A Muncy Creek Township lay witness at a conditional use hearing where Sunny Side Up Farms frequently clashed in testimony with the applicant’s counsel.

Howard Williams continued with testimony Wednesday in front of the packed house at the township building.

Sunny Side Up Farms wants to site five barns, each with 70,000 free-range chickens on land it owns bordered by Clarkstown Road, Fogelman Road and Muncy Exchange Road. It’s called a concentrated animal feeding operation. It also is a site proposed for 55,000-plus solar panels by Bollinger Solar LLC, making it agrivoltaic. The property is zoned for agricultural conservation and residential use.

Among the data in the report by Williams, a township resident, presented is fact-based and academic research on CAFOs, including their air emissions that can impact people living near such animal farms.

“Isn’t it true that the U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has not adopted a model for monitoring emissions from animal feeding operations?” Attorney Samuel E. Wiser Jr., counsel for the applicant, asked Williams.

“The EPA has for over 25 years dithered on this matter, and they haven’t decided much at all,” Williams said in response to Wiser’s question. “They do, however, recommend the Screen3 is used,” Williams said. “It is credible, it is appropriate and it identifies this.”

Screen3 is a widely used screening-level air dispersion model. It is a single-source plume model designed to provide quick, conservative estimates of maximum ground-level concentrations of air pollutants, and it was used as part of the data presented to the board.

Williams has also testified that an AERMOD also be done in this animal farm proposal. That is the EPA’s preferred, state-of-the-art atmospheric dispersion modeling system used to predict ground-level pollutant concentrations from industrial sources.

Williams, who is not considered to be or wanted to be thought of as an expert, also used Penn State Extension AI as part of his presentation to Supervisors Eric Newcomer, chair, and Harley Fry II.

As part of his cross examination, Wiser produced a document from the EPA Office of Inspector General in a publication in 2017 and asked Williams to agree if what was written on the report was in it. It read: “A lack of reliable methods for estimating these emissions prevented the EPA and state and local agencies from determining whether these operations are subject to statutory requirements.”

“You have handed me one page of what is likely a larger document,” Williams said. He noted there are other reports showing the Screen3 is sufficient for the purpose of showing emissions, concentration and how that (land) fall into the air, the homes, the people in the neighborhood of a CAFO, he noted.

“Are you aware that the EPA is still in the process of refining their modeling for measuring emissions from animal feeding operations?” Wiser asked Williams.

“I did not present my testimony on the basis of dealing with a regulator that is not doing what a regulator should be doing,” Williams said. “I presented my testimony on the basis of how do we describe and submit to the board, so that they can really look at it . . . how do we describe the areas of endangerment for residents relative to human health, safety, general welfare and greater harm?”

Wiser interrupted him. “Mr. Williams, I am curious,” he said, continuing, “if the EPA hasn’t even adopted a reliable model for measuring emissions for animal feeding operations, why does a model that you developed, using technology that was replaced 15 years ago by the EPA have any credibility whatsoever?”

“The model is still used in the trade,” Williams said. “The EPA has not withdrawn it, to my knowledge, and it is still a good and useful model, and, as I have recommended, what the board is going to need to do is deal with this ‘he said’ ‘she said.'”

“You are not producing evidence of no harm, you are making an argument against the design and use of a Screen3 that has been supported in other areas by the EPA,” Williams said. “That’s your only argument.”

Williams, furthermore, testified that the only way the emissions question will get settled, is if the township board is able to contract with an environmental engineering firm that fully understands what the integrator is going to do in the farm. After that is done, then the AERMOD engineer can look at the wind patterns at Muncy, which can be totally different from those at Williamsport, where they are registered.

Williams said his data strongly corresponds to an AERMOD study done in Poland, and it will be up to these gentlemen (township board) to consider contracting with the environmental engineer.

Williams, who is a township resident who has testified about hazardous materials emissions before Congress, has also in testimony shared his dislike of the term “receptors,” in his battle against this proposed farm, which also has a proposed solar array aspect.

Receptors is a static term used by environmental regulators, risk assessors, and impact specialists to identify, map, and mitigate risks from pollution, construction, or hazardous materials. The people, plants, animals and other things in the environment that could be affected” are considered to be receptors.

Wiser also earlier in the night asked Williams to present in the township zoning ordinance where screening is required to be done.

“I do not presume to present zoning information,” Williams said, adding his presentation is to present evidence of harm to human health, safety, general welfare and greater harm than normal.

“I presented that because none of your witnesses have established that there was no harm,” Williams said. He then made a reference to the former testimony by Cody Snyder, who will be the manager with AgVentures, who formerly testified that he lives near two large turkey CAFOS, and has an 18-month-old daughter.

“He’s cool with that,” Williams said, but I don’t think the residents aren’t “cool with breathing in the emissions.” “I wasn’t talking about regulation,” he said. “Regulators aren’t going to save us.”

Wiser asked Williams to point to any section of the zoning ordinance that requires screening for this use. Williams said he could point to the Municipal Planning Code that says objector testimony must establish the evidence that harm to human health, safety, general welfare and greater harm aren’t going to occur.

“So the question was – It is simply your opinion that screening should be a part of this process?”

“No it is not an opinion,” Williams responded. “It is based on fact that the EPA created Screen3 for this explicit purpose,” he said. The purpose, he explained, is to give a review of the hazard of the air emissions … to look at … like a preview of a movie … to look at a preview of hazardous chemicals, the concentration, and the deposition — how far out is this going to reach, who is this going to impact, and it is used to identify — receptors.