ACTION ALERT! Regulatory Basics Initiative

May Still Weaken Protection of Water Quality in PA

As part of a state-wide review of all regulations (RBI), the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has proposed changes to its regulations that control the amount of toxic chemicals discharged to waterways. These changes could significantly weaken current protections to our streams and rivers!

UPDATE: On October 30, 1998 DEP announced several positive changes to these regulations at the public's insistence. DEP now proposes to continue prohibiting the discharge of toxic chemicals under general permits, and has retained the toxic limits for aquatic-life for 19 discharged chemicals….a small victory, but:

Several key issues remain!!

** PROPOSED REGULATORY CHANGES …**

• will still allow increased discharges of 20 toxic chemicals to PA waterways, including phenol, toluene, and xylene;
  
• will continue to ignore the effects of non-point source pollution in impaired waters;
  
• will still allow general discharge permits to be issued in high-quality watersheds;
  
• will still fail to address "mixing zones", therefore allowing all dischargers to claim extended lengths of waterways where regulations will not apply.

These changes could negatively effect the health of your local waterways and Chesapeake Bay!

Your PA LEGISLATORS will now comment on these regulations! The citizen comment period has ended, but legislators will make recommendations to DEP and the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) by November 17, 1998.

ACT NOW! Write or call your legislator, and the members of the House and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committees listed below. Ask them to not only support DEP's updated changes, but also recommend additional changes that will positively affect the issues listed above.

Contact Barb Kooser, CBF PA Office, 717-234-5550, bkooser@savethebay.cbf.org for more details.

House Env. Res. and Energy Committee

Representatives:

Reber (Chair), McGill, Argall, Birmelin, Clark, Dent, Feese, Jadlowiec, Lynch, Masland, McIlhinney, Rubley, Stern, Pippy, George (Min. Chair), Williams, Readshaw, Surra, Steelman, Vitali, Casorio, DeLuca, Jarolin, Harhai, Smith, Levdansky

Senate Env. Res. and Energy Committee

Senators:

Madigan (Chair), Helfrick (V. Chair), Holl, Greenleaf, Rhoades, Brightbill,
Musto (M. Chair), Stapleton, Stout, Wagner, Jubelier

Issues that remain regarding the

DEP Regulatory Basics Initiative

Chapter 92

Compliance History

The Clean Streams Law requires dischargers to be in compliance with all permits, not just their water discharge permit. In addition, all permits, including general permits, need to include a compliance history review.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

We object to the "permit by rule" included under this section, because no registration is required and no compliance history review is required. Individual permits are needed for the largest operations (over 1000 animal units), and a general permit requiring registration and compliance history review should be required for smaler operations over 300 animal units.

Increased Public Participation

The proposal should add expanded public participation opportunities, particularly at the application stage, before decisions are made and draft permits are proposed.

Consistency with Residual Waste Regulations

Those facilities that would fall under the residual waste regulations should be required to submit source reduction strategies for facilities that discharge to them in compliance with current regulations.

General Permits

DEP should retain the prohibition on the use of general permits in high quality waters. Although DEP has proposed to evaluate general permits in high quality waters on a case – by – case basis, DEP has not told us what criteria it will use to evaluate them. The current prohibition should be retained.

DEP should prohibit the use of general permits in impaired waters if the discharge would contribute to the problem causing the impairment.

Chapter 93

Potable Water as a Statewide Use

DEP should retain potable water supply as a statewide use. Over 76% of the community drinking water systems depend on surface water for their drinking water. We need to retain this use to protect these supplies and future supplies as well.

Warm Water Fishes as a Statewide Use

DEP should retain warm water fishes as a statewide use. This will provide baseline protection, if for some reason a stream is not listed on the list of streams in the regulations.

Site Specific Criteria

The general narrative criteria ("Water may not contain substances … in concentration or amounts sufficient to be inimical or harmful to the water uses to be protected or to human, animal, plant or aquatic life") should apply everywhere and no exceptions should be allowed.

Chapter 96

Water Quality Protection Levels

This section is very unclear. DEP needs to explain how this protection level will be implemented, and again, the general narrative criteria should apply 100%, not 99% of the time.

Mixing Zones

DEP deletes the one sentence that can be construed to address mixing zones. Currently, every discharger gets a zone downstream of a discharge where instream criteria do not have to be met. This policy has never undergone public scrutiny, and it has not be approved through a regulatory review by EPA, though that is required. DEP needs to put this policy in regulation and include it in the rulemaking package.

TMDLs

DEP is required by EPA to reduce the pollutants in impaired waters through the use of a total maximum daily load (TMDL). This process is required to address point sources (i.e. industry and sewage treatment plants) and nonpoint sources (urban and agricultural runoff). The proposed regulations do not address how DEP will enforce reductions from nonpoint sources and is silent on how the mathematical modeling will be done, even though nonpoint source TMDLs are required to be done within the next year. DEP needs to address these shortcomings.

Effluent Trading

The proposed language gives DEP the authority to develop and approve effluent trading polices without laying out any framework or more than the most minimal ground rules. Without details, no evaluation of a program can be made, and no one is sure of the ground rules. DEP needs to include a more complete list of evaluation criteria in the regulations before given any authority to approve a program. We strongly urge DEP to work with interested parties, including the public, to develop an appropriate trading program. This proposal is premature.

Chapter 16

Aquatic Life Criteria

Although DEP has agreed to keep some of the aquatic life criteria, we oppose the deletion of the criteria for those chemicals which the human health criteria are higher than the current aquatic life criteria. These chemicals, such as phenol, xylene, and toluene, are all used in high volumes in our state. The data that do exist show they are toxic to aquatic life. Therefore, these criteria should remain until enough new data are available to calculate updated criteria.

<<<<END>>>>

return