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
Kurt Leitholf, PA Association of Conservation Districts
Donald Lichtenwalner, Grain Producer
Gordon Hiller, PA State Grange
Bill Bowers, USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service
Mike Brendle, Poultry Producer
Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Bill Adams, PA Farm Bureau
Walt Peechatka, PA Department of Agriculture
Sam Elkin, Livestock Producer
Robert Pardoe, Jr., Dairy Producer
Dr. Herb Cole, The Pennsylvania State University
Mary Keenan, House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Bill Baumgartner, USDA, Farm Service Agency

Agencies, Advisors, Guests

James Seif, PA Department of Environmental Protection
Brenda Shambaugh, PA State Grange
Mike Sherman, PA Department of Environmental Protection
Dave Bingaman, PA Department of Agriculture
Sharon Freeman, DEP, Office of Policy
Cedric Karper, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Management
Steve Socash, DEP Bureau of Land recycling and Waste Management
Richard Shipman, DEP, Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste Mgmt.
Marc Roda, DEP, Bureau of Regulatory Counsel
Dave Gromelski, DEP, Office of Chief Counsel
Pam Witmer, DEP, Office of Policy and Communication
Gene Counsil, DEP, Bureau of dams, Waterways and Wetlands
Bruce Holbrook, DEP, Bureau of Land and Water Conservation
Dean Auchenbach, DEP, Bureau of Land and Water Conservation

Minutes

The minutes of the June 26, 1996 meeting were approved as distributed.

Nutrient Management Regulation Update

Karl Brown, Executive Secretary of the State Conservation Commission, distributed highlights of the Commission's July 25, 1996 meeting in State College (attachment # 1.) He noted that the Commission reappointed five members to the Nutrient management Advisory Board whose terms were due to expire. A final delegation agreement for conservation districts to implement the program was approved. Delegation agreement packages have been sent to conservation districts to work out arrangements for multi-county or single-county agreements. These proposals are due back to the Commission by October 15, 1996. Karl noted that the district's highest priority in the program will be the review of nutrient management plans. Concentrated animal operations will be referred to the private sector for nutrient management plan development. The district may write the plan only if a CAO has made three documented unsuccessful attempts to use the private sector.

The Nutrient Management advisory Board is working to address the 17 major issues identified during the public comment period. The one issue that still needs to be decided is whether a conservation plan will be required for a nutrient management plan. The Nutrient Management Advisory Board is working to have the regulations approved by the Commission as final at the January 7, 1997 Commission meeting. The Department of Agriculture certification regulations are now final and will be published in the PA Bulletin. Conservation district staff positions will then be filled and the staff trained and certified so they are ready to go once the regulations are approved. Districts will also be asked to distribute written information and conduct educational programs regarding the regulations. Karl distributed a handout (attachment # 2) which outlines the Nutrient Management Fund.

Gordon Hiller, PA State Grange, complemented Karl Brown and the members of the Nutrient Management Advisory Board on the work they have accomplished. It was asked how this program would compliment the One Plan Concept. Bill Bowers, NRCS, stated that for CAO's the NRCS would do the conservation plan but the CAO would have to go to the private sector for the nutrient management plan. Bill reminded members that the One Plan Concept does not mean that one agency will do the entire plan, but rather that all aspects of the plan compliment each other. It was noted that for certification an individual must do three nutrient management plans. It was asked how this would be documented? Karl stated that State Conservation Commission staff would have to review these plans, which could be test plans. The PA Department of Agriculture will maintain a list of individuals that are certified to develop nutrient management plans.

Sewage Sludge Regulation Update

Steve Socash, DEP, Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste Management, updated the Board on the revisions to the Sewage Sludge regulations after the Board's comments at the June meeting. The definition of "exceptional value wetlands" can now be found in the preamble of the regulations. The definition of "agricultural land" was amended to include horticultural crops. This definition was not deleted as first proposed since it appears several times in the regulations. The regulations were modified to include the grandfathering of existing sites from the isolation distances, from the date of notification of the application of sewage sludge. It was asked what would happen if a neighboring property was sold after the notification was made to the previous landowner. Steve stated that regulations do not address this but the burden would be on the person purchasing the land to check into this. A copy of the sections of the regulations with the above revisions is attached (see attachment # 3.) Steve noted that the Department is addressing all public comments received. The regulations are currently being reviewed by the Department's attorneys. It is planned that the regulations will go to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for final rulemaking at the October meeting (the September EQB meeting was cancelled.)

Storage Tank Moratorium Proposal Follow-up:

Chairperson Robert Junk distributed a copies of the Board's letter to the majority/minority chairs of the House and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committees, urging them to amend the Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act to allow the Department to grant the one year moratorium. Walt Peechatka, Department of Agriculture, questioned whether this issue could be attached to another piece of legislation to speed up the process. Chairperson Junk stated that Terry Fitzpatrick, from Senator Brightbill's Office, indicated that there will probably be storage tanks legislation addressed by the legislature next year and this moratorium proposal may compliment that legislation. Jay Howes, House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, stated that this issue is on the mind of legislators and are looking for a vehicle to address this. Dr. Cole, The Pennsylvania State University, stated that the environmental benefits of this moratorium need to be stressed. Chairperson Junk urged individual Board members to write letters to legislators to support the moratorium proposal.

Producer Member Terms

Chairperson Junk distributed a letter from DEP Secretary James Seif, dated August 6, 1996, (attachment # 5) in response to the Boards June 26, 1996 letter suggesting that the producer member terms be staggered. Chairperson Junk had surveyed the present producer members and put together a proposal to stagger their terms. A copy of this proposal was distributed (attachment # 6.) Chairperson Junk stated that with the nine producer member terms all expiring on October 6, 1996, the possibility exists that nine new producer members could be appointed by the Governor. This complete turnover in producer members would severely impact the work of the Board. Sam Elkin, livestock producer, made a motion that the Board submit this proposal, to stagger producer member terms, to DEP Secretary Seif for consideration. This motion was seconded by Bob Pardoe, Jr., and the motion was passed unanimously by the Board.

Universal Waste Rule

Richard Shipman, DEP, Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste Management, and Marc Roda, DEP, Office of Chief Counsel presented an overview of the Department's proposed Universal Waste Rule regulations. The Universal Waste Rule is a set of simplified management standards for the collection and transportation of universal wastes. The proposed regulations were published in the PA Bulletin on August 3, 1996 for a 60 day public comment period, which closes October 4, 1996. Universal waste shares common characteristics such as being frequently generated in a variety of settings other than industrial; generated by the vast community; and present in significant volumes in nonhazardous waste management systems. The goals of the Universal waste rule are to Encourage resource conservation; improve implementation of the current Subtitle C hazardous waste regulatory program; and to provide incentives for individuals or organizations to collect and manage the unregulated portions of the universal waste streams. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that nickel cadmium and other types of batteries, certain household hazardous pesticides, and mercury containing thermostats should be classified as universal waste. Additional waste may be classified as universal waste through the petition process as outlined in Subchapter P.

Dave Bingaman, Department of Agriculture (PDA) reviewed the PDA Chemsweep Program. Dave stated that this program has been very successful and results in significant savings. He distributed a 1996 spring collection summary (attachment # 7.) Dave stated that a farmer will send PDA a list of chemicals that they want disposed of. A PDA field staff person will then visit the farm to verify the materials. Chairperson Junk questioned how the Universal Waste Rule regulations would impact the Chemsweep Program. Dave stated that the regulations would compliment the Chemsweep program if consistent with federal regulations. Michael Brendle made a motion that the Board support the Universal Waste Rule since it compliments, and does not jeopardize the Chemsweep Program. This motion was seconded by Bob Pardoe, Jr., and the motion was passed unanimously by the Board. Chairperson Junk requested that Walt Peechatka and Dave Bingaman further review the Universal Waste Rule regulations to ensure they do not affect or jeopardize the PDA Chemsweep Program.

Department's Position Regarding the Proposed Bottle Bills

The Honorable DEP Secretary Jim Seif thanked the Board for the invitation to the meeting and for the opportunity to discuss this issue with the Board. Prior to addressing the Bottle Bill issue Secretary Seif updated the Board on other issues. A public hearing will be held by Senator Brightbill's Environmental Resources and Energy Committee regarding interstate trash. Pennsylvania receives as much, or more out of state trash than any other state in the country. Several recent court rulings have hurt the state's efforts to regulate out of state trash. The state will work with the federal government to encourage them to pass legislation to allow state's to regulate the out of state trash they receive. Secretary Seif commented on the Nutrient Management Regulations. The statute had set up a stakeholder process for the development of the regulations that has worked very well. The State Conservation Commission, which is currently chaired by Secretary Seif, will meet in Lancaster on October 7 to consider the Nutrient Management Regulations. Secretary Seif also noted that the State Conservation Commission is conducting a mid-term evaluation of its Directions for the 90's report. The Commission will consider a final draft of this report at the October meeting. Secretary Seif also noted that additional funding was obtained for conservation districts in this year's State budget. The Department will work with PDA and the Commission to ensure that a very efficient unit of government, the county conservation districts, gets every bit of resource that the Department can provide.

Secretary Seif then mentioned that Bill 2683, the Bottle Bill, is not favored by the Department. In 1988, Act 101 was passed, to handle the trash program. Municipal recycling programs were an integral part of the Act 101 Program. the material collected for this program helps to fund the program. Since the market for recycled materials is very volatile, the Department must ensure that every dollar is squeezed out of the recycled materials to nurture the Act 101 Program. It is the Department's position that a Bottle Bill would harm the Act 101 Program. Bob Pardoe, Jr., questioned whether the Bottle Bill and the Act 101 Program could compliment each other. Secretary Seif stated that this would be costly and time consuming and is not addressed in the current Bottle Bill. Chairperson junk suggested that it may be possible to modify the current PennDOT "adopt a highway program" to encourage youth groups and other organizations to collect bottles, cans, and other trash discarded along roadways that run past agricultural fields. Chairperson Junk stated that this could be a joint venture between DEP and PennDOT. Secretary Seif thanked Chairperson Junk for the suggestion and stated that the Board could make this a formal suggestion to the Department. Gordon Hiller, PA State Grange, mentioned that the Grange has taken a position to support the use of inmates for cleaning up trash along the state's roadways.

Chairperson Junk thanked Secretary Seif for attending the meeting and discussing this issue with the Board. Chairperson Junk provided Secretary Seif a copy of the Board's proposal to stagger the terms of the nine producer members so they would not all expire at the same time. Secretary Seif stated that he will look into this proposal.

H.B. 873 Clean Air Act Exemption for Farmers

Pam Witmer, DEP, Office of Policy and Communications, who was to address this issue was called away for another meeting. Chairperson Junk suggested that this topic be tabled until the Board's October 23, 1996 meeting.

Agricultural Flooding Assistance

This issue was suggested by Larry Cogan, ornamental horticulture representative at the Board's August meeting. Bill Bowers, USDA, Natural Resource Conservation service (NRCS) distributed a fact sheet on the Emergency Watershed Protection Program (attachment # 8.) Bill noted that six million in federal funds was allocated to Pennsylvania for this program. The requirement for eligibility is that there must be a threat to life or improved property. Cropland is not considered to be improved property. There were 17 teams that reviewed over 800 sites in 34 counties for the program. Of these sites 300 were determined to be eligible, and 70 of those 300 projects were bid out in the first round. In the three rounds that were completed in April, 125 projects were completed. The federal government then awarded an additional three million dollars to PA so all projects could be funded. There are no funds in this program to repair streambanks or to protect cropland.

William Baumgartner, USDA, Farm Service Agency, updated the Board on three programs to provide flooding assistance. The first is the Emergency Conservation Program, with 3.7 million in funding. This program provides cost share for the rehabilitation of farmland damaged by flooding, provided that the land is not historically flooded, and is administered by the Farm Service Agency Committee. This fund will pay 64% of the cost of the work, with the balance paid by the landowner. Funding of $20,000 or less may be approved by the county committee's. the second program is the Emergency Loan Program, for eligible producers who have suffered physical or financial losses. The program loan amount is determined by the applicants repayment ability. Loans are granted at 3.75% interest up to a maximum of $500,000. So far 29 emergency loans have been granted for a total of $1,949.000. The third program is the Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program. This program is used when crop losses are greater than 35% of the expected yield. When losses are greater than 60% the payment is 60 % of the crop price. This program has not been used much since few crops were destroyed in the January flooding.

Gene Counsil, DEP, Bureau of Dams, Waterways and Wetlands, discussed the Department's emergency permits. Emergency permits are issued by DEP field staff for immediate work to take care of problems which cause a threat to life, property, or the environment. DEP issued over 1500 emergency permits due to flooding. A channel cutting through the cropland would qualify for an emergency permit, but there would be no funding available from the Department for the work. If a project does not qualify for an emergency permit it may qualify for a general permit which can be obtained from either the DEP Regional Offices or delegated conservation districts. If the project does not qualify for a general permit the landowner will need to get a small project or joint permit application from the Department which will require the payment of a fee, and usually takes 60-90 days to obtain a permit.

Comments/Issues/Concerns of the Board

Chairperson Junk distributed a letter from Secretary Seif (attachment # 9) to the Board regarding the Board's concerns over the Department's wetland initiatives.

Several members of the Board expressed concern that the Universal Waste Rule regulations were printed in the PA Bulletin before the members were aware of them. The members stressed that the Department needs to notify them earlier in the process, so they can review these regulations before they are printed in the Bulletin for public comments. The Board felt that the Department should talk to all advisory boards that may have an interest in a regulation prior to the development of the regulations. It was pointed out by Department staff that when regulations go to the Environmental Quality Board for final rulemaking, an executive summary lists all advisory boards that reviewed the regulations.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Dean M. Auchenbach