waldemar-brandt-unsplash

Food Processing Residual (FPR) has long been used as a form of soil enrichment and treatment within the agriculture industry. However, in recent years many living in rural communities have begun to demand stricter regulations — often pointing to the dangers it poses to individual health and the environment.

A recent civil suit filed in Clinton County by residents in Sugar Valley, which saw a jury finding the plaintiffs charges against Nicholas Meat, LLC, Nicholas Farm and its owners, Gene Nicholas and Heidi L. Worden, liable and ordered the LLC to pay thousands in damages, has brought this issue into the limelight even more so in the region.

FPR is described by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as “a type of residual waste that is produced in animal and non-animal food processing” such as slaughterhouses and food packaging facilities. DEP manages FPR for agricultural operations under the Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA).

In the Commonwealth, FPR can be used in normal farming operations and is often transported and stored at agricultural operations for land application.

FPR falls under the state’s residual waste program and, in 1994, was included in DEP’s Food Processing Management Manual.

In 2023, a working group was formed by DEP to explore several comments and complaints made in relation to FPR to the Department of Agriculture and state lawmakers throughout the Commonwealth.

It published its final report in 2024 related to its findings and solutions.

“The most common complaints are related to odor and concerns about potential threats to drinking water sources, like groundwater,” the report stated. “Often, many complaints submitted to DEP are not violations under the FPR manual.”

Water contamination was part of the civil suit filed in Clinton County.

The manual, according to DEP, is meant to “provide a framework for developing FPR source reduction, recycling and disposal programs through the FPR utilization and disposal hierarchy.”

Through the group it identified three key perceived issues:

— FPR Odor: With FPR having a broad term, simply referring to residual waste from plant and animal-derived food waste, the workgroup found some of the material can be particularly odorous.

“Especially animal-derived FPR and FPR with a high fat content,” the workgroup said in its report.

“Because current guidance is based on all FPRs regardless of how they are generated, current policy is not adequate enough to effectively manage highly odorous FPRs in a way that would adequately manage the odors,” the workgroup continued.

The report noted odor complaints accounted for a “vast majority” of FPR concerns raised to DEP.

“The workgroup identified odor as a major concern and highlighted the need for odorous FPR to be handled differently than less odorous FPR,” the report stated. “The group also identified the potential for greater requirements for management of FPR in storage and land application to reduce the risk of odor.”

— Transportation: The workgroup noted transportation of FPRs, by untrained haulers and even FPR being transported in and out of the state, as areas of concern.

“While most residual waste is transported by haulers certified under PDA’s Commercial Manure hauler and Broker Certification Program, FPR hauled under the permit exemption can be done without any training on FPR rules or familiarity with the FPR manual,” the report stated.

The workgroup noted that the majority of FPR haulers are responsible, but the risk of untrained haulers into and out of the state posed a problem.

It was suggested the FPR transportation into the Commonwealth may be due to more strict regulations in neighboring states.

Though banning the importation of FPR into the state was an option, the workgroup instead proposed the possibility of creating additional documentation, reporting and clear responsibility at the generation, transportation, storage and land application phases.

— DEP Management: The workgroup turned its attention to possible updates to the SWMA as part of ways to better manage FPRs within the Commonwealth. DEP’s Bureau of Waste Management responds to complaints related to FPR and maintains its manual, making enforcement decisions based on its authority provided by law.

“The Bureau of Waste Management has strong expertise in the management, collection, storage, transportation, use and disposal of residual waste,” the report said. It further recognized the work DEP has made in building “successful and mutually beneficial relationships” with agricultural operators and the agricultural community in the state.

The workgroup acknowledged DEP’s management of FPRs is limited to the authority given in statute and regulations so focused its attention on potential updates to SWMA.

Ultimately, the workgroup produced a number of proposed solutions that include:

— Clarifying liability and secure documentations

— Enhance training for FPR haulers

— Create a clearer definition of FPR

— Require notification of intent to store or apply FPR

— Codify required minimums in land application system (LAS) plans

— Reorganize internal management of FPR rules

— Enhance education around FPR rules and management

To review the workgroup’s full proposal, visit http://bit.ly/3Yr3dMO.

The Express contacted DEP to see what steps have been taken since the workgroup’s proposal was submitted.

“DEP is grateful to the many participants in the 2024 working group for their collaboration and expertise. The department will continue to work with stakeholders — including the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, General Assembly and the regulated community — to chart a path forward based on the report’s findings,” Megan Lehman, regional communications manager, said.

RECENT LEGISLATION MOVES

Outside of DEP’s purview, legislators within the state have worked to try and offer new legislation to combat issues surrounding the storage and application of FPRs.

In October, House Bill 587, sponsored by State Rep. Paul Friel (D-26), was passed by the House and was presented “to establish a certification program for the haulers and brokers of food processing residue in the commonwealth.”

The bill was cosponsored by State Reps. Barbara Gleim (R-199), Paul Takac (D-82), Danilo Burgos (D-197), Shelby Labs (R-143), Tarik Khan (D-194), Jose Giral (D-180), Arvind Venkat (D-30), Greg Vitali (D-166), Kerry Stambaugh (R-86), Malcolm Kenyatta (D-181), Chris Pielli (D-156), Bryan Cutler (R-100), Benjamin Sanchez (D-153), Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz (D-129), Steven Malagari (D-53), Carol Hill-Evans (D-95, Danielle Friel Otten (D-155), David Zimmerman (R-99), Joe Webster (D-150), G. Roni Green (D-190) and Eddie Pashiniski (D-121) and passed 196-7.

This bill was introduced by Friel and cosponsored by the same group of representatives alongside House Bill 586, which would further guide the use of FPRs within the state.