More than 50 representatives of area municipalities, the
Bradford Sanitary Authority and Department of Environmental
Protection met Friday morning to discuss a proposed consent order
put forth by DEP officials.

The meeting was set up by State Rep. Martin Causer,
R-Turtlepoint, and Dan Hartle, chairman of the sanitary authority,
and is only one of many over the course of a few years regarding
the consent order and what it asks the municipalities and the
sanitary authority to do in an effort to be in compliance with DEP
standards.

The basis of the consent order revolves around hydraulic
overload problems the sanitary authority experiences, for example,
during heavy rain in the area.

The municipalities are asking for changes in the language of the
consent order before they agree to sign; DEP officials are looking
to satisfy some of the wants and needs of the municipalities, but
contend they can only stretch laws and regulations so far while
trying to accommodate their needs.

The biggest hurdle for the two entities to get over is the fact
that the municipalities are worried that the allotted amount of
Equivalency Dwelling Units (EDUs) allowed in the next year and
beginning in 2009 are not enough to cover planned and potential
building projects in their areas.

The total EDUs allowed this year are 50 and projects already in
process or coming up will take up the majority of those – a
potential 47. For the year 2008, in the consent order there are no
EDUs set aside and there will be no allowed carry-overs from
2007.

The DEP is telling the municipalities that they are giving them
EDUs to continue their projects when they might not be given any
because of the problems they continue to have at the sanitary plant
– namely the hydraulic overloads that occur in the system.

Another bone of contention for the municipalities is current
language in the consent order that says they would not be allowed
to appeal decisions by the DEP on nearly every front.

While the DEP said in the meeting that some areas of appeal
could be allowed in the next draft of the proposed consent order,
Stephanie Gallogly, lead counsel for the DEP on this consent order,
said that challenges to the amount of EDUs have not been
allowed.

Even if that is the case, it appeared Friday that the DEP may
consider allowing for more EDUs in the first place.

Matt Wolford, an attorney from Erie who also represents Lewis
Run Borough in another battle with DEP, and who worked for the DEP
sometime in the past, took exception to the appeal stipulations in
the consent order and voiced his concerns after hearing Bradford
attorney Greg Henry discuss his concerns over the appeal
process.

“I see two problems: This suggests that the department no longer
cares about making prudent decisions … Why not have it appealable?
It would give the department the ability to make good decisions,”
Wolford said. “And the one-size-fits-all mentality of this – what
about the other municipality folks?… If they don’t do what they
should do – (it falls on us).”

As several other municipalities agreed that there should be some
sort of a way to make several different orders of responsibility
regarding the order, John Peterson, Bradford City Clerk, reminded
those on hand that problems may pop up in areas including the city
when the plant can’t handle the flow – that just may have started
in their municipality.

“S- rolls down hill,” reminded Peterson. “You (outlying
municipalities) could create an overload the city will have to deal
with.”

Kelly Burch, Northwest Regional Director for DEP, said that a
point made by Bradford mayor Michele Corignani about the fact that
the municipalities work together in the valley should ring true
when it comes to them working to remain in compliance with what DEP
demands – separately as well as collectively.

“Because you rely on each other you’ve got to work together,” he
said. “I am the director of a 12-county region and I have never
known us to work arbitrarily or capriciously. We also answer to
people – we are not an iron-fisted agency that doesn’t answer to
anyone. There has got to be a limit. We are going to be fair.”

Those representing the DEP also voiced concern that the
municipalities were not taking into consideration the fact that
they are charged with protecting the environment as well as
enforcing the laws and regulations made for them to follow.

During the meeting, Causer reminded the DEP that they have the
discretion to make changes to the consent order and asked them to
rethink the items the municipalities are concerned about.

Corignani added that she would like to see the DEP provide them
help in getting into compliance with DEP demands.

Tom Vickery, Bradford Township supervisor, said he would like
the DEP to consider allowing them time to digest the next consent
order proposal before they demand an answer.

After the meeting, Hartle said he thought he heard the DEP say
they would consider granting more EDUs, looking to help the
municipalities with any carry-over EDUs in 2008 and consider
amending some of the appeal restrictions.

“I think it was fruitful,” said Hartle.

Causer agreed, “I think the meeting was very successful. The
(attendance) shows how important the issue is.”

The sanitary authority and municipalities also voiced concern
that they felt they did as they were asked in a corrective action
plan that they completed in 2005 and wonder why they are now faced
with this consent order.

Ricardo Gilson, Water Quality Program Manager for the DEP, said
Friday that they may have taken action on some of the problems that
concerned the Environmental Protection Agency and the DEP, but
there are remaining problems including the hydraulic overload.