions andsystematic obstacles to receiving workers compensation,13

    poultry processing workers are also subject to widespreadwage theft. A survey of 51 poultry processing plants bythe U.S. Department of Labor found that each one had

    violated labor laws by not paying employees wages for all

    hours worked.14

    Poultry companies use production contracts to force poul-try growers to accept all financial and legal responsibilityfor securing environmental permits and for managing themassive quantities of manure generated.15 For example,Marylands broiler industry produces 700 million poundsof poultry litter each year, which is routinely spread onMaryland fields16 and ends up polluting waterways likethe Chesapeake Bay.17 A 2010 study estimated that factoryfarms on Marylands Eastern Shore produce 300,384tons of excess poultry litter beyond the capacity of local

    The poultry industry continues to influence lawmakers to prioritize corporateinterests over public health, sound food policy and environmental concerns.Citizens in Maryland and in other states are being asked to bail the industry out

    of its massive waste problem byfinancing poultry litter incinerators.

    Fact Sheet May 2012

    FOOD

  • 7/31/2019 Poultry Litter Incineration: An Unsustainable Solution

    2/5

    cropland to assimilate nutrients.18 (See Figure 2 for moreon manure amounts exceeding land capacity.) The annualcost of managing animal manure to protect water qualitythroughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is estimated

    between $127 and $350 million, with the bulk due topoultry litter.19

    Greenwashing Corporate Welfare

    Projects such as the one proposed by Perdue and Fi-

    browatt depend on state fuel mandates, tax credits andother incentives. Two assessments conducted in the early2000s, including one specific to Fibrowatts earlier pro-posed plant of the same name, concluded that generatingelectricity from poultry litter on the Delmarva Peninsula

    would not be economically feasible without governmentsubsidies.22 In addition to funds from Marylands CleanBay Power Project, the new plant could potentially alsoqualify for tax credits worth hundreds of thousandsof dollars each year through Marylands Clean EnergyProduction Tax Credit, which provides a 0.85/kWh taxcredit over a five-year period. If eligible, the 10 MW plant

    would receive over $600,000 in tax credits annually, as-

    suming that it operates at or above 90 percent capacity,like Fibrowatts plant in Minnesota.23

    Several state legislatures have accommodated their lawsspecifically to incentivize poultry litterto-energy proj-ects. The current proposal in Maryland follows previousefforts by Fibrowatt to build a poultry litter-fired powerplant in the state going back to 2001.24 That year alsosaw a failed proposal in the state legislature to providetax credits for energy generated from poultry litter.25In 2008, Maryland qualified poultry-litter incinerationfacilities as Tier 1 renewable sources on par with solar

    and wind as part of the states Renewable Portfolio Stan-dard (RPS) target, which requires electricity suppliers togenerate 20 percent of retail sales from Tier 1 sources by2022.26

    At present, Fibrowatts 55 MW Fibrominn plant in Ben-son, Minnesota, is the only operational poultry litter-fu-eled power plant in the United States.27 In 2000, the stateeffectively handed Fibrowatt a substantial taxpayer sub-sidy by expanding its biomass energy mandate to include

    facilities that use poultry litter as fuel.28 The state againaccommodated its laws in 2007 to provide the poultry-litter power projects with property tax exemptions.29

    North Carolina is another state with intensive poultryproduction (fourth among states in pounds producedin 2010).30 In 2007, the North Carolina state legislaturepassed a renewable energy bill mandating the use ofrenewable energy sources including animal waste andrequiring that utility companies obtain at least 900,000megawatt-hours of electricity from poultry waste by2014.31 However, even with these incentives in place,prices offered by Fibrowatt for poultry litter to North

    Carolina poultry growers in 2009 were significantly lowerthan the market price of poultry litter used as fertilizer.32

    Environmental Health Impacts

    Burning poultry litter may actually produce as muchor more toxic air emissions than coal plants. Analysisconducted by the North Carolina Department of Environ-ment and Natural Resources found that a 57 MW poultrylitter combustion plant was permitted to emit levels ofcarbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), nitrogenoxides (NOx), and carbon dioxide per unit of power gen-

    1 Dot = 1,000,000 Broilers

    US Total: 8,914,828,122

    0 100

    Miles

    0 2 00

    Miles

    0 100

    Miles

    Figure 1: Number of Broilers and Other Meat-Type Chickens Sold: 2007

  • 7/31/2019 Poultry Litter Incineration: An Unsustainable Solution

    3/5

    eration higher than those for new coal plants.33 In addi-tion, according to information released by the MinnesotaPollution Agency, Fibrominn committed various alleged

    violations of its permit in 2009, including exceeding itspermitted emissions for CO, NOx, and sulfur dioxide.34

    According to the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), the evidence is suggestive that exposure to PM-

    10 (particulate matter on the order of 10 micrometers orless) causes higher rates of respiratory and cardiovasculardisease as well as higher mortality.37 Another byprod-uct of burning chicken litter, dioxin, is classified by theNational Toxicology Program as a known human carcino-gen.38

    Poultry litter incineration also releases arsenic. Arsenic-based drugs such as roxarsone are commonly added topoultry feed in factory farms to control intestinal para-sites and to promote growth.39 Most arsenical drugs fed tochickens are excreted in waste.40 Tyson Foods and PerdueFarms, two of the largest U.S. poultry companies, claim tohave stopped regularly using arsenic compounds in 2004and 2007, respectively.41Nevertheless, arsenic emissionsremain a concern for poultry litter-fired power plants. A2009 modeling study by the North Carolina Departmentof Natural Resources Toxics Evaluation concluded thatemissions from a 50 MW plant in North Carolina wouldput ambient arsenic levels at several times the currentregulatory limit.42

    The negative impacts of poultry litter incineration arelikely to be borne disproportionately by already vulner-able communities. In 2011, all three proposed poultry

    Figure 2: Ratio of Manure Available For Land Application To Assimilative Capacity

    For Phosphorous, Assuming Off-Farm Export of Manure Within The Country, 1997

    Pollutantsfrompoultrywasteincinerationinclude35: Carbon monoxide

    Sul fur diox ide

    Nitrogen oxides

    PM-10

    Sul furic acid

    Hydrochloric acid

    Volat i le Organic Compounds(VOCs)

    Diox in

    Arsen ic

    These often odorless and colorless pollutants have been

    known to cause respiratory diseases,card iovascular dis-

    eases and cancer, among other i llnesses.36

  • 7/31/2019 Poultry Litter Incineration: An Unsustainable Solution

    4/5

    litter incinerators in North Carolina targeted rural coun-ties with rates of hospitalization for cardiovascular diseaseand diabetes as well as poverty rates above averages forthe state.43 The siting of poultry litter incineration plantsin these communities may further exacerbate these preex-isting disparities.

    State Legislatures ShouldSupport Better Alternatives

    Capital-intensive technologies such as waste-to-energycombustion, which requires the continued production ofexcess manure, may serve to further entrench the fac-tory farm model of animal agriculture while impeding thetransition to a more sustainable animal agriculture and

    value chain that is fair to farmers and workers. PerdueAgriBusiness President Dick Willey recently admitted,Our conclusion at this point is that the only commercially

    viable technology is combustion.44 Unfortunately for bothcorporate agribusiness and host communities of pro-posed incinerator projects, burning poultry litter does notreduce the amount that is generated in the first place and

    is likely to disproportionately harm the environmentalhealth of nearby communities.

    It is no wonder that communities in Virginia, NorthCarolina and Georgia that are opposed to the unjust envi-ronmental and public health implications of such proj-ects have mobilized to defeat proposals for poultry litterincinerators.45

    To effectively address the problem of factory farm pol-lution, state legislatures should implement policies thatenable local governments to enforce adequate environ-mental regulations for concentrated animal feeding opera-

    tions. State legislatures must also support the shift awayfrom the industrial food system and the overwhelmingamount of waste it produces by helping to build the eco-nomic infrastructure needed for smaller, independent anddiversified farmers to thrive within resilient, regionalizedfood systems that protect workers and consumers as well.

    Endnotes1 Maryland Department of General Services. [Press Release]. State

    of Maryland Seeks Proposals for Renewable Energy Generatedfrom Animal Waste. October 13, 2011; Gates, Deborah. Delmarvabiomass boiler operation proposed.Daily Times (Salisbury, MD).January 8, 2012.

    2 Fibrowatt. [Press Release]. Fibrominn, the nations first poultrylitter-fueled power plant, opens in Benson, Minnesota. October12, 2007.

    3 Macdonald, James M. et al. United States Department of Agricul-ture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS). Manure Use forFertilizer and for Energy. June 2009 at 35.

    4 Shenandoah Valley Poultry Litter to Energy Watershed & Air Advi-sory Group. Meeting Summary. Harrisonburg, Virginia. March 28,2011.

    5 Fibrowatt. [Press Release]. Economic development agreementsigned with Sampson County. November 7, 2008; Potter, JamesS. Clearview Renewable Energy, LLC and Clearview East CanaanEnergy, LLC. Testimony on SB 6636. Connecticut Energy andTechnology Committee, March 10, 2009 at 3.

    6 Hendrickson, Mary and Bill Heffernan. Concentration of Agricultural Markets. University of Missouri-Columbia, Department ofRural Sociology. April 2007.

    7 Taylor, C. Robert. Auburn University. The Many Faces of Powerin the Food System. Presentation at the Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission Workshop on Merger Enforcement.February 17, 2004 at 6.

    8 Carstensen, Peter C. University of Wisconsin Law School. State-ment Prepared for the Workshop on Merger Enforcement.February 17, 2004 at 10; MacDonald, James M. USDA ERS. TheEconomic Organization of U.S. Broiler Production. EIB-38. June2008 at 13.

    9 American Antitrust Institutes Transition Report on CompetitionPolicy: Chapter 8 Fighting Food Inflation through Competition.2008 at 304.

    10 MacDonald, June 2008 at 7.11 Taylor, February 17, 2004 at 5.12 U.S. Government Accountability Office. Safety in the Meat and

    Poultry Industry, While Improving, Could Be Further Strength-ened. GAO-05-96. January 2005 at 21.

    13 Human Rights Watch. Blood, Sweat, and Fear: Workers Rights iU.S. Meat and Poultry Plants. 2004 at 57 to 62.

    14 U.S. Department of Labor. Poultry Processing Compliance SurveFact Sheet. 2001 at 2.

    15 Moeller, David. Farmers Legal Action Group, Inc. (FLAG). Live-stock Production Contracts: Risks for Family Farmers. March 222003 at 4; Urbina, Ian. In Maryland, Focus on Poultry IndustryPollution.New York Times. November 29, 2008.

    16 Parker, Doug and Qing Li. Mid-Atlantic Regional Water ProgramPoultry Litter Use and Transport in Caroline, Queen Annes, Somerset and Wicomico Counties in Maryland: A Summary Report.(MAWP 0601). January 2006 at 1 to 2.

    17 Perez, Michelle et al. Environmental Working Group. Facing Facin the Chesapeake Bay. September 2009 at 5.

    18 Kovzelove, Caitlin et al. Water Stewardship. Quantification andImplications of Surplus Phosphorus and Manure in Major AnimaProduction Regions of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.February 2010 at 13.

    19 Catma, Serkan and Alan Collins. Phosphorus Imbalances in theChesapeake Bay Watershed: Can Forestland and Manure Pro-cessing Facilities Be the Answers?Agricultural and ResourceEconomics Review, vol. 40, iss. 1. 2011 at 117.

    20 USDA, Census of Agriculture. Number of Broilers and OtherMeat-Type Chickens Sold: 2007. 2007. Available at http://www.

    agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Ag_Alas_Maps/Livestock_and_Animals/Livestock,_Poultry_and_Other_Animals/07-M161.asp, accessed February 27, 2012.

    21 Kellog, Robert L. et al. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland andPastureland to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trendfor the United States. (nps00-0579). 2000 at 87, Map 37. Mapavailable at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/nrcs143_011456.gif, accessed February 27, 2012.

    22 Lichtenberg, Erik et al. Economic Value of Poultry Litter SupplieIn Alternative Uses. (Policy Analysis Report 02-02). Universityof Maryland, Center for Agricultural and Natural Resource Policy2002 at 24-25; Electrotek Concepts. FibroShore Power MarketAssessment: PJM/Delmarva Peninsula. Report prepared forMaryland Environmental Service. May 2001 at 10 to 11.

    23 Maryland Annotated Code of Regulations 14.26.06.05; MarylanEnergy Administration. Plan to Increase Marylands Renew-able Energy Portfolio by 20% RPS by 2022. March 2010 at 2;Fibrowatt. Power from Poultry Litter. Presentation at 1st AnnuaWaste to Fuels Conference and Trade Show, Orlando, Florida,April 7, 2008 at 25.

    24 Alternative Resources, Inc. A Review of the Expected Air Emis-sions for the Proposed Fibroshore 40-MW Power Plant to Be Fu-eled With Poultry Litter and Wood. Report prepared for Marylan

    Environmental Service. February 2001 at 1.25 Maryland H.B. 1406 (2001).26 Maryland Energy Administration, March 2010 at 2; Maryland S.B

    348, Chapter 135. Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard - Tier 1Renewable Source - Poultry Litter. 2008 at 1.

  • 7/31/2019 Poultry Litter Incineration: An Unsustainable Solution

    5/5

    27 Stingone, Jeanette A. and Steve Wing. Poultry Litter Incinera-tion as a Source of Energy: Reviewing the Potential for Impacts onEnvironmental Health and Justice.New Solutions, vol. 21, iss. 1.2011 at 29.

    28 Minnesota Session Laws 2001, 1st Special Session Chapter 5,Article 3, Section 18; Minnesota Statutes 216B.2424(5) (2011);Morris, David. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. MinnesotasBiomass Mandate: An Assessment. 2005 at 3 to 6.

    29 Minnesota Statutes 272.02(47) (2007).30 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Poultry - Produc-

    tion and Value 2010 Summary. April 2011 at 3.31 North Carolina General Statutes 62-133.7 (2007).

    32 Hubbard, Jule. Demand for farm litter still strong. WilkesJournal-Patriot(North Wilkesboro, NC). February 11, 2009.

    33 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Re-sources, Air Quality Division. Comparison of emissions fromcontrolled coal and biomass combustion, Air Quality CommitteeMeeting, North Carolina Environmental Management Commis-sion, Raleigh, NC, March 10, 2010 at 3.

    34 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Stipulation agreement re-garding permit violations of the Fibrominn plant. 2009 at 13 to 15.

    35 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Air Emission Permit No.15100038-004. Issue date February 9, 2005; Alternative Resourc-es, Inc., February 2001 at 14 to 15.

    36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated ScienceAssessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA/600/R-08/139F. 2009 at Chapter 2, 18-19; National Institutes of Health.[Press Release]. TCDD - Dioxin Is Listed as Known Human

    Carcinogen in Federal Governments Ninth Report on Carcino-

    gens January 19, 2001.37 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Science

    Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA/600/R-08/139F. 2009 at Chapter 2, 18 to 19.

    38 National Institutes of Health, January 19, 2001.39 Chapman, H.D., and Z.B. Johnson. Use of antibiotics and roxar-

    sone in broiler chickens in the USA: analysis for the years 1995 to2000.Journal of Poultry Science, vol. 81. March 2002 at 1; Love,Dave. CLF provides House testimony on Maryland Bill 953 to banarsenic from poultry feed. Johns Hopkins University Center for aLivable Future. March 9, 2010; Nachman, Keeve. Personal Com-munication. August 10, 2010.

    40 Stolz, John F., et al. Biotransformation of 3-Nitro-4-hydroxyben-zene Arsonic Acid (Roxarsone) and Release of Inorganic ArsenicbyClostridium Species.Environmental Science and Technology,vol. 41, iss. 3. 2007 at 819 to 820; Bellows, Barbara C. Arsenic InPoultry Litter: Organic Regulations. ATTRA, the National Sus-tainable Agriculture Information Service. 2005 at 1.

    41 Hileman, Bette. Arsenic In Chicken Production. A Common FeedAdditive Adds Arsenic to Human Food and Endangers Water Sup-plies. Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 85, iss. 15. April 9,2007 at 1; Hlad, Jennifer. Poultry farmers resist ban on arsenic infeed. The Daily Record(Baltimore, MD). March 16, 2010.

    42 Van der Vaart, Don. NC Toxics Emissions Evaluation from Poul-

    try/Turkey Litter. Report presented at North Carolina Environ-mental Management Commission, Air Quality Committee. March11, 2009. North Carolina Division of Air Quality. Air Toxics

    Program: Acceptable Ambient Levels (AALs). 2007at 1.

    43 Stingone and Wing, 2011 at 34 to 36.44 Perdue AgriBusiness and Fibrowatt Partner on Clean Bay Power

    Project.Business Wire. December 15, 2011. Available at http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20111215006280/en/Per-due-AgriBusiness-Fibrowatt-Partner-Clean-Bay-Power, accessedFebruary 26, 2012.

    45 Hyland, Michael. Fibrowatt a No-Go in Page County. WHSV/Gray Television Group, Inc. March 17, 2010; Hinton, John. Surrydrops Fibrowatt deal. Winston-Salem Journal(Winston-Salem,NC). May 22, 2010; Kneiser, M.J. Fibrowatt chicken litter energyplant not coming to Hart County.Independent Mail(Anderson,

    SC). August 6, 2010.

    For more information:

    web: www.foodandwaterwatch.orgemail: [email protected]: (202) 683-2500 (DC) (415) 293-9900 (CA)

    Copyright May 2012 Food & Water Watch