Tte(Tobyirrc (1) Agency 19 FEB -6 AH !!• 39 Department of Environmental Protection
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Tte(TObyIRRC (1) Agency 19 FEB -6 AH !!• 39 Department of Environmental Protection (2) I.D. Number (Governor's Office Use) RBBWESION 7-421 IRRC Number:'~m A (3) Short Title Water Quality Standards - Triennial Review (4) PA Code Cite (5) Agency Contacts & Telephone Numbers Primary Contact: Michele Tate 783 -1303 25 PA Code, Chapter 93 and Secondary Contact: Kelly Heffner 783-1303 Chapter 16 (6) Type ofRulemaking (Check One) (7) Is a 120-Day Emergency Certification Attached? Proposed Rulemaking X Final Order Adopting Regulation X No Final Order, Proposed Rulemaking Omitted Yes: By the Attorney General Yes: By the Governor (8) Briefly explain the regulation in clear and nontechnical language. Section 303(c)(l) of The Clean Water Act requires that states periodically, but at least once every 3 years, review and revise as necessary, their water quality standards. This rulemaking constitutes Pennsylvania's current biennial review of its water quality standards. The final regulation being considered will: update the water quality criteria; merge sections of Chapter 16 (Water Quality Toxics Management Strategy- Statement of Policy) into Chapter 93 (Water Quality Standards); add a definition in § 93.1 to clarify the term "conventional treatment" for potable water supply (PWS) that is used in § 93.3, Table 1; clarify in the footnote to Table 3 in § 93.7 that other sensitive "critical uses" may apply; verify current exceptions to fishable/swimmable waters; and make corrections and changes to drainage lists and other typographic and grammatical errors. In § 93.9a-93.9z, several changes to the drainage lists are proposed to clarify stream names, segment boundaries and to add MF use designations for the presence of migratory fish within the Mid-Atlantic slope basins of the Delaware, Susquehanna and Potomac Rivers. (9) State the statutory authority for the regulation and any relevant state or federal court decisions. These final amendments are made under authority of the following acts: The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, Act of June 22, 1937 (P.L. 1987, No. 394) as amended. 35 P.S.5 691.1 etseq. Section 1920-A of The Administrative Code of 1929, as amended, 71 P.S. § 510-20. Section 303 of the federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1313. Page 1 of8 (10) Is the regulation mandated by any federal or state law or court order, or federal regulation? If yes, cite the specific law, case or regulation, and any deadlines for action. Although this regulation is not specifically mandated by Federal or state law or regulations, the federal Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 131.20 requires that states review their water quality standards and modify them, as appropriate, at least once every three years. This regulation is intended to meet that three-year deadline. (11) Explain the compelling public interest that justifies the regulation. What is the problem it addresses? Water quality standards are an important element of the Commonwealth's water quality management program in that they set general and specific goals for the quality of Pennsylvania's surface waters. The water quality standards can affect all sources of wastewater discharge since the Department must regulate these sources to ensure that the instream water quality standards are met. The standards are used as program objectives in the control of both point and non-point sources of pollution. Section 303(c)(l) of the Clean Water Act requires that states periodically, but at least once every 3 years, review and revise as necessary, their water quality standards. This regulation constitutes Pennsylvania's current triennial review of its water quality standards. (12) State the public health, safety, environmental or general welfare risks associated with non- regulation. Section 303(c)(l) of The Clean Water Act requires that states periodically, but at least once every 3 years, review and revise as necessary, their water quality standards. Without this regulation, the discharge of pollutants to waters of the Commonwealth will cause environmental degradation and public health hazards. Without the amendments, the program may be administered in a manner more stringent than federal regulations, without a compelling reason, and there may be unclear or obsolete provisions in the regulations. This may have an indirect impact on public health or the environment because of the associated non-compliance stimulated by overly stringent or unclear regulations. (13) Describe who will benefit from the regulation. (Quantify the benefits as completely as possible and approximate the number of people who will benefit.) Overall, the citizens of the Commonwealth will benefit from the regulation since it will provide the appropriate level of water quality protection for the surface waters in Pennsylvania. The revised regulation helps to assure that pollution control actions are as cost-effective as possible and that pollution control costs are equitably distributed. The new language makes it easier for citizens to understand how water quality standards are implemented. It also assures that Pennsylvania's water quality program more closely mirrors federal requirements. Persons required to renew an existing or obtain a new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit may benefit because of the clarification provided in the amendments as well as increased consistency with federal regulations. This may include municipalities, municipal authorities and industries impacted by the NPDES permitting program. Page 2 of 8 (14) Describe who will be adversely affected by the regulation. (Quantify the adverse effect as completely as possible and approximate the number of people who will be adversely affected.) Persons proposing new or expanded activities or projects which result in discharges to waters of the Commonwealth may be adversely affected by the proposed regulations since they are required to provide waste water treatment according to the water quality criteria and designated water use. This regulation, is intended to update the water quality standards for the Commonwealth, and may result in higher design engineering, construction, and treatment costs to meet the more stringent criteria for selected parameters. This regulation will be implemented through the NPDES permitting program since the stream use designation and water quality criteria are the major bases for determining allowable stream discharge effluent limitations. (15) List the persons, groups or entities that will be required to comply with the regulation. (Approximate the number of people who will be required to comply.) See Question #14. Persons with proposed or existing discharges into surface waters of the Commonwealth must comply with the regulation. (16) Describe the communications with and inputs from the public in the development and drafting of the regulation. List the persons and/or groups who where involved, if applicable. The Department's Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC), provided input on the proposed regulation at its May 10, 2006, October 13, 2006, and May 9, 2007 meetings. In addition, the Department presented this rulemaking package to the Agricultural Advisory Board on August 22, 2007. This regulation was adopted by the EQB as proposed rulemaking at its October 16, 2007 meeting. The proposed rulemaking was published in the f g^my/varna ZW/efm on January 12, 2008 (38 Pa.B. 236) with provision for a 45-day public comment period. The public comment period was extended an additional 30 days and closed on March 27, 2008, as published in the f gMM&y/vama BwZ/efm on February 23, 2008 (38 Pa.B. 976). The Board received public comments from 10 commentators. The EQB has considered all public comments received in developing this final regulation. The draft final regulation was also discussed with WRAC on July 22, 2008, where the committee deliberated on aspects of the rulemaking, including the adoption of state-wide criteria for molybdenum and the proposed definition "conventional treatment". Although WRAC approved the draft final rulemaking for consideration by the EQB, some members of the committee expressed their concerns with the molybdenum criteria and the health data used to create the particular criterion. WRAC also provided recommendations to further clarify the proposed definition for "conventional treatment', as it relates to the protection of the Potable Water Supply (PWS) use. (17) Provide a specific estimate of the costs and/or savings to the regulated community associated with compliance, including any legal, accounting or consulting procedures which may be required. Costs and savings cannot be determined because of site-specific considerations and because there is no historical accounting of costs that would enable a comparative cost analysis to be conducted. Page 3 of 8 (18) Provide a specific estimate of the costs and/or savings to local governments associated with compliance, including any legal, accounting or consulting procedures which may be required. No costs will be imposed directly upon state or local governments by this regulation. (19) Provide a specific estimate of the costs and/or savings to state government associated with the implementation of the regulation, including any legal, accounting or consulting procedures which may be required. This regulation is based on and will be implemented through existing Department programs, procedures and policies. There is no additional implementation costs associated with this regulation. Page 4 of8 (20) In the table below, provide an estimate of the fiscal savings