Harrisburg,
Dear Mr. Furjanic:
On behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Straban Township (“the Concerned Citizens”), Citizens for
1. Handling of egg wash water. The permit application indicates that egg wash water will be produced as a result of the onsite egg processing facility. The wash water, which is a residual food processing waste, is to be stored in a 750,000 gallon storage tank onsite, and then land applied to surrounding fields.
Egg wash water is listed in the application form as a wastewater discharge from the facility, yet the application contains very little detail that allows DEP to assess whether the wash water will have an adverse affect on the waters of the Commonwealth. In the Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency Plan attached to the application, there is a brief description of the wash water as containing not only water, but manure, egg yokes, egg shells and detergent (p. 3). However, no information is provided on the specific constituents that make up this waste water, and whether land application of those constituents will harm water quality. For example, there is no indication of what types of constituents are found in the generically-termed detergent that is part of the wastewater.
The Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency Plan also provides a scant mention of a procedure whereby “no single application should exceed 10,000 gallons per acre with a minimum of five dry days between applications” (p. 6). However, no information is provided on how this application rate was derived, how it will be enforced, and whether it is protective of the water resources in the area. In addition, the General
Information Form of the application states that 10,000 gallons of wash water waste per day will be treated, stored, re-used or disposed.” But the application fails to explain whether this means that 10,000 gallons of wastewater will be produced daily, stored daily, or land applied daily. Moreover, there is no indication of how this number was derived or what it is based on. The applicant should be able to cite technical literature or examples of water use and wastewater production at other facilities to support the figures in its application.
Indeed, the lack of information in the application results in a serious concern that the planned application rate, coupled with the onsite storage limitations, will be insufficient to ensure proper storage of all egg wash water during rain events. If prolonged periods of wet weather prevent land application from occurring, a serious question remains as to whether the onsite tank will be able to adequately store all of the wash water until land application can resume. No contingencies are made for such events in the application. DEP should require the applicant to address this concern and provide an adequate contingency plan for wet weather.
The most glaring omission with respect to the handling of egg wash water is information regarding the actual site for land application of the wastewater. The application does not contain any maps, drawings or other information setting forth the precise location where the waste is proposed to be land applied. There is no information regarding the soil types of this land, nor is there any discussion as to whether the soils are adequate to attenuate and absorb all of the constituents associated with the wastewater. Although a soil map is provided within the Nutrient Management Plan section of the application, it appears as if the soil types listed on that map may be inaccurate. The Concerned Citizens have obtained the Adams County Soil Survey Map for the site and surrounding area, a copy of which is attached to these comments as Exhibit A. Review of the Soil Survey Map indicates that the soil types set forth in the map provided by the applicant do not accurately reflect the actual results of the Soil Survey. Moreover, the soils impacted by the proposed land application of egg wash water are marginal at best in terms of their attenuation capabilities. The soils are of shallow depth to confining layer, and are highly hydric in nature. The areas planned for land application are adjacent to wetlands and a small tributary to Beaverdam Creek.
6. Need for a Water Quality Management Part II Permit. In Section C of the application, the applicant fails to list a Water Quality Management Part II permit among the permits needed for the project. The applicant apparently takes the position that a Part II permit is not required, having written NA in the appropriate box on the application checklist. However, 25
9. Compliance history. Finally, DEP should consider the operator's poor compliance history in making a decision on this permit application. A search of DEP's eFacts database confirms that Hillandale Gettysburg, L.P. has a lengthy history of manure storage and handling violations at an egg laying and processing operation in neighboring
In addition, eFacts reveals that the owner of this proposed CAFO, Donald C. Hershey, has been found to be in violation of manure handling regulations at the Green Valley Farm, a CAFO located in
Give the violation history of the applicants, and given the sensitive water resources located on and adjacent to the site for this proposed CAFO, DEP should thoroughly investigate both the owner's and operator's compliance history, and consider this as grounds to deny the NPDES permit.
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew B. Royer
Staff Attorney
Printable version of comments.
7. Noncompliance of proposed project with local zoning ordinances. Pursuant to Section 619.2 of the Municipal Planning Code, where, as here, a county adopts a comprehensive plan, and the municipalities within the county have adopted comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances in accordance with that plan, DEP is authorized to rely upon a proposed facility's noncompliance with existing zoning ordinances in making permitting decisions. 53 P.S. § 10619.2(a). In this case, the proposed project is not in conformance with the
8. Article I, Section 27. Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.
In order to ensure that the rights guaranteed in Article I, Section 27 are protected, DEP, in reviewing permit applications for proposed projects, must consider the following: (1) whether the proposed activity complies with statutes and regulations relating to protection of the Commonwealth's natural resources; (2) whether a reasonable effort has been made to minimize environmental incursion; and (3) whether the environmental harm which will result so clearly outweighs the benefits to be derived that to permit the project would constitute an abuse of discretion. Payne v. Kassab, 312 A.2d 86, 94 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973), aff'd 361 A.2d 263 (
Given the nature of the soils and their proximity to water resources, land application of egg wash water may have a serious impact on water quality in the area. In order to assess the potential for this impact, DEP should request more information from the applicant regarding the nature of the wash water and its land application plans (including exact location, nature of the soils, proximity to wetlands and streams). DEP hydrogeologists and soil scientists should review this information closely to determine whether land application of egg wash water adversely affects the water quality of adjacent waters of the Commonwealth. If the potential for adverse impacts exist, DEP should deny the permit.
2. Handling of sewage. The applicant indicates that the proposed facility will involve the construction of a sewage treatment system sufficient to treat 1,200 gallons per day. The applicant proposes to utilize an onsite spray irrigation system for final disposal of the effluent. Accordingly, both egg wash water waste and sewage effluent will be land applied on this site in close proximity to one another. The Concerned Citizens are quite concerned that land application of both types of liquid waste in the same vicinity will overload the receiving soils and cause adverse affects to the water quality of the surrounding area. This is especially true given the nature of the soils and the proximity to wetlands and streams on the site. The Concerned Citizens urge DEP to analyze the cumulative impacts of both the egg wash water and the sewage effluent when considering whether to permit this operation.
3. Water usage. Throughout proceedings associated with this proposed project, the applicant has asserted that 55,000 gallons per day of water will be used for this facility. The Concerned Citizens submit that this number grossly underestimates water usage for the facility.
Literature from the Penn State Agricultural Cooperative Extension Office (a portion of which is attached to these comments as Exhibit B) indicates that, at temperatures of 80 degrees Fahrenheit (the approximate optimum temperature for raising chickens), 100 birds will consume 7.7 gallons of water per day. For a 1.1 million bird operation, this translates to 84,700 gallons per day. An additional 15,000 gallons per day of water is needed for the proposed processing operation and the water usage requirements of the workers at the facility. Thus the total amount of water needed for the facility is more appropriately assessed at approximately 100,000 gallons per day or more.
Land development plans show that at least 5 wells have been drilled on site to supply this water. A groundwater withdrawal of 100,000 gallons or more per day requires Susquehanna River Basin Commission review and approval, and DEP should notify the applicant of the requirement to seek this approval.
Given these numbers, and the possible need for SRBC approval, DEP should question the applicant on the precise amount of water usage needed for the proposed operation.
There is another, more directly relevant reason, for DEP to determine the precise amount of water usage associated with this proposed project as part of its NPDES CAFO permit review. DEP may not issue an NPDES permit that results in violation of the antidegradation regulations set forth in Chapter 93. See 25
The potential for adversely affecting wetlands and the other water resources in the area via dewatering is not inconsequential. In fact, the Straban Township Zoning Hearing Board originally denied a special exception required for this project on the grounds that the facility's proposed water usage would dewater and thereby adversely affect adjacent water supplies. Testimony by a professional hydrogeologist on behalf of the Concerned Citizens was provided during the hearing on the special exception request. A copy of the Zoning Hearing Board's decision is attached to these comments as Exhibit C. The Concerned Citizens urge DEP to require the applicant to submit accurate information on water usage for this facility, and to enlist its regional hydrogeologists and aquatic biologists in a thorough review of this issue.
4. Manure storage and management. The application is littered with inconsistencies regarding how manure will be stored, handled and managed. At points throughout the application, the applicant indicates that manure will be stored in storage facilities at the end of each of the eight chicken houses. However, in the Farm Description section of the applicant's Nutrient Management Plan, the applicant refers to a manure storage facility in the singular, indicating that all manure may be stored in a single building. Moreover, no plans, drawings or detailed descriptions of the manure storage facilities (or facility, whatever the case may be,) are provided in the application. Thus there is no way of assessing whether the facilities will be water tight to ensure that the manure is kept dry and the potential for runoff into adjacent wetlands and streams is eliminated. DEP should require the operator to provide additional information on the exact number, design and nature of the manure storage facilities, so that their adequacy can be determined.
Another clear inconsistency in the application relates to the issue of exporting manure offsite via brokers. The application estimates the annual manure production to be 13,949 tons. On page 3 of the Nutrient Management Plan submitted as part of the application, the applicant indicates that all of this manure will be shipped off site to the mushroom industry. However, an
If not all manure is being brokered offsite, the application is seriously flawed, because it contains no provisions for the onsite handling of manure beyond temporary storage. In addition, if more manure will be generated onsite than what was originally predicted, DEP should be made aware of this fact so that the impacts of manure storage and management can be adequately assessed. DEP should seek clarification from the applicant on these issues.
Proper manure management is a major issue for the Concerned Citizens. The site for this proposed facility contains a significant amount of wetlands. Adjacent residences rely on wells for their water supply. Even incidental spillage of manure during loading of broker trailers presents a serious risk of pollution to the wetlands and neighboring wells. DEP must consider this risk as it reviews this permit application. At the very least, more information must be obtained from the applicant in order to assess whether proposed manure management practices are protective of existing water quality.
5. Impacts on wetlands. As discussed throughout these comments, adverse impacts to wetlands are a major concern with this proposed project. The Concerned Citizens find it interesting that, despite the numerous wetlands existing on the site, and despite the size of the proposed project (eight layer houses, a processing building, a 750,000 gallon storage tank and allthe associated roads and infrastructure), the applicant has indicated in this application that the project does not involve the placement of fill or excavation within wetlands. The Concerned Citizens urge DEP to take a close look at the proposed project to see if Chapter 105 permits are required.
via hand delivery
Sean Furjanic
Water Management Program, Permits Section
DEP Southcentral Regional Office
909 Elmerton Avenue
|
