The following post is related to the Center’s work on a Health Impact Assessment of a proposed biomass-powered energy facility in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. The facility was proposed as a potential remedy to the issue of nutrient concentration related to trends in livestock production. Each post in the series describes one particular aspect of interest from the Center’s analysis.
Conclusions
Two final points about our HIA on the poultry litter-to-energy facility in the Shenandoah Valley: First, residents and decision-makers should think about this decision as comparison between health risks. It would be incorrect to assume that because livestock manure has been used as a fertilizer for years, that there are no health implications. The available evidence clearly suggests that drinking water as well as streams and rivers in the Valley have been impacted by land application of manure. On the other hand, using poultry litter as a fuel source introduces air pollutants to the area which are also associated with health risks. Rather than viewing this as a question of doing what is best for the environment or doing what is best for health, this proposal is probably best framed as a comparison of health risk that can be minimized with conscientious planning.
The second main point is the importance of being involved in the decision-making process early. The HIA points to a number of different aspects of the facility that could affect health: the exact location, the fuel it would use (poultry litter versus woody biomass), aspects of the transportation of the litter, the employment associated with its operations, etc. Many of these decisions are made during the proposal development, a step that is under the exclusive control of the technology vendor. The local board of supervisors has authority to require changes prior to giving the approval for the facility’s construction, but they do not have the opportunity to investigate the health impacts thoroughly. For instance, our analysis suggests the exact location of the facility can make a big difference in the concentration of air pollutants in the area. This is not something that would be known by local officials unless it is shared with them by the technology vendor (assuming that is a question the vendor has investigated). At no time in the process, can local officials turn to an analysis conducted by an independent party. Only after they have approved the facility are the health impacts investigated by the state.
Lessons Learned for HIA Practitioners
This HIA benefited tremendously from having a dedicated advisory panel made up of interested stakeholders from the community that provided feedback throughout the project and from getting the perspective of poultry growers about the implications of a change in litter management strategies. If HIA practitioners are not upfront about their intentions in assessing a policy or project decision, residents could view the results as partisan or biased rather than an objective evaluation. Community support for an HIA is crucial to the perception that the results are unbiased, especially for controversial topics like the construction of an energy facility.
Building a relationship with the community takes time, a luxury that may not be available for HIA practitioners who have to meet the often strict deadlines of a policy decision. Our group was lucky to a have a long time period in which we could form relationships with community members in an effort to understand their perspectives. Research teams conducting rapid or desktop HIA may not have the time to invest in forming these relationships which makes partnering with groups that do have these relationships even more important to the success of the project.