There being a majority of the Board
members present, the meeting was called to order by Chairperson Robert Junk,
PA Farmers Union, at 10:00 a.m.
Attendance
Members
Robert Junk, PA Farmers Union
Gordon Hiller, PA State Grange
Janet Oertly, USDA, Natural Resource Conservation
Service
Bob Wagner, PA Association of Conservation
Districts
Tom Oyler, Jr., Fruit Producer
Mary Keenan, House Agricultural and Rural
Affairs Committee
Donald Lichtenwalner, Grain Producer
Michael Brendle, Poultry Producer
David Brubaker, Agri-business Representative
Jay Howes, House Agricultural and Rural
Affairs Committee
Bill Adams, PA Farm Bureau
David Bingaman, PA Department of Agriculture
Bill Foose, USDA, Farm Service Agency
Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer
Robert Pardoe, Jr., Dairy Producer
Sam Elkin, Livestock Producer
Dr. Herb Cole, Penn State University
Michael Sherman, DEP, Bureau of Land and
Water Conservation
Agencies, Advisors, Guests
Sharon Freeman, DEP, Office of Policy
Karl Sheaffer, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality
Management
Karl Brown, Executive Secretary, State Conservation
Commission
Doug Goodlander, PA Department of Agriculture
Pam Witmer, DEP, Office of Policy and Communication
Fran Koch, DEP, Bureau of Dams, Wetlands
and Waterways
Dick VanNoy, DEP, Bureau of Land and water
Conservation
Dean Auchenbach, DEP, Bureau of Land and
Water Conservation
Minutes
The minutes of the February 21, 1996
meeting were approved with the following change. On page 2 under Regulatory
Update, the number of commentators for the redesignation of the Pine and Elk
Creeks should
read "4,700" not "147."
Regulatory Update
Sharon Freeman, DEP, Office of Policy, stated that the redesignation of the
Pine and Elk Creeks was approved on April 3, 1996 by the Independent Regulatory
Review Commission. This proposal is now at the Attorney General's Office for
review. Gordon Hiller expressed his concern regarding the impact of exceptional
value streams on private landowners. Sharon stated that activities within an
exceptional value watershed would need to meet the requirements of the Chapter
102 and Chapter 105 Programs with little additional requirements placed on them.
Sharon also noted that the Department has scheduled six state wide public hearings
regarding the Act 149 amendments to the PA Sewage Facilities Act.
Pesticide and Groundwater Strategy
Report
Dave Bingaman, PA Department of Agriculture
(PDA), provided an overview of Pennsylvania's Pesticide and Groundwater Strategy
Report. This strategy will provide a generic framework for the development of
state management plans for specific pesticides as required by EPA. The initial
survey work was done by testing wells in an intense agricultural production
area of Lancaster County to see what pesticides were found, in order to determine
what to address in the strategy. If pesticide contamination is found within
an aquifer, the steps that PDA would follow are to educate the farmers to change
their pesticide application practices; implement best management practices (BMP's)
which would be consistent with nutrient/sediment BMP's; compliance assistance,
to provide options to the farmers; and monitoring and testing of wells. In the
response to a detection of a pesticide in wells across an entire aquifer, the
PDA has three responses. When pesticides are detected at levels of 1/3 or less
of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) a system of voluntary BMP's will be instituted.
If the levels of detection are at or above 1/3 of the MCL, a more rigorous set
of mandatory BMP's will be employed. When pesticide concentrations exceed 2/3
of the MCL level, use restrictions or product cancellations are reasonable choices.
Dave stated that the well surveys would ideally be conducted in April, prior to pesticide application, to get a base sample. They would then sample the wells again after the normal pesticide application period. The surveys will look at a 12 month period. If there are seasonal increases in pesticide detection, PDA will look at the loading and mixing procedures, and the well location and construction. The Board questioned what the maximum contaminant level (MCL) meant, and how it was established? Dave stated that the MCL was derived from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act which establishes standards for drinking water from both surface and ground water sources. Anything above this MCL limit EPA would recommend that the water not be used for drinking purposes. The Board also questioned whether this strategy report would address the application of chemicals to residential lawns. Dave stated that the report will not look at that issue at this time but may do so in the future. The Board stressed that this report needs to be structured and specific and not be left open to a lot of interpretation. The Board also stated that it needs to be stressed that if a contaminant is found it does not automatically mean it is a health risk, but rather that continued consumption over a long period that could lead to health problems.
The Board members suggested that
someone from the EPA attend the next Board meeting to explain the Safe Drinking
Water Act and how the MCL was established. Dave Bingaman was also asked to be
at the Board's next meeting. Dave will make arrangements for a speaker from
EPA to attend the June meeting, and will send the members an EPA fact sheet
on the MCL's and the drinking water standards prior to the next meeting. Chairperson
Robert Junk also appointed a pesticide strategy report committee to provide
comments to the PDA. Bill Adams was appointed as Chairperson of the committee.
Other members include Tom Oyler, Jr., Carl Shaffer, Dr. Herb Cole, and Robert
Junk. Chairperson Junk requested that if any other Board members have comments
regarding the report they should sent them to Bill Adams by May 21, 1996. Chairperson
Junk also requested that the Board be allowed to submit comments regarding the
report after the EPA presentation at the June meeting. Dave Bingaman stated
that this time frame would be acceptable as long as he is not pressed by EPA.
Once EPA publishes the list of chemicals that require state management plans
in the Federal Register, the state will have two years to develop plans to address
those chemicals. The EPA has not yet published the list of chemicals.
Response to Storage Tank Moratorium Proposal
Karl Sheaffer, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Management, addressed the Board's
recommendation that the Department place a moratorium on the requirement that
regulated underground storage tanks only be removed
by a certified installer. Karl stated that the Department cannot grant this
option since the Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act and the Chapter 245 regulations
require that underground storage tank owners and operators must use certified
installers to install, modify, or remove a regulated underground storage tank.
Karl did recommend some options to hold down the costs for removal of these
tanks. It was suggested that a certified installer could be retained by a farming
community, and a lower cost could be negotiated with the installer by contracting
through one or more agricultural associations. Karl also suggested that tank
owners or operators could hold down removal costs by only having the certified
installer perform those tasks that are
required, and doing the other work themselves or through a subcontractor.
Karl stated that concerns regarding the handling of any residual material in
the tank and safety considerations, are the reason that the use of a certified
installer is required. Karl noted that the proposed revisions to the storage
tank certification package will go before the EQB in July. No comments regarding
exemptions to these requirements were received.
After some discussion, Mike Brendle
made a motion that the Board send a letter to the EQB recommending that the
Chapter 245 regulations be amended, during Storage Tank Certification final
rulemaking, to grant a one year moratorium on the requirement that regulated
underground storage tanks only be removed by a certified installer. This motion
was seconded by Tom Oyler, Jr., and the motion was passed unanimously by the
Board (attachment # 1.) The Board members felt that the moratorium would allow
farmers to remove their underground storage tanks without incurring excessive
and unnecessary expenses. The Board also feels that this will result in a greater
number of underground storage tanks being removed which will reduce the potential
for pollution from leaking and aging storage tanks. This will also prevent storage
tank owners and operators from simply abandoning underground storage tanks due
to the high costs of removal. The Board members feel that farmers would not
have installed underground storage tanks had they known the costs that would
be involved to remove the tanks. The Board also passed a motion unanimously,
to petition the EQB to grant the moratorium, and if that fails they will write
letters to legislators to get the Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act legislation
changed to remove the requirement for the use of certified installers. A committee
was appointed to work on the submission of the petition to the EQB. This committee
consists of one representative each of the PA Farmers Union, PA State Grange,
and PA Farm Bureau; and Mike Brendle, and Tom Oyler, Jr..
Revisions to the Fact Sheet on Farm Storage Tank Requirements
Karl Sheaffer, DEP, distributed the final version of the Farm Storage Tank Fact
sheet # 18 (attachment # 2) which the Board had commented on at its February
meeting. Karl also distributed copies of fact sheets # 6, Leak Detection: Meeting
The Requirements, and fact sheet # 7, Upgrading Underground Storage Tanks. The
members were also provided an order sheet for other fact sheets of the storage
Tanks Program (attachment # 3.) Karl then provided a breakdown on the number
of registered underground storage tanks on farms in Pennsylvania. From 1,101
to 5,000 gallons there are 207 tanks registered; from 5,001 to 10,000 gallons
there are 152 total tanks registered; and over 10,000 gallons there are 16 tanks
regulated, for a total of 375 registered underground storage tanks on farms
in Pennsylvania. Karl noted that the largest pollutant source of groundwater
pollution in both Pennsylvania, and the nation, is from leaking underground
storage tanks.
Legislative Update
Pam Witmer, DEP, Office of Policy and
Communications, updated the Board on the status of legislation of interest to
the members. H.B. 4 and 7 which pertain to DEP internal procedures will probably
not move due to the success of the money back guarantee program. H.B. 200, 341,
and 1041 are all bills that pertain to wetland legislation. These bills will
not move until they are reviewed by the Department's Wetlands Management Advisory
Committee. H.B. 873 will change the definition of what is included for agricultural
exemptions under the Clean Air Act. This bill is currently stalled in the House.
H.B. 1929, the waste tire
and recycling bill would set tax credits for companies that install tire recycling
equipment. H.B. 1521 would require public notice prior to pesticide application
near public buildings, such as schools. The Department has appointed a task
force to look at this bill. S.B. 240 and 241, returnable beverage bills are
opposed by the Department since these bills may undermine the recycling efforts
of municipalities under Act 101. S.B. 1148 is an amendment to Land Preservation
Board which will establish a board to oversee the Act and administer it. S.B.
1295, the audit privilege bill, would provide immunity for companies that bring
environmental problems to the Department's attention. It would also make environmental
audit documents privileged documents. This bill has not moved since it was introduced
in October 1995. S.B.
1320 is a sustainable development bill, to establish methods for municipalities
to maintain and promote open space. This bill is not expected to move this session.
The Board members expressed concern
and displeasure regarding the Department's opposition to the returnable beverage
bills. The producer members stated that bottles and cans are often discarded
into
agricultural fields where they can cause damage to expensive farm equipment
and tires. The Board also noted that glass bottles and aluminum cans cannot
be detected by metal detectors or magnets so these
materials may be ingested by livestock which causes health problems or
death. The Board feels that if the Department cannot
take a position of supporting these bills then they should at least take a neutral
position regarding the bills. Carl Shaffer made a motion that the Board send
a letter to Secretary Seif, encouraging the Department to reconsider its opposition
to these bills. The Board also suggested
that the Department look at ways of developing a returnable beverage policy
that would compliment the Act 101 Program. This motion was seconded by Sam Elkin,
and the motion was passed unanimously by the
Board. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your review (attachment # 4.) Bob
Pardoe suggested that the Board invite Secretary Seif to the June Board meeting
to further discuss this concern.
Jay Howes distributed a copy of Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee legislation introduced in the 1995-96 session (attachment
# 5.)
Report on the DEP Wetlands Management
Advisory Committee Meeting
Fran Koch, DEP Bureau of Dams, Waterways
and Wetlands, briefed the Board on what happened at the first meeting of the
newly created Wetlands Management Advisory Committee on March 5. A copy of the
meeting minutes and a mission statement for the committee was distributed (attachment
# 6.) Rob Brooks of Penn State University was appointed as interim chairperson
for the committee. Curtis Kratz, PA Farm Bureau, passed out a copy of the Board's
de minimus wetlands impact letter of March 4, 1996. The Wetlands Committee did
not comment on this letter at the meeting.
Fran is working to develop a public relations
event to publicize the Department's Wetlands Restoration/Creation Site Registry.
Fran requested that if any Board members are aware of the location of a
recently developed wetland on agricultural land, that could be used for this
event, to contact her at 717 787-6827. Fran distributed EPA fact sheets on the
values and functions of wetlands (attachment # 7.) Fran
also mentioned that the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has filed an appeal of the
Department's General permit # 15, for private residential construction in wetlands.
The Department will meet with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to address their
concerns.
Chairperson Junk stated that he
will write a letter to the Chairperson of the Wetlands Management Advisory Committee
pledging to mutually work together to address wetland issues. Mike Brendle requested
that the
Board members continue to receive copies of the Wetlands Management Advisory
Committee minutes. This will be done.
Update on the Nutrient Management Regulations
Karl Brown, Executive Secretary
for the State Conservation Commission (SCC), updated the Board on the development
of the nutrient management regulations. There were seven public meetings held
statewide, with 450 people in attendance. Four public hearings were held where
17 people provided testimony. Meetings were also held with the Senate and House
Agricultural Committees. The public comment period closed on March 29, with
comments received from 48 commentators. The SCC also received extensive and
detailed comments from the House Agricultural Committee. Staff is currently
summarizing the comments and has identified 130 separate issues to be addressed.
The Nutrient Management Advisory Board will address these comments and make
proposed revisions to the regulations to present for approval to the SCC. It
is anticipated that final rulemaking may occur in early 1997. Karl stressed
that the SCC is aware that the time of year for the final rulemaking of the
regulations is critical, since once the regulations are approved CAO's
would have one year to complete a nutrient management plan, and three years
to implement the plan. Karl stated that the SCC wants to avoid final rulemaking
on the regulations during the farmers busiest time of
year.
The PA Department of Agriculture now has
a full staff working in the nutrient management program. The supervisor of this
section is Doug Goodlander. The other staff include Bill Zett and Christian
Sautter.
Staff are also working on the development of delegation agreements with conservation
districts and an administrative manual. Tom Oyler, Jr., complemented Karl on
the presentation he and the staff provided at
the public meetings and hearings that were held.
Report on the Storage Tank Indemnification Fund Stakeholders Meeting
Chairperson Junk reported on the Storage
Tank Indemnification Fund Stakeholders meeting he had Attended. A list of the
stakeholders was distributed to the members (attachment # 8.) Chairperson Junk
stated that Carl Shaffer has been designated by the Board to represent agricultural
interests at these meetings. Gordon Hiller and Chairperson Junk have attended
meetings for Carl, who was not available on those dates. Chairperson Junk did
present the Board's moratorium proposal regarding storage tank removal at the
last meeting. However, the stakeholders decided that this issue is a regulatory/legislative
matter that should not be addressed by the stakeholders. Carl Shaffer stressed
the importance of having the
agricultural community represented at these meetings.
Report on the Producer Member Terms
Jay Howes, House Agricultural and Rural
Affairs Committee, stated that S.B. 298, the Agricultural Advisory Board Act,
is silent on the staggering of producer member terms. Jay noted that the three
year terms of the producer members will all expire on October 6, 1996. The Board
was concerned that if there is a complete turnover of producer members at that
time, it will severely impact the work of the Board. Jay suggested that a letter
be written to Secretary Seif, recommending that producer member terms be staggered
to one, two, and three year terms so all producer member terms would not expire
at the same time. This would also provide continuity of membership on the Board.
Sam Elkin made a motion that Jay Howes and Chairperson Junk write a letter to
Secretary Seif regarding staggered terms for producer members. A copy of this
letter should also be sent to the appropriate Assistant to the Governor. This
motion was seconded by Gordon Hiller and the motion was passed unanimously.
Issues/Comments/Concerns of the Board
Bill Adams, PA Farm Bureau, suggested
that the topic of Natural Heritage Inventories be a future agenda item for the
Board.
Adjournment
There being no further business, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
The next meeting will be held on June
26, 1996 at 10:00 a.m. in room 105 of the Rachel Carson State Office Building
in Harrisburg.
Dean M. Auchenbach