The session is over. It will be a while, perhaps a week, before the journals for the last day are printed, and the bills that passed are enrolled, so the information here may be subject to change.

SB 427. The Tire Bill. Earlier in the week, the House Judiciary committee struck the version that had come over from the Senate Finance committee and restored it to the version that had been passed out of Senate Judiciary committee.

In House Finance committee, the bill was amended so that waste tires that were disposed of in landfills would be subject to the tonnage caps and the assessment fees. Another amendment removed the language that exempted waste tires from Public Service Commission (PSC) price setting provisions. Those safeguards make me feel better about the bill.

Late Saturday night, when the bill arrived at the Senate chamber, it was too late for a conference committee to be appointed, so the Senate amended the House version and sent it back to the House for approval. The House approved it and the bill passed.

Since the Senate amendment was not offered during a meeting open to the public, I have not seen it. But in talking to the committee counsel, I learned that the amendment gives the Division of Highways (DOH) the authority to develop a program whereby waste tire collection centers could be established at county DOH sheds where a "bounty" could be paid for waste tires. The bounty money is not to come from the five dollars per title fee that funds waste tire pile cleanups. The DOH has to come up with a separate funding source. Any program set up under this amendment would have to be fleshed out in rules developed by DOH.

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the DOH and the PSC are to propose rules to implement their respective roles in this bill. Because of vague wording and conflicting provisions in the bill, how the bill is interpreted by these agencies in rule-making will have a great impact on the implementation of the law.

SB 448. This bill, staggering the terms of solid waste authority members, was passed by the legislature. This bill provides that, this summer when four of the five solid waste authority positions are re/appointed, the DEP appointment will be for only one year, then the following appointments would be for four years. The PSC appointment will be for three years, then the following appointments would be for four years.

SB 152. This bill increased litter fines, and diverted half of the civil penalties for littering to the local solid waste authority in the county where the fine was levied. It also assessed points against one's driver's license for littering fines. But it did not make it out of House Finance committee, so it died.

HB 4336. This is the bill that would have allowed garbage to be dumped into abandoned coal mines. This bill was never acted upon and died.

HB 4508. Removing tree stumps from the definition of solid waste. This bill was never acted upon and died.

SB 17. Removing yard waste from the definition of solid waste. This bill was never acted upon and died.

HB 4260/SB 306. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Recycling Assistance Grant rule. Cooperatives consisting entirely of private entities may now apply for grants up to $200,000; grant applicants do not have to submit verification from their local solid waste authority that their proposal is consistent with the recycling plans developed by the solid waste authority; and a representative of the solid waste industry was added to the grant review committee. This was part of the DNR rules package and passed.

HB 4235. The Sewage Sludge Management rule. Changes were made to amounts of heavy metals allowed in land-applied sludge. Although some changes are more stringent, they are small steps. New exceptions, variances, and extensions negate the few positive changes. The worst of these is that "exceptional quality compost" that is applied to two acres or less does not need a land application permit. There are two problems with this benign-sounding statement:

1) There is nothing exceptional about "exceptional quality compost;" it is held to the same standard as all other sewage sludge products that can be land applied.

2) This definitional sleight of hand is then used to exempt "exceptional quality compost" from the requirement for a land application permit and its attendant safe-guards such as soil testing, maintaining soil pH, restrictions on the types of crops that may be grown on the land, restrictions on animal grazing and public access, and reporting where the sludge would be spread.

This nothing more than a loophole and a step backward for responsible sewage sludge management, and it passed the Legislature.

HB 4601. This bill would have amended the Office of Air Quality’s odor rule by adding a new section to regulate commercial sewage sludge composting facilities. A lot of energy was put into getting this bill on the agenda in House Judiciary, but at the last minute, all four of the Judiciary committee sponsors abandoned the bill and it was not taken up. Possibilities of amending it into the rule later evaporated, and the bill died.

HB 4055. The quarry bill. Like anything that goes through the legislative process, there are compromises from all parties in this bill. Overall, this bill is a positive step forward, and it took a lot of work from a lot of people to get this major piece of environmental legislation through the process, especially when one considers the current political climate concerning the environment.

Positive aspects of the bill are in the areas of blasting, pre-blast surveys, the director’s authority to deny permits, public participation, the ability for citizen suits, provisions for renewal, modifications and transfers of permits, groundwater monitoring, treble damages, water replacement, grandfathering of disturbed areas only, and although it is less than we wanted, a 25 foot buffer for existing quarries.

The downside of the bill is that fees are not enough to adequately fund the program, the proposed bonding requirements were weakened considerably, underground quarries that disturb less than five acres of surface ground are exempt, the provision that new quarries comply with zoning ordinances was lost, noise reduction is not addressed, and requirements for highwall reduction and for reclamation in general are minimal.

There are provisions in the bill that give the director fairly broad discretionary powers, such as the ability to delete areas from proposed and existing operations, require permit modi- fications, and require site specific blasting plans on the basis of local conditions and complaints. Citizen groups fighting new applications, transfers, modifications, existing nuisances, or water supply problems should get a copy of this bill and go over it carefully. Concerted citizen activism, exercised early, can set important precedents on how far the director’s discretionary powers can be used. Think of this bill as a new car that we should take for spin and see what it’ll do.

I want to thank all of you who read these reports and act on the information presented. Your work -- coming to hearings, doing research, contacting legislators, or passing the word on -- lets legislators know that citizen lobbyists such as myself represent people who care and who mean business, and boosts my credibility and effect- iveness. Likewise, when citizens have represent- atives at the legislature informing them of developments, they can be much more effective by targeting certain people at the right time with information that is relevant to what is going on.

It would be a good idea for all of you that contacted legislators during the session to thank them for their work, or for listening to you if you’re not sure how hard they worked. It is helpful to leave the issue on a positive note, that way legislators remember their experience with constituent participation as a positive one. That is important, because we’ll be back!

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me.

Tom Degen, PO Box 83,Chloe, WV 25235, 304-655-8651 (phone/fax/answering machine)