Ammunition has now been added to the fire for those who oppose the construction of the Fibrowatt plant in Elkin.

For those of you who may not know, Fibrowatt LLC plans to build and operate a plant near Elkin which will burn poultry litter, generating electricity in what the firm claims is a clean, renewable source of energy.

Those who oppose the plan claim its presence will hurt local land values, the scenic qualities of the Yadkin River and surrounding environs, and the plant will spew deadly pollution into the environment.

Up to this point many of those who have opposed the plant have sounded more like a shrill voice of panic rather than a group with a reasoned, logical objection. We say that because some of those who oppose the plant remained silent during much of the planning stages, then suddenly came out of the woodwork after county officials had held public meetings.

Some of those same opponents claimed not to have known about the public meetings, yet they were in attendance at those supposed “unknown” meetings without voicing any objections. With subsequent informational meetings at which Fibrowatt officials sought to engage the public, those in opposition refused to even attend the gatherings.

And a few who have lamented the loss of property values and the scenic quality of the area around the proposed plant don’t even live in Surry, Yadkin, or Wilkes counties.

It almost seems as if much of the opposition is against the Fibrowatt plant simply for the sake of being against something.

Now, however, they have ammunition for their opposition. A plant in Minnesota run by the same company, a facility which burns turkey litter, has been cited by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for a number of violations and fined $65,000. In addition, the company has agreed to install a sulfur dioxide monitor which will cost at least $80,000.

While Fibrowatt officials have long admitted there were problems with the Minnesota plant, they have claimed the problems were little more than paperwork errors.

It appears there were far more egregious things going on that some faulty paperwork. According to an agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Fibrominn, as it’s known there, has stipulated it missed some emission testing dates by months, that it failed performance tests, and that it experienced excess nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide emissions.

The full text of the Agency report reveals the company reached a level of nearly full capacity quickly after start-up, and that may have led to some of the problems.

It also clearly spells out the Minnesota agency has received not a single odor complaint since opening in 2007, and that it has operated for more than 850 days without an accident, and that the firm and its employees maintain a “strong working relationship with the local community.”

In short, it showed that Fibrominn seems to be an ideal corporate citizen.

Except for some rather serious pollution problems.

The firm states the problems were associated with the start-up of a new operation, and that any new operation is bound to have some glitches. Surry County officials even suggested the firm would learn from the Minnesota problems, thus lowering the likelihood they would be repeated here.

We hope so.

We have supported the Fibrowatt plant in Elkin almost since the firm’s announcement it was considering a Surry location. And, overall, we still believe it would make a good addition to the community with its significant tax base and new jobs for area residents.

However, its Minnesota violations do give us pause, as does the fact that Fibrowatt officials tried to push those off as simply paperwork errors.

Going forward we would suggest that Fibrowatt officials will find Surry County residents much more supportive if they remain honest, even when problems are encountered. Otherwise, opposition may grow to the point that the county may prove to no longer be a suitable location for one of Fibrowatt’s planned North Carolina operations.