C.B.F. ACTION ALERT!

Regulatory Basics Initiative
Will Weaken Protection of Water Quality in PA

As part of a state-wide review of all regulations, the
PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is
proposing changes to its regulatory chapters dealing
with water quality standards and permitting.These 
changes will significantly weaken current protections 
to our waterways!

The 60-day public review and comment period ends October
28, 1998.

Three hearings will be held by the EQB for changes to
Chap. 92, 93, 95, 96 and 97:

1) 10-15-98 at the DEP Pittsburgh regional office;

2) 10-20-98 at the DEP Harrisburg regional office;

3) 10-22-98 at the DEP Conshohocken regional office.

There will be a session at 3 p.m. and 7 p.m.
Immediately following the EQB hearings DEP will hold a
hearing on the Chapter 16 changes.

Proposed changes can be found in the PA Bulletin (August
29, '98), or by contacting Barb Kooser, CBF PA Office,
717-234-5550, bkooser@savethebay.cbf.org.

** PROPOSED REGULATORY CHANGES WILL…**

-- Allow increased discharges of toxic chemicals to
   waterways;

-- Eliminate regulation of 20 toxic chemicals;

-- Ignore the regulation of non-point source pollution
   in impaired waters;

-- Allow general permits to be issued for discharge of
   toxic chemicals; -- Allow general discharge permits
   to be issued in high-quality watersheds.

These changes could negatively effect the health of your
local waterways and Chesapeake Bay!  Your comments to
DEP are needed to stop this roll-back of water pollution
regulations!

ACT NOW!  Get the information, review it, and make
comments.  See attached for details, or contact Barb
Kooser, CBF PA Office, 717-234-5550,
bkooser@savethebay.cbf.org.

Revisions to Water Quality Standards

MAJOR REGULATORY CHAPTERS, CHANGES, AND GENERAL CONCERNS

Chapter 92, NPDES Permitting, Monitoring, and Compliance

*       92.25(3):  For total residual chlorine, the
technology cap of 0.5mg/l is proposed to be retained.
We support keeping the cap, since chlorine, although
needed for disinfection purposes, can be extremely toxic
to aquatic life if discharged in high concentrations.

*       92.51(6):  This "narrative criterion" language
which is in every discharge permit is good, but needs
strengthened.  DEP should add that compliance with all
water quality standards is required.

*       92.61:  Additional public comment should be
solicited, in particular when an application is filed.
It is important to know about specific public water
quality concerns before all the calculations have been
done and a draft permit published.

*       92.81:  This section on general permits is
greatly expanded and therefore weakens protection.
Specific proposals include:

*       for the first time allowing general permits to
include limits for toxic chemicals.  Since there is no
easy way to track >who uses these permits, DEP should
not allow toxics in general permits.

*       for the first time allowing general permits to
be issued in high quality waters with no indication of
how water quality will be maintained.  Once again, due
to the nature of general permits, the use of these
permits needs to be followed closely, which is very
difficult.  DEP in general should not allow the use of
general permits in high quality waters.

*       deleting the requirement for documenting that
the general permit will not violate water quality
standards.  Right now, there is a requirement that all
permits must document that they will not cause a
violation of water quality standards.  Because this is a
difficult task for a general permit, where the use of
the permit is not tracked or followed, DEP proposes to
delete it and reduce protection of PA waters.  DEP needs
to retain the documentation provision to ensure water
quality standards will not be violated by the use of
general permits.

*       not including in the proposal a prohibition of
the use of general permits in impaired waters.  Because
these waters have water quality problems, the use of
general permits should not be allowed in impaired
waters.

Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards

*       93.4:  DEP currently protects all our waters as
potential "potable water" sources, and is soliciting
comments on whether to retain this protection.  Because
of the extra protection it gives our streams, this
provision should be retained.

*       93.4:  DEP proposes deleting warm water fishes
as a statewide water use.  DEP states that aquatic life
will be protected for each stream listed in the stream
list, but this leaves no basement protection for any
stream that for one reason or another doesn't get on the
list.  It just makes sense that a basement level of
protection should be afforded, and warm water fishes
should be retained as a statewide water use.

*       93.5(e):  The current wording of this section
spells out that there will be no mixing zones -
"Criteria necessary to protect other designated uses
shall be met at the point of wastewater discharge."
This section was moved to Chapter 96, but this mixing
zone statement was deleted.  DEP currently allows mixing
zones for every discharge, but this policy has never
come under public scrutiny.  DEP should retain and
implement this language, or if DEP wants to institute a
mixing zone policy, then it should go out to public
comment and be incorporated into policy.

*       93.6:  One area not covered by Pennsylvania
regulations is instream flow and habitat.  Because PA
has no comprehensive water resources management, the DEP
should develop instream flow and habitat criteria and
incorporate them into this chapter of regulation.

Chapter 96 Water Quality Standards Implementation

*       96.4:  This section on Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs, which deals with how clean up will occur on
waters determined to be impaired) completely ignores
nonpoint source problems.  The design conditions (for
calculating discharge limits) are listed for low flow
conditions, but are silent on how modeling will be done
for rain-induced pollution.  In addition, it is unclear
whether the design flows apply only for impaired waters.
DEP should include a separate section for modeling done
on waters that are not impaired, should incorporate
nonpoint sources into their modeling in particular for
impaired waters, and should include how clean up
activities dealing with nonpoint source pollution will
be implemented.

*       96.4:  This section also gives DEP authority to
approve effluent trading, with only minimal
requirements.  Blanket authority is premature, and
should not be given without the opportunity to comment
on the procedure.  In addition, due to the potential
problems with trading, the procedure should be
incorporated into these regulations.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Written comments should be sent to:  Environmental
Quality Board, P.O.  Box 8477, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477
(express mail to Rachel Carson State Office Building,
400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105-2301) before
October 28, 1998.  If a one page summary of the comments
are submitted as well, the EQB members will receive it
with the regulatory package for the meeting on the final
form regulations.

Electronic comments may also be sent to:
RegComments@A1.dep.state.pa.us.  The subject heading of
the proposal and return name and address must be
included in each transmission.

Revisions to Water Quality Standards (Cont.)

Chapter 16 Water Quality Toxics Management Strategy -
Statement of Policy

This is separate from the rest of the proposed changes -
since Chapter 16 is only a statement of policy, comments
should be directed to DEP rather than the Environmental
Quality Board.  However, since this chapter contains all
the chemical specific criteria, these changes are very
important.

DEP is proposing a major roll back regarding criteria
for toxics.  The proposal includes deleting aquatic life
criteria for about 70 chemicals, with the reasoning that
they were originally developed using an old method and
there aren't enough data available to use the newer
method.  DEP proposes to make these old values
"guidance," with the discretion to require whole
effluent toxicity testing(WETT).

There are several problems with this approach.  First,
DEP cannot include an enforceable effluent limit in a
permit based on guidance values.  Second, DEP has
discretion to require the discharger to look at total
toxicity, which means a discharger can discharge
possibly toxic amounts of one of these chemicals into
the stream with absolutely no way to regulate the
amount.

Right now, discharge limits are calculated to protect
aquatic life and human health, and the more stringent is
used.  With the proposed changes, there will be no way
to regulate 20 of the chemicals since there are no
corresponding human health criteria. For about another
20 substances the protection will be weakened since the
human health numbers are greater, and in some cases much
greater, than the aquatic life values DEP proposes to
delete.  DEP should keep the current aquatic life values
as criteria until more data become available to use
newer methods to update the criteria.

This proposal also deletes the requirement for DEP to
develop criteria for chemicals proposed to be discharged
if none currently exist.  DEP should retain this
requirement to develop criteria for discharges of
chemicals if data show a chemical is toxic.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Hearings for Chapter 16 are separate, but immediately
following the hearings for the other chapters.  Comments
on Chapter 16 have the same deadline, but should be
addressed to Edward Brezina, DEP, P.O. Box 8555,
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555, or electronically at
Brezina.Edward@A1.dep.state.pa.us.  The subject heading
of the proposal and return name and address must be
included in each transmission.

<<<<END>>>>