Introduction: The
Pennsylvania program will continue the stakeholder meetings process used for
development of the current program. This
will involve understanding the new EPA requirements and seeking a constructive
exchange of ideas, while building upon the current program and integrating
related programs and revisions. Each
participant was requested to provide important issues, which resulted in the
following:
ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY WORK GROUP MEMBERS
- Finding out what the new requirements will
be
- Program modifications should meet federal
requirements and not go beyond
- Coordination of regulatory programs
- Protection of the environment and fair to
local communities
- Define the impacts on farming and the
environment
- Provide education on the requirements
- Minimizing the impact of manure on the
environment
- Maintain commonsense
- Keeping farmers from being declared CAFOs
- Coordination between programs
- Farmer friendly and implementable
- How to handle EPA numbers
- Coordination, education and public outreach
- Keep things simple
- Closing loopholes in the program (exported
manure)
Overview: A summary
handout from EPA was used as an overview of the revised EPA rules. Here is a list of items that came up during
the overview:
OVERVIEW DISCUSSION ITEMS
- Accepting and reviewing applications for voluntary
CAFO coverage prior to the new program
- Use of Individual permits or Part 2 permits for needed water quality
protection
- Dealing with sites that have alternative or discharge treatment
systems
- Describe what is a new facility – expansion, new storage, new site
- Fish facilities are not covered under the CAFO program
- Will animals be combined to meet the thresholds, either within or
between species
- When will be the best time to report manure transfers
Additional or Related Items: Another list was generated of additional or related items that could be
addressed:
OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENT TO THE PROGRAM
- Alternative technologies and uses
- Streamline permitting for new technologies
- Funding for implementation
- Manure export and transport
- Encourage regional solutions
- Public acceptance of new CAFOs
- Limestone area consideration
- Guidance and consistency among regions
- Environmental management systems
- Co-permitting
- Phosphorus requirements
- Need to build the credibility of government
in regulating CAFOs
- Real public concerns - odors, property
values and contamination of private wells
Animal Numbers Workgroup: A small workgroup was set up to review options for the animal number
thresholds. The workgroup may later
work on refining estimates of the types and number of operations affected. A conference call was set for 2PM on Friday,
March 28 with the following participants: Charles Abdalla, Doug Goodlander, Kelly O’Neill, Bill Rogers, Bob
Gibson and Tom Juengst (coordinator).
Additional Participation: The importance of participation by the Pa. Dept. of Agriculture was
mentioned.
Next Meeting: The
next meeting was set for Tuesday, April 15.
Participants:
Charlie Abdalla, Professor, Penn State U. College of Ag. Science
Bill Achor, Environmental Coordinator, Wenger’s Feed, Inc.
Bill Adams; Pa. Farm Bur.
Dan Alters, Program Mgr., DEP NCRO
Doug Brennan, Atty., DEP OCC
Karl Brown, Exec. Sec., SCC
Alissa Dodd, Ext. Assoc., Penn State U.
Martin Ferry, Permits Chief, DEP SCRO
Don Fiesta, Prof. Geologist, DEP CO
Bob Gibson, Section Chief, DEP CO
Doug Goodlander, Program Mgr., SCC-Nutrient Mgmt. Program
Tom Juengst, Program Specialist, DEP CO
Cedric Karper, Div. Chief, DEP CO
Tim Murphy, Conservation Engineer, USDA-NRCS
Kelly O’Neill, Ag. Policy Analyst, Pa. CBF
Walt Peechatka, Exec. Vice Pres., PennAg Industries Assoc.
William Rogers; Private Consultant
Kim Snell-Zarcone, Staff Atty., Penn Future
Jim Spontak, Operations Chief, DEP SCRO