Introduction

• Regulation, Legislation and Technical Committee

The Regulation, Legislation and Technical Committee reviews all major regulatory packages coming before the board during the reporting period and reports back to the full board. An explanation of each package is presented under the section titled The Full Board. Legislative matters are also presented to the committee for its review. Descriptions of those issues can also be found in The Full Board section.

Members of the committee:

David Osikowicz, Chairman

Jack Chamberlin

Sen. Raphael Musto

Sen. James J. Rhoades

Rep. James E. Shaner

Rep. Samuel H. Smith

David Strong

Sue Wilson (Alternate)

The Full Board

SMCRA mandates that the MRAB meet four times per year. The board actually met three times during the reporting period (see Appendix D). A fourth meeting, scheduled for January 14, 1999, was cancelled due to inclement weather. The board also made site visits to Bark Camp in Clearfield County and to the Toby Creek Treatment Plant in Elk County in conjunction with its July 1998 meeting.

• Regulatory Review

Chapter 86, Areas Unsuitable for Mining (UFM)

The board reviewed rulemaking procedures regarding Chapter 86, Areas Unsuitable for Mining (UFM). At the July 10, 1998, meeting, DEP presented the final rulemaking concerning general definitions in Subchapter A of Chapter 86 and UFM in Subchapter D. The intent was to bring Pennsylvania's regulations into compliance with the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The following are the comments made by the board at this meeting regarding the proposed final rulemaking:

• Section 86.102 (9): The MRAB suggested that DEP add an exemption to this section concerning waivers to the restrictions of mining within 300 feet of an occupied dwelling. DEP added an exemption to the final rulemaking consistent with the federal language in 30 CFR Section 761.12.

• Section 86.125: The board also suggested changing Section 86.125 to require that a public hearing be held within nine months after receiving a petition. SMCRA, as well as federal statutes and regulations, require that a public hearing be held within 10 months of receiving a complete petition and that a decision be made 60 days thereafter. Under some circumstances, a petition will not be acted upon within 12 months, as generally required by law. DEP asserted that the procedure contained in the final rulemaking is as effective as the federal procedure and strikes an appropriate balance within the boundaries of the petition process mandated by state law. Therefore, DEP did not accept this recommendation.

At the April 22, 1999, meeting, DEP provided an overview of the modified proposed final UFM rulemaking. The rulemaking package incorporated additional changes based on DEP's review and comments received from a second formal solicitation of public comment, in the form of an Advanced Notice of Final Rulemaking. In addition to the changes that had been previously proposed, several additional modifications were made. These included a change to the definition of surface mining operations in order to be consistent with equivalent federal legal interpretation.

After a question and answer period, Mike Young moved that the MRAB recommend that the Environmental Quality Board approve the UFM rulemaking. The motion was seconded by Jack Chamberlin and carried by a unanimous vote.

• Reclamation Issues

During the reporting period, the board received reports on various reclamation initiatives:

• Bark Camp Mine Reclamation Laboratory

• Reclaim PA

• Reed and Strattanville

• Comprehensive Plan for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (CPAMR)

• Selection of Watersheds for Restoration

• Rural Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program (RAMP)

• Title IV Funding

• Reclamation Enhancement Using Biosolids

• The Growing Greener Budget Initiative

The board generally commended progress made in the above initiatives, but also repeated its recommendations that DEP improve its outreach and education programs regarding reclamation initiatives.

Reclaim PA: DEP's Abandoned Mine Reclamation and Well Plugging Program

As part of each quarterly MRAB meeting during the reporting period, the board received briefings on the status of the entire Reclaim PA effort, as well as a number of the individual initiatives.

July 9 and 10, 1998, Quarterly MRAB Meeting (DuBois)

• DEP submitted Amendment No. 2 to its Abandoned Mine Reclamation Plan to the federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) in November 1997 to implement the GovernmentFinanced Construction Contract (GFCC) program. OSM completed its initial review and provided comments to DEP on June 5, 1998. DEP made modifications and submitted its response on July 7, 1998. OSM published its proposed federal rule, called Enhancing AML Reclamation, which is patterned after Pennsylvania's proposal, on June 25, 1998.

• Regarding the CPAMR, DEP has been working with other government agencies and abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation interests to develop a Model Watershed Restoration Plan format. The other agencies are the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, OSM, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and the Eastern and Western Pennsylvania Coalitions for Abandoned Mine Reclamation. The concept is to develop one watershed restoration plan format that will satisfy the requirements of all of the other agencies.

• The MRAB was also invited to submit its recommendations to DEP on how a review group could be structured to evaluate project worth determinations made by DEP under the CPAMR. The purpose is to enhance public input in the project selection process. DEP would make the final decision regarding individual project selections.

Oct. 15, 1998, Quarterly MRAB Meeting (Harrisburg)

• Areas Suitable for Remining (ASFR): The legislative mandate for the ASFR program is to provide an industry incentive, in the form of additional information and assistance, to encourage expanded AML remining by the industry.

• CPAMR: The Model Restoration Plan has been drafted.

• Design-Based Standards Permits: The pilot program is being established.

• Environmental Good Samaritan Legislation: The MRAB was advised that the Environmental Good Samaritan legislation, House Bill 2611, will not be acted upon during the 97-98 session, but will be reintroduced next session.

• Regional Watershed Support Initiative (RWSI): DEP is in the process of developing contracts with the Eastern and Western Pennsylvania Coalitions for Abandoned Mine Reclamation that will provide $50,000 to each to be used to support the development of watershed groups involved with acid mine drainage (AMD) activities. This program is being funded by an appropriation in the FY9899 state budget.

• 21^st Century Environment Commission Report: The MRAB passed a motion directing DEP to review the recommendations in the 21^st Century Environment Commission Report and integrate appropriate components into the Reclaim PA initiative. DEP was also directed to determine if any implementing legislative authorizations were needed and to present its report to the MRAB for their consideration at its next meeting.

• AML Project Selection Process: As a follow-up to discussions at the July 1998 meeting, the MRAB further discussed the concept of additional public input to the AML project selection process. DEP proposed that a committee be established to review and comment on the project worth determinations made by DEP. The MRAB passed a motion that endorsed the concept and directed DEP to include an MRAB member on the committee.

• Title IV Abandoned Mine Reclamation Trust Fund: The MRAB was advised that progress was being made on increasing appropriations from the federal Title IV Trust Fund. Governor Ridge convinced the National Governor's Association to pass a unanimous resolution urging Congress to release the unappropriated money for its intended use.

The board was provided with a briefing on the CPAMR and the Model Watershed Restoration Plan. The MRAB renewed its support for public input to the project selection process and asked that it be updated as the process continues. The board expected that it will have selected its representative and developed recommendations for outside members by its next meeting.

The DEP also provided status reports on the following initiatives:

• BMP Permits: The term BMP (Best Management Practices) is a more accurate and descriptive title for this permitting initiative. DEP is proceeding with the permitting, through Consent Orders and Agreements, for eight pilot program sites utilizing BMP permits.

• GFCCs: OSM partially approved Pennsylvania's Abandoned Mine Reclamation Plan, Amendment No. 2, on March 26, 1999, and expanded its approval on June 8, 1999, in response to supplemental information submitted by DEP. Implementation of the GFCC program is proceeding with several sites ready for contracting.

• 21^st Century Environment Commission Report: All of the 21^st Century Environment Commission Report's recommendations concerning mining have been incorporated into the Reclaim PA initiative.

• Selection of Watersheds for Restoration

At the July 1998 MRAB meeting, the board was asked to consider a new approach for increasing public participation in the selection of watersheds for restoration. Rather than involve watershed groups, advocacy groups and advisory groups, such as the MRAB, in the development of initial worth determinations under the CPAMR, DEP recommended that the board and other groups get involved at a later time in the review process. The group or committee would actually have the ability to change the worth determinations previously made by DEP, to minimize the time required by public volunteers to participate in this review and also help inspire trust in the process. DEP would consider the committee's recommendations while making the final funding decision regarding individual projects. In addition to an MRAB member, DEP's Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation and Office of Water Management would also be represented.

On August 4, 1998, DEP sent each board member a copy of House Bill 2611, the Watershed Restoration and Partnership Act. This bill proposes establishing a Review Committee to increase public participation in project selection, although it will be limited to reviewing projects funded under the Watershed Restoration and Partnership Act. The legislation calls for a seven-member Review Committee; three of which will be MRAB board members.

At its Oct. 15, 1998, quarterly board meeting, the MRAB passed a motion that endorsed the Project Review Committee concept and directed DEP to include an MRAB member on the committee.

• Growing Greener

At its April 22, 1999, quarterly meeting, the board received a presentation on the Growing Greener initiative, a proposal to spend more than $1.3 billion on environmental protection and water and sewer investments over the next five years. The MRAB unanimously passed a resolution endorsing the concepts of Growing Greener, particularly the goals that would address the Commonwealth's AMD and AML problems and remining programs.

Reclamation Committee Activities

At its May 27, 1999, meeting in Brockway, the Reclamation Committee discussed a number of reclamation issues and made the following recommendations to the MRAB:

• Better Interbureau and Interprogram Cooperation: Many sites, both traditional reclamation and some not-so-traditional (see paragraph below), have multiple problems and/or require innovative solutions which would be best addressed by multimedia and multi-program coordination and cooperation. This issue has been discussed numerous times in the past (e.g., Bark Camp), but needs to be continually reinforced. DEP needs to break out of the medium-specific, program-specific mode and attack environmental problems and issues with multi-media coordination.

One example, which was the impetus for this discussion, is a local "dump" (closed landfill) with multiple problems, including the fact that it was previously mined. The multiple problems at this site necessitate the involvement of multiple programs. Each of these sites may be unique, but their existence is not; many such sites exist throughout the Commonwealth.

Such sites, even if not primarily reclamation sites, need to be included in setting priorities on a watershed basis. The CPAMR cannot operate in a vacuum, but must coordinate with other programs for overall impact in a watershed. Watershed restoration should be the Commonwealth's focus, not just reclamation.

The committee asked the board to formally urge better interprogram coordination and cooperation on a site-specific basis. There needs to be increased coordination, communication and crosstraining between the deputates, bureaus and programs.

• Independent Power Producers (IPPs): By burning waste coal piles, IPPs are remediating some significant environmental concerns while simultaneously producing power, and sometimes steam, for other use. The committee generally supported the concept of incorporating these efforts into Reclaim PA, with the goal of developing some means of providing incentives, since many recent actions have worked against the continued existence of these beneficial facilities

The committee asked the board to recommend that DEP consider how these efforts could be incorporated into Reclaim PA and report back to the board.

• Facilitating the Exchange of Materials that have Potential Uses for Reclamation and Remediation (Resource Clearinghouse): For example, the Sweet Soil research and demonstration facility in Elk County is successfully using locally derived paper waste and by-product lime for reclamation purposes. These "waste" streams would otherwise be destined for disposal in a landfill, but can instead be used to address another environmental problem. Unfortunately, matching sources with users has not occurred since wastes are traditionally disposed rather than considered a resource. This squanders potentially valuable resources and takes up landfill space that could be used for waste that requires disposal.

The Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) has initiated a project on how to promote the recycling and reuse of organic materials. CAC has proposed creating a "resource listing" on DEP's website for the reuse of certain organic materials. An organic materials clearinghouse would allow organizations to find and trade sources of materials for reuse rather than disposal. DEP could develop a pilot that would allow sources and users of a limited number of "safe" waste streams (e.g., paper waste, by-produce lime, etc.) that could be used to aid in reclamation. If this pilot has a positive impact in expediting the transfer of such resources, it could be expanded to include other types of waste, always in keeping with the priority of protecting public and environmental health and safety.

The committee asked the board to lend its support to the exploration of such a resource exchange.

Final Thoughts From The Chairman

Chairman

Appendix C

Board Membership for Reporting Period (June 1998 - June 1999)

Appendix D

Meeting Dates During the Reporting Period (June 1998 - June 1999)

Appendix E

(June 1998 - June 1999)

Annual Report Committee

Policy Committee

Reclamation Committee

Regulation, Legislation and Technical Committee