PROPOSED RULEMAKING

ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY BOARD

[ 25 PA. CODE CH. 93 ]

Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards

[47 Pa.B. 6609]
[Saturday, October 21, 2017]

 The Environmental Quality Board (Board) proposes to amend Chapter 93 (relating to water quality standards) to read as set forth in Annex A.

 This proposed rulemaking was adopted by the Board at its meeting of April 18, 2017.

A. Effective Date

 This proposed rulemaking will go into effect upon final-form publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, and subsequent approval by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when water quality standards are used to implement the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. §§ 1251—1388).

B. Contact Persons

 For further information, contact Thomas Barron, Bureau of Clean Water, 11th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, P.O. Box 8774, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8774, (717) 787-9637; or Michelle Moses, Assistant Counsel, Bureau of Regulatory Counsel, 9th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, P.O. Box 8464, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8464, (717) 787-7060. Persons with a disability may use the AT&T Relay Service at (800) 654-5984 (TDD users) or (800) 654-5988 (voice users). This proposed rulemaking is available on the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) web site at www.dep.pa.gov (select ''Public Participation,'' then ''Environmental Quality Board (EQB)'').

C. Statutory and Regulatory Authority

 This proposed rulemaking is being made under the authority of sections 5(b)(1) and 402 of The Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. §§ 691.5(b)(1) and 691.402), which authorize the Board to develop and adopt rules and regulations to implement The Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. §§ 691.1—691.1001), and section 1920-A of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P.S. § 510-20), which grants to the Board the power and duty to formulate, adopt and promulgate rules and regulations for the proper performance of the work of the Department. In addition, section 303 of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. § 1313) sets forth requirements for water quality standards.

D. Background and Purpose

 Water quality standards are in-stream water quality goals that are implemented by imposing specific regulatory requirements (such as treatment requirements, effluent limits and best management practices (BMPs)) on individual sources of pollution. Section 303(c)(1) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires that states periodically, but at least once every 3 years, review and revise as necessary their water quality standards. Water quality standards include designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria and antidegradation requirements for surface waters. The amendments in this proposed rulemaking are the result of ongoing reviews and evaluations of the water quality standards conducted by the Department. This proposed rulemaking fulfills the Federally-required triennial review of water quality standards as mandated by the Federal Clean Water Act.

 Pennsylvania water quality standards, which are generally codified in Chapter 93, are designed to implement the requirements of sections 5 and 402 of The Clean Streams Law and section 303 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The water quality standards include the existing and designated uses of the surface waters of the Commonwealth, along with the specific numeric and narrative criteria necessary to achieve and maintain those uses, and an antidegradation policy, which prohibits degradation of waters. The water quality standards also include a policy for the special protection of the existing quality of certain waters found to be of High Quality (HQ) or Exceptional Value (EV).

 Water quality standards are an important element of the Commonwealth's water quality management program. Some type of water quality standard has been in use for over 75 years in this Commonwealth. One of the early actions after the Sanitary Water Board (SWB) was created in 1923 was to classify streams by priority for water quality management actions. In 1947, the SWB classified all streams in this Commonwealth by the degree of treatment that had to be provided before discharge could occur. Article 301—Water Quality Control, which specifically contained water uses, general and specific water quality criteria, and designated water uses, was added to the SWB's Rules and Regulations on June 28, 1967. The SWB was abolished on January 19, 1971, following the formation of the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) in 1968. Responsibilities for developing and maintaining the water quality criteria and standards and other related regulations were transferred to DER. New or revised specific water quality criteria and standards were developed by DER for all surface waters in this Commonwealth, and formally adopted into Chapter 93 on September 10, 1971.

 DER completed its first major review and complete overhaul of the water quality criteria and standards in 1979. After a series of public hearings and extensive public participation, revisions to the water quality criteria and uses were incorporated into Chapter 93. EPA Region III formally approved the revisions to Pennsylvania's water quality standards on January 26, 1981. Section 303(c)(1) 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. Therefore, additional reviews and revisions were made to the Commonwealth's water quality standards in 1985, 1989 and 1994. The then newly-formed Department, which was created in June 1995, after splitting DER into two agencies by approval of the Conservation and Natural Resources Act (71 P.S. §§ 1340.101—1340.1103), began to conduct its first comprehensive review of water quality standards regulations, policies and implementation procedures which became the basis for the next triennial review. Additional reviews and revisions were made to the Commonwealth's water quality standards in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2009 and 2013 to address amendments for the Great Lakes Initiative, antidegradation policies, the Water Quality Standard Regulatory Basics Initiative Triennial and several other corrective amendments.

 The EPA urged the Department in a letter dated January 21, 2013, to include the Federally-recommended ammonia and recreational water quality criteria (RWQC) into the Commonwealth's water quality standards. Also, the EPA specifically recommended in its May 22, 2014, approval letter in reference to the 2013 Pennsylvania Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards ''that PADEP will address the issues of total dissolved solids, most notably chlorides, ammonia, and recreational criteria'' in its next triennial review.

 On March 24, 2016, the Department's Water Resources Advisory Committee voted to concur with the Department's recommendation to move this proposed rulemaking forward for Board consideration. In addition, the Department provided to the Agricultural Advisory Board on February 25, 2016, a regulatory review that included the triennial review of water quality standards. Also, the Department provided to the Citizens Advisory Council on June 21, 2016, an overview of the triennial review.

E. Summary of Regulatory Requirements

 The following is a detailed description of proposed amendments to Chapter 93.

§ 93.7. Specific water quality criteria—Table 3

 The Board is proposing the following changes to the Table 3 criteria:

 Ammonia criteria: The EPA released in April 2013 final recommendations for Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia—Freshwater 2013 (EPA 822-R-13-001). These recommendations are intended as guidance to states, territories and authorized tribes in developing water quality standards to protect aquatic life from exposure to ammonia. The Department assessed the peer-reviewed technical documentation for the recommended ammonia criteria and found it was scientifically sound and appropriate for the surface waters of the Commonwealth. The document can be accessed at https://www.epa.gov/wqc/aquatic-life-criteria-ammonia.

 These recommendations consider the most recent scientific research regarding the effects of ammonia on aquatic life and incorporate the latest toxicity information for freshwater species, including unionid mussels and gill-breathing (nonpulmonate) snails.

 Freshwater unionid mussels are found in many states of the continental United States and many of these mussels are Federally-listed as endangered or threatened species. Freshwater mussels are broadly distributed across the United States, as are freshwater nonpulmonate snails. Both of these sensitive groups are now included in the ammonia criteria dataset. There are approximately 65 species of unionid mussels in this Commonwealth, including many that are rare or endangered. The seven most sensitive genera in the acute dataset are all in the family Unionidae and all of these genera, except for Venustaconcha, are found in this Commonwealth. The two most sensitive genera in the chronic dataset are also unionid mussels, and are both found in this Commonwealth. These criteria are appropriate for Pennsylvania because they provide sufficient protection for the most sensitive fauna in this Commonwealth.

 The magnitude for both the acute (CMC) and chronic (CCC) criteria is determined by two separate equations and is given as a concentration in milligrams of total ammonia nitrogen per liter (mg TAN/L). Temperature and pH both influence the toxicity of ammonia. Temperature has little effect on the toxicity of total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) to fish, therefore the effect concentrations for fish are only normalized for pH. For invertebrates, temperature and pH affect the toxicity of TAN, so the TAN effects concentrations are normalized for pH and temperature. At pH = 7, the acute criterion magnitude is driven by freshwater unionid mussels at water temperatures greater than 15.7°C (60.27°F). The TAN effects concentrations of salmonids and other fish drive the acute criterion magnitude at lower temperatures. The 2013 chronic criterion magnitude is determined primarily by the sensitivity of freshwater mollusks, particularly unionid mussels.

 Therefore, the EPA developed the acute and chronic criteria equations with the underlying assumption that mussels are present, and this is appropriate for Pennsylvania, as sensitive mussels are ubiquitous throughout this Commonwealth. Additionally, the EPA developed an acute criteria equation that is appropriate when salmonids are present (along with the aforementioned mussels also being present). It is appropriate to use the acute criteria equation that considers the sensitive salmonids. The Department recommended that the Board consider salmonids being present when determining the Statewide CMC for TAN for several reasons: 1) salmonid fishes are common throughout this Commonwealth; 2) this equation uses the set of conditions that generates the most stringent criteria, so the proposed CMC will most certainly be sufficiently protective; and 3) all of the proposed acute criteria values generated by the proposed equation (regardless of the ambient pH and temperature conditions) are less restrictive than the values for the current acute criteria calculated using the same pH and temperature. Adopting this approach will not be detrimental to any current dischargers because the proposed acute standards will be less restrictive under all temperature and pH conditions. The 2013 chronic criterion magnitude is determined primarily by the sensitivity of freshwater mollusks, particularly unionid mussels, therefore the presence or absence of salmonids is inconsequential in the determination of the proposed chronic criteria.

 As previously mentioned, adopting the acute criterion will not be detrimental to any current dischargers because the proposed acute standards will be less restrictive under all temperature and pH conditions. The chronic criterion becomes more stringent as pH and temperature increase just the same as the current chronic ammonia criterion does. Median summer temperature and pH were calculated using data from 235 fixed water quality network sampling sites collected from 2000 to 2015. The data is representative of all different types of streams found Statewide. The new chronic criterion is typically more stringent than the existing criterion in streams with low pH and temperature. These are typically smaller headwater streams where it is less likely for a discharge to exist. At pH < 7, the new criterion is more stringent being anywhere from 0.1 to 1.5 mg/l lower. It is most stringent in cold streams with pH near 6.0. At pH > 7.8 the proposed compared to the current criterion is less stringent by 0.2 mg/l or less. Between pH 7.5 and 7.8, the proposed criterion is typically more stringent but 95% of the time the difference is less than 0.17 mg/l and only 0.6 mg/l 50% of the time. Between pH of 7.0 to 7.5 mg/l half the time the proposed criterion is higher and half the time it is less stringent depending on the temperature. When the EPA-recommended criteria are more stringent, 95% of the time the difference is < 0.9 mg/l.

 Overall, with respect to the proposed ammonia criteria, the Board expects either no impact or minimal impact on the great majority of point source discharges in this Commonwealth. In those cases, when additional treatment for ammonia may be needed, minimal cost impact is expected because ammonia is highly treatable. Treatment usually involves only time allowed for biological degradation and exposure to atmospheric oxygen.

 The Board proposes to replace the current Statewide aquatic life use criteria for ammonia with the new Federally-recommended criteria for ammonia. Statewide application of these Federally-recommended water quality criteria would provide an appropriate level of protection for aquatic life from the effects of ammonia.

 Bacteria criteria: The Board is proposing amendments to the bacteria criteria that will include replacing the current fecal coliform-based criteria for water contact sports (WC) during the swimming season (May 1 to September 30) with the EPA's recommended 2012 RWQC in the Commonwealth's surface waters. The Department assessed the peer-reviewed technical documentation for the EPA's recommended recreational criteria for bacteria and found it was scientifically sound and appropriate for the surface waters of the Commonwealth. The document can be accessed at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/rwqc2012.pdf.

 The Commonwealth's current recreational use bacteria criteria have been based upon a maximum fecal coliform level of 200 colony forming units per 100 mL (cfu/100 mL) since the early 1970s. It is now widely accepted that Escherichia coli (E. coli) levels are a better indicator of fecal contamination than fecal coliforms. This change is designed to protect those engaging in WC (defined as the use of the water for swimming and related activities) from fecal contamination. There are two sets of recommendations based on two different risk paradigms (36 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers and 32 illnesses per 1,000 swimmers). The EPA maintains, in the 2012 RWQC, that both risk paradigms are adequately protective. The Board proposes the adoption of the E. coli freshwater levels associated with Recommendation 1, the 36 per 1,000 illness rate. The E. coli levels associated with this risk paradigm (geometric mean (GM) = 126 cfu/100 mL and statistical threshold value (STV) = 410 cfu/100ml) are most closely akin to the current Department of Health (DOH) standards in 28 Pa. Code § 18.28 (relating to bathing beach contamination) and the criteria that were promulgated for Lake Erie and Presque Isle under the 2004 Bacteria Rule (40 CFR 131.41 (relating to bacteriological criteria for those states not complying with Clean Water Act section 303(i)(1)(A))) published at 69 FR 67218 (November 16, 2004). The criteria values for the current DOH standards and the criteria values that were Federally-promulgated for Lake Erie beaches, including Presque Isle, are a geometric mean value of 126 and a single sample maximum value (SSM) of 235. This SSM feature is not part of the 2012 RWQC. The SSM has been replaced by the STV of 410, which is most similar to the SSM (409) for the 90th percentile from the EPA's 1986 recommended bacteria criterion. To achieve the most consistent approach, the Board is favoring the criteria based on the similar geometric mean and SSM values. The Department believes this will result in a more seamless transition.

 The Department conducted field studies making side-by-side sample comparisons between the current fecal coliform and proposed E. coli criteria. The study included 181 sites in 7 different watersheds. Applying the proposed E. coli standard would impair 15% more sites for WC recreation than the fecal coliform standard. This indicates the proposed standard provides a higher level of protection from waterborne diseases for the citizens of this Commonwealth.

 Other proposed amendments to Table 3 and § 93.9x (relating to Drainage List X) provide further clarification. First, the Board would like to emphasize that the DOH bathing beach contamination in 28 Pa. Code § 18.28 applies to all regulated beaches Statewide. Therefore, the Board is proposing to delete references to the DOH regulation in § 93.9x since it is not limited to Lake Erie. The Board also proposes to delete language in § 93.9x which refers to 40 CFR 131.41, which pertains to Lake Erie and Presque Isle beaches. These references to 40 CFR 131.41 and 28 Pa. Code § 18.28, as Exceptions to Specific Criteria, are no longer necessary since the proposed E. coli WC criterion in Bac₁ will be applied Statewide and the DOH regulation applies Statewide.

 Bac₁ is designed to be protective of activities involving WC. The Bac₁ criterion is systematically applied to all surface waters in the Commonwealth unless otherwise specified in other portions of Pennsylvania's water quality standards.

 Historically, the Bac₂ criterion was originally implemented as a site-specific criterion to protect the potable water supply (PWS), when the WC use was removed at Lake Erie and has always only been implemented in these select waters. Therefore, Bac₂ is currently only applicable in the outer Erie Harbor and Presque Isle Bay; specifically, in the harbor area and central channel dredged and maintained by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, the Board proposes to delete the Bac₂ criterion from Table 3 and add this criterion in a new table in § 93.9x, where it only applies to Lake Erie waters.

 The Board proposes that the current nonswimming season fecal coliform-based numerical criterion in Bac₁, which is a geometric mean maximum value of 2,000 cfu/100 mL, be retained and should continue to be applied Statewide in all surface waters from October 1 through April 30. The EPA is currently conducting research in an attempt to develop criteria that will be protective of secondary contact recreation. When the EPA finalizes and recommends these new Federal secondary contact recreational criteria, the Department will conduct a thorough review and evaluate whether the recommendations are appropriate for the Commonwealth.

 Chloride criteria: Chlorides occur naturally in streams and are ubiquitous. Elevated levels of chloride are toxic to aquatic life in freshwater environments. The existing chloride criterion was developed primarily for the protection of PWS and is only applied at the point of water supply intake under § 96.3(d) (relating to water quality protection requirements). The Board proposed updates to the chloride criteria in several earlier rulemakings, but withdrew those recommendations due to objections from commentators that suggested additional research was needed. The Board initiated a proposed rulemaking for the promulgation of the 1988 National aquatic life criteria for chloride at its March 16, 2010, meeting. The proposed aquatic life criteria (230 mg/l = chronic; 860 mg/l = acute) mirrored the National-recommended aquatic life criteria that were published in February 1988 by the EPA in Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chloride. That proposed rulemaking was published at 40 Pa.B. 2264 (May 1, 2010) with a comment period that closed on June 15, 2010. Based on comments received during that public comment period, the Department re-evaluated the science used in the determination of the chloride criterion successfully implemented by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, which was based on research conducted by the EPA, along with the Great Lakes Environmental Center in Columbus, OH, and the Illinois Natural History Survey in Champaign, IL. That research demonstrated a correlation between chloride toxicity and hardness, and, to a lesser degree, sulfates levels in water. The final results of this toxicity testing were published in the report ''Acute Toxicity of Chloride to Select Freshwater Invertebrates,'' EPA, October 28, 2008. The Board proposed a new equation-based criterion, which was published at 42 Pa.B. 4367 (July 7, 2012). This equation-based criterion was also later withdrawn because of requests for the Department to conduct further studies.

 In response to these earlier rulemaking actions, the Department conducted additional studies to characterize the ionic composition of surface waters and contracted with the Stroud Water Research Center in Avondale to perform chloride toxicity testing on mayflies. The studies were designed to provide the additional information needed to support the development of a chloride criterion that is protective across the range of aquatic habitats and species in waters in this Commonwealth. The mayfly studies demonstrated the toxicity of chlorides is hardness dependent but the responses differed from those modeled in the previously mentioned study that used cladocera (water fleas) as the test organisms. There was not a sufficient number of mayfly toxicity tests done at varying hardness levels to determine a good mathematical relationship between hardness and chloride toxicity. The chloride criteria require adjustment to differing hardness levels so as not to be over or under protective at different hardness values. That adjustment remains a question as the cladocera responded differently from the mayflies and there were not enough tests to adequately define the mayfly response.

 More recently, the EPA published for public comment on December 20, 2016, Draft Field-Based Methods for Developing Aquatic Life Criteria for Specific Conductivity. The Department is currently reviewing this new field-based method to determine how it applies to Pennsylvania. The document provides a scientific method to assess ecological effects of ions based on specific conductance. Elevated ionic concentration measured as specific conductivity has been shown to negatively impact aquatic life in a range of freshwater resources. Since specific conductance is a composite measure of all ions present in the water, it is believed it accounts for the toxic or protective interactions of the ions on overall toxicity. This field-based method is a shift away from traditional laboratory toxicity testing to develop criteria for individual ions such as chloride. Criteria for individual ions developed using laboratory toxicity tests requires adjustment at least for hardness as toxicity is at least partly dependent on hardness levels. Since conductivity is a surrogate measure for all the ions present in the water, this EPA study determines that conductivity better accounts for interactions between all ions and toxicity than simply defining a relationship between only hardness and toxicity. For the ions, it is also believed that organism community field-based responses are better indicators of toxic impacts than single species controlled laboratory tests.

 This study was geared toward waters where sulfate was the dominant ion but the same field-based methods are suggested for other ions such as chloride. The EPA recommendation is that there are advantages to using this field-based conductivity method for ions because it better accounts for interactions between ions than does the hardness adjustment. As previously stated, the hardness to toxicity relationship was not defined well enough in the laboratory cladocera and mayfly toxicity tests. Once finalized, states and authorized tribes may use the methods to develop field-based specific conductivity criteria for flowing waters. This document does not impose binding water quality criteria on any state. The 60-day public comment period has closed and the EPA will consider the comments, revise the document, as appropriate, and publish a final document.

 Due to the complex nature of the chemical interactions that determine the toxicological responses of aquatic organisms to chloride, and the release for comment of the field-based specific conductivity draft that addresses these concerns through specific conductance rather than the individual ions, the Department is not recommending a specific chloride criterion with this proposed rulemaking. The Department continues to review all available science, including the Draft Field-Based Methods for Developing Aquatic Life Criteria for Specific Conductivity from the EPA and any new data acquired through the additional studies in efforts to develop appropriate criteria intended to be applied in all freshwaters of the Commonwealth for the protection of aquatic life.

§ 93.8a. Toxic substances

 The Board proposes to delete the reference in subsection (b) to Chapter 16, Appendix A, Table 1A since this table is proposed to be deleted in a separate proposed statement of policy. See 47 Pa.B. 6703 (October 21, 2017). The Department will now maintain a publicly available online table of site-specific human health and aquatic life criteria that have been recently developed or adopted by the Department based on approved methodologies and the best scientific information currently available. It should be noted that a similar amendment is proposed in § 93.8c(a) (relating to human health and aquatic life criteria for toxic substances). Also, subsection (b) is proposed to be amended to note that the approved analytical procedures and detection limits for these substances will be listed in Chapter 16 (relating to water quality toxics management strategy—statement of policy), as appropriate. The tables can be accessed at http://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Water/CleanWater/WaterQuality/Pages/Site-Specific-Water-Quality-Criteria-In-PA.aspx.

 Additionally, the Board proposes to delete in subsection (j)(3) the reference to 40 CFR 131.32(a), which has been reserved. Deletion of this cross-reference was missed during the previous triennial review.

§ 93.8c. Human health and aquatic life criteria for toxic substances

 The Board proposes to clarify in subsection (a) that, for those aquatic life criteria that are a function of local water quality conditions and are specified as a formula, such as several of the heavy metals, the hardness and pH values used to derive the appropriate water quality criteria shall be determined by instream measurements or best estimates, representative of the median concentrations or conditions of the receiving stream for the applicable time period and design conditions.

 The Board proposes to delete the prohibition in subsection (b) and clarify that criteria in Table 5 may apply to the Great Lakes System for those substances not listed in Table 6.

 The Board is proposing additions and amendments to the human health and aquatic life criteria in Table 5. Water quality criteria are to be based solely on the best available scientific data and scientific judgments on pollutant concentrations and their effects on human health or aquatic life. The criteria are tools used to calculate discharge limits in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program and to support other pollution control efforts. The criteria in Table 5 are proposed to be updated to reflect the latest scientific information and implementation of existing EPA policies in the Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (EPA-822-B-00-004, October 2000). The proposed updates include new scientifically-based exposure factors for body weight (80 kg), drinking water consumption rate (2.4 liters per day) and fish consumption rate (22.0 kg per day).

 The EPA announced at 80 FR 36986 (June 29, 2015) the final updates recommended for 94 pollutants. In addition to the updated exposure factors, the EPA has determined pollutant-specific bioaccumulation factors and has updated available toxicity values using the data from the EPA Integrated Risk Information System as the primary source. The Department reviewed the National recommendations and determined the criteria are scientifically sound and applicable for the protection of Pennsylvania waters. The document can be accessed at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/human-health-2015-update-factsheet.pdf.

 Following are compounds that have been recommended by the EPA since the completion of the Commonwealth's previous triennial review published at 43 Pa.B. 4080 (July 20, 2013). This list contains new criteria to protect human health from toxic substances that currently are not in Table 5.

Summary of Table 5 proposed criteria

 Chapter 93 currently includes criteria for nonylphenol, which are based on guidance provided by the EPA. The EPA took no action to approve or disapprove this criterion as part of the previous triennial review. The EPA prepared a biological evaluation regarding Federally-listed threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service could not concur that this criterion for nonylphenol would be protective of endangered mussels in this Commonwealth. Due to this disagreement, the EPA did not approve the Commonwealth's final Statewide criterion, which was based on the EPA's National recommendation. Without final approval, the Department may not use the nonylphenol standard, as a Statewide criterion, to implement the Federal Clean Water Act. This triennial review retains the existing Statewide water quality criterion for nonylphenol and the Department will, again, submit the criterion to the EPA for approval. Until the EPA approves the criterion, the Department will use site-specific water quality criteria as applicable.

 After a thorough review of the 94 individual recommended criteria updates, the Board is proposing to adopt the updated criteria for 73 compounds and add 11 new human health compounds to Table 5. There are ten EPA-recommended criteria that are the same as the criteria currently in Table 5, and therefore no change is recommended for these criteria.

 The Board proposes the following 11 new human health toxic pollutants be added to the water quality criteria for toxic substances in Table 5. The Board will also clarify which pollutants in Table 5 have human health criteria that are still based on the exposure inputs of 2 liters per day of drinking water and consumption of 22 grams of fish per day for the protection of a 70 Kg person, based on the unavailability of information needed to calculate criteria based on new exposure assumptions. The regulations will also indicate which of the criteria were developed by the Department (D) or the EPA (E) for those pollutants in Table 5 without a Priority Pollutant Number (PP NO).

 Currently, there are acute (3,000 ug/L) and chronic (610 ug/L) aquatic life criteria for 1,1,1-trichloroethane in Table 5, but no human health criterion for trichloroethane. The EPA-recommended human health criterion is 10,000 ug/L. Ingestion of drinking water is a potentially significant source of exposure to 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Inputs used to derive the 2015 updated human health AWQC are protective of exposure to 1,1,1-trichloroethane from consuming drinking water and eating fish and shellfish (organisms) from inland and near shore waters.

 1,2-dichloropropane is classified as Group B2, ''probable human carcinogen,'' under the EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (1986). The major source of 1,2-dichloropropane in drinking water is discharged from industrial chemical factories. It may be released into the atmosphere or in wastewater during its production or use as an intermediate in chemical manufacture. There were also significant releases during its former use as a soil fumigant, and it may leach from municipal landfills. There are currently acute (11,000 ug/L) and chronic (2,200 ug/L) aquatic life criteria in Table 5. The EPA-recommended cancer risk level (CRL) is 0.9.

 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene was historically used as an insecticide, an intermediate in the production of herbicides and defoliants, and a component of dielectric fluids. Currently, 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene is not registered for use as a pesticide. The general population could be exposed to 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene through inhalation of ambient air and drinking water. The EPA is recommending a human health criterion of 0.03 ug/L.

 2,4,5-trichlorophenol was once registered as an antimicrobial by the EPA, but is not currently a registered pesticide. Chlorophenols can be formed when water containing humic substances is treated with chlorine and has a pH ranging from 7 to 8. The general population could be exposed to chlorophenols through ingestion of water and food contaminated with the compounds as well as inhalation of contaminated air. 2,4,5-trichlorophenol has been detected in fish. The EPA-recommended human health criterion is 300 ug/L.

 3-methyl-4-chlorophenol is used as a disinfectant and a preservative in the United States. It also is registered in the United States as an antimicrobial pesticide and is currently in the re-registration process by the EPA. Exposure of the general population to the chemical might occur through inhalation and dermal contact. The EPA is recommending a human health criterion of 500 ug/L.

 Methoxychlor is an insecticide that is no longer produced or used in the United States. Prior to its cancellation as an approved pesticide, the chemical was detected in fish from the Great Lakes at levels ranging from 10 to 120 ug/kg wet weight. It was also detected in several species of migratory fish in Great Lakes tributaries at concentrations up to 1.4 ug/kg. In the EPA's National Lake Fish Tissue Study, the chemical was detected in 1—5% (that is, 9 of 468) of the predator fillets (at a maximum concentration of 370 parts per billion) and 5.8% (that is, 23 of 395) of the bottom-dweller whole body fish samples (at a maximum concentration of 107 parts per billion). Thus, based on available exposure information and its high potential to bioaccumulate, ingestion of fish and shellfish is a potentially significant source of exposure to methoxychlor. The EPA-recommended human health criterion is 0.02 ug/L.

 Chlorophenoxy herbicide (2,4-D) is an herbicide used to control broad-leaved weeds in cereals, grain crops, roadsides and farm buildings. 2,4-D is currently registered as a pesticide by the EPA. Human exposure to 2,4-D might occur through inhalation and ingestion of food and water. The primary exposure routes for the general public are through food residues and water ingestion. Based on its low potential for bioaccumulation, exposure to this chemical from ingestion of fish and shellfish is not considered likely. Because of the lack of data in fish and shellfish, the EPA has not established bioaccumulation factors according to trophic levels. 2,4-D is calculated with a total bioaccumulation factor of 13 L/kg. The EPA's recommended criterion is rounded from 1,371 ug/L to 1,300 ug/L. The Department disagrees with this rounding and the criterion will be rounded up to 1,400 ug/L.

 Chlorophenoxy herbicide (2,4,5-TP) is an herbicide that is no longer used in the United States. This herbicide was formerly used to control woody plants, broadleaf herbaceous weeds and aquatic weeds. Cancellation of all registered uses in the United States was put into effect on January 2, 1985. Prior to the cancellation of 2,4,5-TP, research surveys detected the chemical in large fruit samples and dairy products. Recent monitoring information on 2,4,5-TP in imported foods could not be identified. Based on the available exposure information for 2,4,5-TP, and given that the chemical is no longer produced or used in the United States, the EPA does not anticipate that there will be significant sources and routes of exposure of 2,4,5-TP other than fish and shellfish from inland and nearshore waters and water ingestion. The EPA is recommending a human health criterion of 100 ug/L.

 Dinitrophenols can be found today in contaminated air, as well as in waste water originating from some manufacturing sites. The inputs used to calculate the criterion for dinitrophenols are identical to the inputs used to calculate 2,4-dinitrophenol. The criterion for dinitrophenols will be protective for all forms of dinitrophenols (2,4-; 2,5-; and 2,6-dinitrophenol). The EPA-recommended criterion for dinitrophenols is 10 ug/L.

 Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH)-technical has several isomers, one of which goes by the common name lindane. Lindane is found in prescription topical treatments and has been used as an insecticide on fruit, vegetables and forest crops. Technical grade HCH is classified as Group B2, ''probable human carcinogen.'' The EPA is recommending a CRL of 0.0066.

 Pentachlorobenzene is generated as a by-product in a variety of industrial processes, such as solid waste incineration and combustion of coal. Air is likely the primary source by which the general population is exposed to pentachlorobenzene; however, water and food ingestion might also be significant. Based on the physical properties and available exposure information for pentachlorobenzene, air, fish and shellfish are potentially significant sources. The EPA is recommending a human health criterion of 0.1 ug/L.

§ 93.8d. Development of site-specific water quality criteria

 The Board proposes to add to subsection (c) that the Department may require the use of the Biotic Ligand Model for the development of new or updated site-specific criteria for copper in freshwater systems.

 The Board also proposes to clarify in subsection (f)(2) that the Department has developed a publicly available online resource to maintain a table of site-specific criteria that have been developed and are being used by the Department in permitting and other pollution control measures. This table will be routinely updated as new criteria are developed or other applications and implementation of existing site-specific criteria are added. Tables can be accessed at http://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Water/CleanWater/WaterQuality/Pages/Site-Specific-Water-Quality-Criteria-In-PA.aspx.

§ 93.8e. Special criteria for the Great Lakes System

 As previously stated, the Board proposes to clarify that, for any pollutant not listed in Table 6, criteria in Table 5 may be used to protect existing and designated uses in the Great Lakes System, or that criteria will be developed by the Department, as needed, in accordance with Chapter 93 and the methods in Chapter 16.

§§ 93.9a—93.9z—Corrections to drainage lists

 The following amendments to the drainage lists are proposed by the Board to clarify stream names and segment boundaries and designations.

 The Board is proposing to consolidate and reformat several drainage lists to address the continual changes and updates occurring to the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) flowline.

 The NHD flowline forms the basis of the Department's Designated and Existing Use Geographic Information System (GIS) layers. The NHD flowline is established using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), which is the Federal and National standard for geographic nomenclature. The Department strives to maintain consistency with the GNIS database and the NHD flowline.

 The Department routinely receives internal and external communications concerning streams that appear to be missing from Chapter 93. Often, these streams were considered unnamed at the time the drainage list was established and therefore were captured under unnamed tributaries entries. These streams currently have a designated use even though they do not appear as named entries in Chapter 93. In contrast, there are a number of named tributaries in Chapter 93 that are not currently recognized by the USGS and are not represented by the NHD flowline. These may be unofficial local names. Consolidation within drainage lists will greatly reduce these issues.

 In many parts of the drainage lists, the current format consists of a main stem entry for a stream, followed by unnamed tributaries to that stream, and then individually named tributaries within the basin. Often, most of the tributaries, both named and unnamed, have the same designated use. In some cases, an entire basin is the same designated use except for a few streams. Large stream basins may take up several pages within a drainage list and can be difficult for individuals to navigate and understand. Reformatting large basins to consolidate portions of Chapter 93 that have the same designated use enables readers to view that entire basin within a page or two. In addition, a condensed drainage list reduces the likelihood that errors will occur in transcription of Chapter 93 during rulemaking procedures. The Department currently has several GIS mapping tools available, including eMapPA and WAVE, to assist staff, members of the public and the regulated community in locating streams in this Commonwealth, and they should be used in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Code and other available online mapping resources to determine official designated uses.

 In addition, all river mile indexes (RMI) in §§ 93.9a—93.9z included in this triennial review will be converted to (x,y) coordinates—latitude and longitude. The conversion of RMI in all of the drainage lists is not included in this proposed rulemaking. Going forward, whenever changes are proposed to Chapter 93, associated RMI will be converted to latitude and longitude. Eventually, all reference to RMI in §§ 93.9a—93.9z will be converted to latitude and longitude. The following additional proposed corrections do not change the current stream use designations, and only serve as clarifications and corrections.

§ 93.9b. Drainage List B

 A clarification is proposed for this section. Currently, there are two entries for the Lackawaxen River. However, the entire main stem Lackawaxen River is designated HQ-Trout Stocked Fishes (TSF), Migratory Fishes (MF) from its origin at the confluence of West Branch Lackawaxen River and Van Auken Creek downstream to where it enters the Delaware River. It is proposed that the main stem be covered by a single entry.

§ 93.9c. Drainage List C

 The Board proposes to clarify this section to eliminate the confusion associated with two named tributaries to the Delaware River that are currently included under two separate entries for unnamed tributaries. It is proposed to give Spackmans Creek and Mill Creek their own entries to identify them as tributaries to the Delaware River.

§ 93.9d. Drainage List D

 The proposed correction will reformat the Tobyhanna Creek basin to eliminate any issues associated with named tributaries in the basin that are currently included under an unnamed tributaries entry.

 The proposed correction will replace a bridge reference in the zone description for the Lehigh River. The correction will replace the PA 903 bridge with GIS coordinates. The Division of Water Quality Standards was notified that the PA 903 bridge is being relocated 1,000 feet upstream as part of a bridge replacement project.

 The stream nomenclature for the Mauch Chunk Creek basin is proposed to be corrected to be consistent with the NHD flowline. Accordingly, White Bear Creek forms the headwaters of this basin. White Bear Creek enters into Mauch Chunk Lake. Mauch Chunk Creek begins at the outlet of Mauch Chunk Lake. In addition, Beaverdam Run is proposed to be corrected to Beaver Run.

 The proposed correction to the Jordan Creek basin will eliminate any confusion associated with named tributaries to Jordan Creek that are currently included under entries for unnamed tributaries.

§ 93.9e. Drainage List E

 Proposed corrections will eliminate the confusion associated with named tributaries in the Delaware River basin that are included under the current listing of unnamed tributaries. Rodges Run, Falls Creek, Swamp Creek, Smithtown Creek and Biles Creek are proposed to be added. The Department gained knowledge that these tributaries had been officially named subsequent to the inclusion of these streams under the listing of unnamed tributaries in this section.

§ 93.9f. Drainage List F

 A proposed amendment will correct the hydrological order for Plum Creek and replace the RM reference with GIS coordinates. Plum Creek is a tributary to Tulpehocken Creek and should have 4 for hydrological order rather than 5. Unnamed Tributary to Plum Creek at RM 0.45 should have 5 for hydrological order rather than 6.

 The Manatawny Creek basin is proposed to be reformatted to be consistent with the NHD flowline and historical rulemakings. The proposed corrections also clarify that the confluence of Pine Creek and Bieber Creek forms the Manatawny Creek basin.

 Proposed corrections will eliminate the confusion associated with named tributaries in the Perkiomen Creek basin that are included under the current listing of unnamed tributaries. The Perkiomen Creek basin is being reformatted to incorporate Molasses Creek and Donny Brook.

§ 93.9g. Drainage List G

 Proposed amendments will restore the correct designated use, as described in a final-form rulemaking published at 15 Pa.B. 544 (February 16, 1985), to the waters described as Goose Creek basin. According to the current NHD flowline, the zone (referred to in the 1985 final-form rulemaking as Goose Creek basin) that was redesignated in 1985 is currently described as the Chester Creek basin from the source to East Branch Chester Creek. The 1985 water quality standards triennial review adopted at 15 Pa.B. 544 redesignated Goose Creek from TSF to Warm Water Fishes (WWF). The preamble for that final-form rulemaking described Goose Creek as originating in West Goshen Township, Chester County, and flowing southeastward for approximately 5 miles to its confluence with East Branch Chester Creek. The Goose Creek drainage area includes portions of West Chester Borough and West Goshen, Westtown and Thornbury Townships, Chester County and a small portion of Thornbury Township, Delaware County. The West Goshen sewage treatment plant also discharges to Goose Creek. The corrections to drainage lists final-form rulemaking published at 27 Pa.B. 3050 (June 28, 1997), proposed at 26 Pa.B. 3637 (August 3, 1996), changed the reference from Goose Creek to Unnamed Tributary to East Branch Chester Creek at RM 0.4 (''Goose Creek''). This change was made erroneously. The preamble to the proposed rulemaking published at 26 Pa.B. 3637 stated that ''Goose Creek is not found on topos or in Gazetteer of Streams, and is a local name for an UNT (# 00605, near State Rt 926).'' This change was incorrect because it directly contradicted the description for Goose Creek in the preamble of the 1985 water quality standards triennial review published at 15 Pa.B. 544. Because of this change, the section that is WWF was actually switched to a different stream in the Chester Creek basin. The Blue Eye Run final-form rulemaking was published at 40 Pa.B. 1734 (April 3, 2010). The Department replaced the stream name listing for UNT 00605 to East Branch Chester Creek at RM 0.4 (Goose Creek) with Westtown Run. This amendment was made to be consistent with an electronic topographical GIS map layer that named this stream Westtown Run. Westtown Run is also named as such in the 1997 topo quad. Westtown Run is not labeled on the 2010 or 2013 topo quad. Westtown Run is not named as such on the NHD flowline. According to this section, Westtown Run (stream code 00605) is currently designated WWF, MF but it should be TSF, MF.

 Clarifying language is proposed for two zone descriptions in the East Branch Brandywine Creek basin to indicate that the unnamed tributaries with mouths within East Brandywine and Uwchlan Townships are included in the HQ-TSF designation.

 The Board proposes to correct the spelling of Stoney Creek. It currently appears as Stony Creek.

 The Brandywine Creek basin is proposed to be reformatted to incorporate several named tributaries including Craigs Mill Run, Wilson Run and Beaver Creek.

§ 93.9j. Drainage List J

 Additional language is proposed to be added to the zone description for Roaring Brook as a clarification to indicate that the downstream limit of the special protection portion of the basin does not include the Elmhurst Reservoir.

§ 93.9k. Drainage List K

 Newport Creek was inadvertently omitted in the final-form rulemaking published at 9 Pa.B. 3051 (September 8, 1979), which reformatted a portion of this section. The Board is proposing to correct this omission by adding Newport Creek as a named tributary to the Susquehanna River.

§ 93.9l. Drainage List L

 The Board proposes to reformat this entire drainage list to eliminate the confusion associated with named tributaries in the West Branch Susquehanna River basin that are included under current listings of unnamed tributaries, correct a number of misspelled streams and delete named tributaries that are, in fact, unnamed tributaries according to the GNIS database.

 Proposed amendments to this section reflect the current NHD flowline for the headwaters of the Marsh Creek basin. The headwaters of the Marsh Creek basin originate from the confluence of Charleston Creek and Morris Branch, of which Kelsey Creek is a tributary. Chapter 93 currently lists Charleston Creek and Kelsey Creek as tributaries to Marsh Creek.

 Corrections are proposed to the headwaters of Logan Branch within Bald Eagle Creek basin. Historically, UNT 23007 was considered to be a tributary to the Logan Branch (Stream Code 22997) and is currently listed this way. However, according to the NHD flowline, the headwaters of the Logan Branch is stream code 23007 and a portion of stream code 22997 from the source to confluence with 23007 is depicted as the unnamed tributary to Logan Branch. Due to the fact that the remaining portion of 22997 is still considered to be Logan Branch, UNT 23007 is being replaced with the following entry format: Tributary at X;Y. This format should eliminate any confusion associated with using the five-digit stream code.

§ 93.9m. Drainage List M

 Designated uses for the lower portions of Bowersox Run and Erb Run are currently missing from this section. Presently, Chapter 93 only lists designated use information for each stream from its source to Federal Aid Secondary Highway (FAS) 690. Bowersox Run and Erb Run are not currently recognized by GNIS as the official names of these tributaries; therefore, the names are proposed to be amended as UNT 17823 (locally known as Bowersox Run) and UNT 17821 (locally known as Erb Run). These streams were included in Comprehensive Water Quality Management Program Area 6. DER published a proposed rulemaking to water quality criteria at 8 Pa.B. 511 (March 4, 1978). According to the summary of public comments received by DER dated December 5, 1978, numerous recommendations were received to designate specific waters used for public water supply as either EV or HQ waters. The headwaters of Bowersox Run and Erb Run were recommended for upgrade to EV. DER did not agree with the EV recommendation, but it did agree that the water supply segments of those waters deserved an HQ designation. Bowersox Run and Erb Run, which did not appear as named tributaries in the proposed rulemaking published at 8 Pa.B. 511, were included as named tributaries to Middle Creek in the proposed rulemaking published at 8 Pa.B. 3665 (December 23, 1978). However, only the upper HQ portions of the basin were included. The lower portions of the basins from FAS 690 to the mouths were inadvertently omitted. This omission was carried over into the final-form rulemaking published at 9 Pa.B. 3051. At the time of the proposed rulemaking published at 8 Pa.B. 511, these streams were considered to be unnamed tributaries to Middle Creek and therefore carried a Cold Water Fishes (CWF) designated use. The appropriate designated use for the lower portions of these two streams is currently CWF, MF. The proposed amendments will add entries for both streams for the lower segments to their mouths. The zone descriptions for the upper portions are also being updated for clarification purposes by replacing FAS 690 with T3008 (Paxtonville Road).

§ 93.9n. Drainage List N

 The West Branch Juniata River basin is proposed to be reformatted to eliminate the confusion associated with named tributaries to the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River that are included under current listings of unnamed tributaries.

§ 93.9o. Drainage List O

 An omission that occurred in the final-form rulemaking published at 9 Pa.B. 3051 is proposed to be corrected. Trout Run originates in Perry County, flows through a small portion of western Cumberland County and eventually enters the Conodoguinet Creek in Franklin County. The proposed rulemaking published at 8 Pa.B. 511 listed the entire Trout Run basin as a conservation area. It also listed the Trout Run basin from the source to the water supply dam as a wilderness trout stream. The final-form rulemaking published at 9 Pa.B. 3051 designated the Trout Run basin from the source to the water supply dam as EV. The portion of Trout Run basin which lies downstream of the dam should have been designated as HQ, but it was inadvertently omitted from Chapter 93 and has continued to be missing.

 During the previous triennial review, the Board deleted DO₄ from the water quality standards. This standard applied to HQ-CWF streams. Since the criteria for HQ streams is based on the maintenance of existing water quality, the dissolved oxygen (DO) criterion for HQ-CWF streams was in contradiction to the expectation that existing quality will be protected and maintained for all HQ streams. Chapter 93 no longer contains a DO₄ criterion. However, this section contains one exception to the criteria that references DO₄, which is the Yellow Breeches Creek, main stem from LR 21012 to Mouth. The DO exception for the lower portion of the Yellow Breeches has appeared since at least 1968 to protect the world-renowned trout fishery that exists in this stream. The reference to DO₄ is proposed to be deleted and replaced with equivalent language (DO = 7.0 mg/L, June 1 to Sept. 30). Since the DO₁ standard was also updated during the previous triennial review to a value more protective than 7.0 mg/L during October 1 to May 31, the more protective standard of DO₁ should be in place during that time period. Therefore, DO = 7.0 mg/L will only apply during the time period stipulated to ensure the maximum level of protection.

 Bow Creek and Boyds Run are proposed to be added as named tributaries. Bow Creek is a tributary to Swatara Creek. Boyds Run is a tributary to the Susquehanna River.

 Corrections are proposed to the headwaters of Muddy Creek to be consistent with the NHD flowline. UNT 07784 is now the main stem of Muddy Creek and designated WWF. It was previously recognized by the Department as a tributary to Muddy Creek. The headwaters of Muddy Creek are now considered to be an unnamed tributary to Muddy Creek and designated TSF. No changes are proposed to the designated uses of these streams as a result of these corrections. The stream segment protected for WWF will continue to be protected at that level, and the stream segment protected for TSF will continue to be protected for TSF.

 Several misplaced stream entries in the Pequea Creek basin are proposed to be relocated. These unnamed tributaries were referred to by RMI and were added incorrectly into the drainage list. RMI references are proposed to be deleted from the entries and replaced with UNT 07451 and UNT 07452 and moved to their proper locations within the drainage list.

 A clarification is proposed to the zone description for the headwaters of Black Run to ensure that it is consistent with the NHD flowline and the actual fluvial geomorphology while accurately portraying what was in the Cooks Creek final-form rulemaking published at 21 Pa.B. 5511 (November 30, 1991). DER's 1989 special protection report indicated ''segments of Black Run flowing through Nottingham Park (basin upstream of confluence with UNT 07007'' should be redesignated EV. The mouth of UNT 07006 was originally described as being downstream of the mouth of 07007 through reference to river mile (RM). At the time of the Cooks Creek final-form rulemaking published at 21 Pa.B. 5511, the stream directory confirmed that 07006 was downstream from 07007. Since the Cooks Creek final-form rulemaking published at 21 Pa.B. 5511, road work in the area caused movement of the mouth of the stream and the NHD flowline now depicts 07006 as entering Black Run upstream of 07007 at RM 2.50. The proposed correction will replace RM 2.50 with UNT 07006.

 Reynolds Run was designated as a conservation area in 1973 and thus received a designated use of HQ-CWF in the final-form rulemaking published at 9 Pa.B. 3051. Several streams in the area including Reynolds Run were subsequently re-evaluated in 1989. An October 1989 stream report produced by DER showed that the streams were largely affected by agriculture and were actually supporting warm-water biota. The report recommended that McCreary Run and Reynolds Run be redesignated as HQ-TSF. The streams were approved for redesignation in the Cooks Creek final-form rulemaking published at 21 Pa.B. 5511. At that time, Chapter 93 was amended to reflect the redesignation to HQ-TSF; however, a duplicate entry for Reynolds Run was also inadvertently introduced at that time. The duplicate entry was deleted, but the designation for Reynolds Run was changed back to HQ-CWF in the final-form rulemaking published at 27 Pa.B. 3050. Since there are no known data or reports to suggest that Reynolds Run was achieving a use of HQ-CWF at that time, it is being viewed as an error. The Board is proposing to restore the intended designation of HQ-TSF for Reynolds Run.

§ 93.9p. Drainage List P

 The entire drainage list is proposed to be reformatted to eliminate the confusion associated with named tributaries in the Allegheny River basin that are included under current listings of unnamed tributaries and to delete named tributaries that are, in fact, unnamed tributaries according to the GNIS database.

 The proposed correction to Dingman Run will delete the zone description Main Stem and restore it to Basin. Dingman Run was a placeholder in the French Creek final-form rulemaking published at 28 Pa.B. 4510 (September 5, 1998) to amend the entry above it, which is Mill Creek. During the final-form rulemaking process, Dingman Run erroneously picked up Main Stem as the zone description.

 Duplicate entries for Tunungwant Creek and McCrea Run are proposed to be deleted.

§ 93.9q. Drainage List Q

 The entire drainage list is proposed to be reformatted to eliminate the confusion associated with named tributaries in the Allegheny River basin that are included under current listings of unnamed tributaries and to delete named tributaries that are, in fact, unnamed tributaries according to the GNIS database.

 The stream listing is proposed to be amended to include the correct name for Minister Creek. The stream is currently and incorrectly referred to as Minister Run.

§ 93.9r. Drainage List R

 The entire drainage list is proposed to be reformatted to eliminate the confusion associated with named tributaries in the Clarion River basin that are included under current listings of unnamed tributaries and to delete named tributaries that are, in fact, unnamed tributaries according to the GNIS database.

 An erroneous entry for Mill Run is proposed to be deleted and the stream listing is proposed to be amended to include the correct name for Cathers Run. The stream is currently and incorrectly referred to as Cather Run.

 According to the GNIS database, Lost Run is not registered as an official name for stream code 50397. Lost Run will be replaced with UNT 50397.

§ 93.9s. Drainage List S

 The stream listing is proposed to be amended to include several named tributaries to Mahoning Creek including Jackson Run, Hamilton Run, Cave Run and Graffius Run. These four streams were previously unnamed tributaries. Wiskey Creek, which is a named tributary to the Allegheny River, is proposed to be added to the drainage list.

 The proposed correction to the Cowanshannock Creek basin will delete ''Unnamed'' from the entry ''Unnamed Tributaries to Cowanshannock Creek; Basins, Huskins Run to Mouth'' to incorporate several named tributaries that currently do not appear in the drainage list (Spra Run, Mill Run and Long Run.)

§ 93.9t. Drainage List T

 The stream listing is proposed to be amended to include several named tributaries that currently do not appear, including Hoffman Run, Kaufman Run and Hillside Run.

 According to the GNIS database and the NHD flowline, Trout Run is not a direct tributary to the Little Conemaugh River. It is a tributary to Kane Run, which is a tributary to the Little Conemaugh. The proposed correction will delete Trout Run and add Kane Run.

§ 93.9v. Drainage List V

 The stream listing is proposed to be amended to include several named tributaries that currently do not appear, including Miller Run, Rice Run, Parsons Run and Lost Run.

§ 93.9w. Drainage List W

 The misspelling of Shenango River in the fourth entry for unnamed tributaries to the Shenango River is proposed to be corrected.

§ 93.9x. Drainage List X

 The stream listing is proposed to be amended to include the Bac₂ Bacteria criterion, which, until this proposed rulemaking has been located in § 93.7, Table 3. There has been confusion that the Bac₂ criterion should be applied Statewide since this criterion was in Table 3 and the Critical Use is identified as PWS, which is listed as a Statewide water use in § 93.4, Table 2. The Department's investigation has shown that the current-day Bac₂ was developed and implemented as a site-specific criterion (originally identified as f₂ in the SWB criteria). Dating back to the adoption of Article 301—Water Quality Criteria by the SWB in 1967, this criterion had been applied as an exception to select waters where water contact sports (WCS—3.3) was deleted. Originally, this coliform-based criterion applied to specific zones of the Delaware Estuary or several tributaries, and to portions of Erie Harbor and Presque Isle Bay. As a result of rulemakings through 1979, the references to Bac₂ in the lower Delaware and these tributaries were replaced by specific criteria adopted by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). Therefore, since 1979 Bac₂ has exclusively only applied to the Lake Erie (Outer Erie Harbor and Presque Isle Bay) waters in the Harbor area and central channel dredged and maintained by United States Army Corps of Engineers. These proposed amendments should provide that clarification.

§ 93.9z. Drainage List Z

 The stream listing is proposed to be amended to include Thompson Run, which is a named tributary to Wills Creek that is presently not listed.

Exceptions for fishable/swimmable waters

 Part of the triennial review requires that states re-examine water body segments that do not meet the fishable or swimmable uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a)(2)). The Department evaluated the two Pennsylvania water bodies where the uses are not currently met: 1) the Harbor Basin and entrance channel to Outer Erie Harbor/Presque Isle Bay (§ 93.9x); and 2) several zones in the Delaware Estuary (§§ 93.9e and 93.9g (relating to Drainage List E; and Drainage List G)).

 The swimmable use designation was deleted from the Harbor Basin and entrance channel demarcated by United States Coast Guard buoys and channel markers on Outer Erie Harbor/Presque Isle Bay because pleasure boating and commercial shipping traffic pose a serious safety hazard in this area. This decision was further supported by a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) study conducted by DER in 1985. Because the same conditions and hazards exist today, no change is proposed to the designated use for Outer Erie Harbor/Presque Isle Bay.

 In April 1989, DER cooperated with the DRBC, the EPA and other DRBC signatory states on a comprehensive UAA study in the lower Delaware River and Delaware Estuary. This study resulted in appropriate recommendations regarding the swimmable use, which the DRBC included in its regulations for water use classifications and water quality criteria for portions of the tidal Delaware River in May 1991. The appropriate DRBC standards were referenced in §§ 93.9e and 93.9g in 1994. The WC use remains excluded from the designated uses for RMs 108.4 to 81.8 because of continuing significant impacts from combined sewer overflows, and hazards associated with commercial shipping and navigation.

 In addition, limited uses for Zones 3 and 4, and upper Zone 5 of the Delaware Estuary basin were also incorporated into §§ 93.9e and 93.9g, which also date back to the original Article 301—Water Quality Criteria that were added to the SWB's rules and regulations in 1967. These are described in §§ 93.9e and 93.9g as WWF (Maintenance Only) and MF (Passage Only) for tidal portions of the basin, from RM 108.4 to the PA-DE State Border. The current designated uses within these Zones do not include propagation and thus refer to the DRBC's standards which were developed to protect fish maintenance and passage only.

 Recent data and observations, however, suggest recovery is occurring in propagation for some species in portions of these Zones. Therefore, the DRBC initiated an evaluation of available data for resident and anadromous fishes collected since 2000 in an attempt to quantify spawning and early life stages, and the extent of successful reproduction for estuarine species.

 Although this review continues, the DRBC found that for all nine fish species evaluated (Atlantic Sturgeon, American Shad, Striped Bass, White Perch, Bay Anchovy, Atlantic Silverside, Alewife, Blueback Herring, and Atlantic Menhaden) successful reproduction was clearly demonstrated in one or more of the compromised estuary zones. In addition, moderate to strong reproduction was demonstrated for multiple species in each zone indicating substantial recovery in the propagation use for Zones 3 and 4, and upper Zone 5. Weak and inconsistent spawning by Atlantic Sturgeon, and limited spatial recovery in spawning and rearing by American Shad and Striped Bass, suggested that full restoration of the propagation use is not supported by the currently available data for these species. It should be recognized that the demonstrated recovery in the propagation use for these Zones has occurred under the long-term implementation of the current criteria.

 The Department continues to work in cooperation with the DRBC, the EPA and other DRBC signatory states to determine the appropriate criteria that should apply in the lower Delaware River and Delaware Estuary. The parties continue to work to prepare a resolution describing the Commission's next steps for improving the recovery taking place in the lower Delaware River and Delaware Estuary. The parties remain committed to enhancing the lower Delaware River and Delaware Estuary. Toward that end, the Department is requesting interested parties to submit any data on fish species recovery in the lower Delaware River and Delaware Estuary.

F. Consideration for Next Water Quality Standards Review

 The Department is seeking comments on whether the definition of ''outstanding National, State, regional or local resource water'' in § 93.1 (relating to definitions) should be amended in the next water quality standards review to clarify how conservation easements can be considered in an evaluation for a stream redesignation. The Department is also seeking comment on the following suggested definition of ''conservation easements'' to describe which types of easements may be considered in the stream evaluation. Based on the comments received during this review, the Department may recommend that the Board clarify the use of conservation easements in the water quality program in a future proposed rulemaking.

 The existing regulations allow a stream that is protected for the HQ use to be redesignated to EV use if it is an outstanding National, State, regional or local resource water. High quality waters, along with related terms, is defined in § 93.1. Conservation easements protecting waters being evaluated for classification as EV waters are often submitted with petitions for stream redesignations, since many are designed to protect water quality in perpetuity. In many conservation easement documents, resource management plans are included that describe water quality protections. The Department is seeking comments on suggested language to guide decisions concerning which types of conservation easements are appropriate for use in this stream redesignation context. Suggested language that the Department may consider recommending to the Board in a future proposed rulemaking is as follows (language added to the existing definition is bold):

Outstanding National, State, regional or local resource water—A surface water for which a National or State government agency has adopted water quality protective measures in a resource management plan, or regional or local governments have adopted coordinated water quality protective measures along a watershed corridor. The term includes a surface water protected by one or more conservation easements situated along a watershed corridor, in a manner that provides protection to significant reaches of the corridor.

Conservation easements—Easements held in perpetuity, where a governmental unit with taxation powers, a national government agency, or a state government agency is the holder, long-term steward, or responsible beneficiary related to repair and perpetual maintenance of the easement. Such easements must be recorded, provide for the maintenance and enhancement of water quality through water quality protective measures and cannot be revised, rescinded, or amended by any party.

 If commentators recommend alternative language, they are encouraged to provide justification.

G. Benefits, Costs and Compliance

Benefits

 Overall, the Commonwealth, its citizens and natural resources will benefit from this proposed rulemaking because it provides the appropriate level of protection to preserve the integrity of existing and designated uses of surface waters in this Commonwealth. Protecting water quality provides: economic value to present and future generations in the form of a clean water supply for human consumption, wildlife, irrigation and industrial use; recreational opportunities such as fishing (also for consumption), WC and boating; and aquatic life protection. It is important to realize these benefits and to ensure opportunities and activities continue in a manner that is environmentally, socially and economically sound. Maintenance of water quality ensures its future availability for all uses.

Compliance costs

 This proposed rulemaking may impose additional compliance costs on the regulated community. This proposed rulemaking is necessary to improve total pollution control. The expenditures necessary to meet new compliance requirements may exceed that which is required under existing regulations.

 The proposed amendments will be implemented through the Department's permit and approval actions. Persons with an existing discharge or proposing to add a new discharge point to a stream could be adversely affected if they need to provide a higher level of treatment or BMPs to meet any new standard established by this proposed rulemaking. For example, increased costs may take the form of higher engineering, construction or operating cost for point source discharges. Treatment costs and BMPs are site-specific and depend upon the size of the discharge in relation to the size of the stream and many other factors. It is therefore not possible to precisely predict the actual change in costs. Economic impacts would primarily involve the potential for higher treatment costs for new or expanded discharges to streams to meet any new water quality standards requirements. The initial costs resulting from the installation of technologically advanced wastewater treatment processes and BMPs may be offset by potential savings from and increased value of improved water quality through more cost-effective and efficient treatment over time.

Compliance assistance plan

 This proposed rulemaking has been developed as part of an established program that has been implemented by the Department since the early 1980s. This proposed rulemaking is consistent with and based on existing Department regulations. The proposed amendments extend appropriate protections to all waterbodies of the Commonwealth and are consistent with antidegradation requirements established by the Federal Clean Water Act and The Clean Streams Law. All surface waters in this Commonwealth are afforded a minimum level of protection through compliance with the water quality standards, which prevent pollution and protect existing water uses.

 The proposed amendments will be implemented through the Department's permit and approval actions. For example, the NPDES permitting program bases effluent limitations on the uses of the stream, and the water quality criteria developed to maintain those uses. These effluent limits are established to assure water quality is protected and maintained.

Paperwork requirements

 This proposed rulemaking should not have new direct paperwork impact on the Commonwealth, local governments, political subdivisions or the private sector. This proposed rulemaking is based on existing Department regulations and mirror the existing use protection that is already in place for these streams.

H. Pollution Prevention

 The Federal Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 13101—13109) established a National policy that promotes pollution prevention as the preferred means for achieving state environmental protection goals. The Department encourages pollution prevention, which is the reduction or elimination of pollution at its source, through the substitution of environmentally-friendly materials, more efficient use of raw materials and the incorporation of energy efficiency strategies. Pollution prevention practices can provide greater environmental protection with greater efficiency because they can result in significant cost savings to facilities that permanently achieve or move beyond compliance.

 Water quality standards are a major pollution prevention tool because they protect water quality and designated and existing uses. The proposed amendments will be implemented through the Department's permit and approval actions. For example, the NPDES bases effluent limitations on the designated use of the stream and the water quality criteria necessary to achieve designated and existing uses.

I. Sunset Review

 The Board is not proposing to establish a sunset date for these regulations because they are needed for the Department to carry out its statutory authority. The Department will continue to closely monitor these regulations for their effectiveness and recommend updates to the Board as necessary.

J. Regulatory Review

 Under section 5(a) of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P.S. § 745.5(a)), on October 6, 2017, the Department submitted a copy of this proposed rulemaking and a copy of a Regulatory Analysis Form to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) and to the Chairpersons of the House and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committees. A copy of this material is available to the public upon request.

 Under section 5(g) of the Regulatory Review Act, IRRC may convey comments, recommendations or objections to the proposed rulemaking within 30 days of the close of the public comment period. The comments, recommendations or objections must specify the regulatory review criteria in section 5.2 of the Regulatory Review Act (71 P.S. § 745.5b) which have not been met. The Regulatory Review Act specifies detailed procedures for review prior to final publication of the rulemaking by the Department, the General Assembly and the Governor.

K. Public Comments

 Interested persons are invited to submit to the Board written comments, suggestions, support or objections regarding this proposed rulemaking. Comments, suggestions, support or objections must be received by the Board by December 29, 2017.

 Comments may be submitted to the Board online, by e-mail, by mail or express mail as follows.

 Comments may be submitted to the Board by accessing eComment at http://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/eComment.

 Comments may be submitted to the Board by e-mail at RegComments@pa.gov. A subject heading of the proposed rulemaking and a return name and address must be included in each transmission.

 If an acknowledgment of comments submitted online or by e-mail is not received by the sender within 2 working days, the comments should be retransmitted to the Board to ensure receipt. Comments submitted by facsimile will not be accepted.

 Written comments should be mailed to the Environmental Quality Board, P.O. Box 8477, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477. Express mail should be sent to the Environmental Quality Board, Rachel Carson State Office Building, 16th Floor, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101-2301.

L. Public Hearings

 The Board will hold three public hearings for the purpose of accepting comments on this proposed rulemaking. The hearings will be held at 2 p.m. on the following dates:

December 8, 2017	Department of Environmental  Protection South Central Regional Office Susquehanna Conference Room 909 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110
December 12, 2017	Department of Environmental  Protection Northeast Regional Office 2nd Floor Conference Room 2 East Main Street Norristown, PA 19401
December 14, 2017	Department of Environmental  Protection Southwest Regional Office Waterfront Conference Rooms A  and B 400 Waterfront Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15222

 Persons wishing to present testimony at a hearing are requested to contact the Environmental Quality Board, P.O. Box 8477, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477, (717) 787-4526 at least 1 week in advance of the hearing to reserve a time to present testimony. Oral testimony is limited to 5 minutes for each witness. Witnesses are requested to submit three written copies of their oral testimony to the hearing chairperson at the hearing. Organizations are limited to designating one witness to present testimony on their behalf at each hearing.

 Persons in need of accommodations as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 should contact the Board at (717) 787-4526 or through the Pennsylvania AT&T Relay Service at (800) 654-5984 (TDD) or (800) 654-5988 (voice users) to discuss how the Board may accommodate their needs.

PATRICK McDONNELL, 
Chairperson

 (Editor's Note: See 47 Pa.B. 6703 (October 21, 2017) for a proposed statement of policy relating to this proposed rulemaking.)

 Fiscal Note: 7-534. No fiscal impact; (8) recommends adoption.

Annex A

TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

PART I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Subpart C. PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES

ARTICLE II. WATER RESOURCES

CHAPTER 93. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

§ 93.7. Specific water quality criteria.

 (a) Table 3 displays specific water quality criteria and associated critical uses. The criteria associated with the Statewide water uses listed in § 93.4, Table 2 apply to all surface waters, unless a specific exception is indicated in §§ 93.9a—93.9z. These exceptions will be indicated on a stream-by-stream or segment-by-segment basis by the words ''Add'' or ''Delete'' followed by the appropriate symbols described elsewhere in this chapter. Other specific water quality criteria apply to surface waters as specified in §§ 93.9a—93.9z. All applicable criteria shall be applied in accordance with this chapter, Chapter 96 (relating to water quality standards implementation) and other applicable State and Federal laws and regulations.

TABLE 3

Parameter	Symbol	Criteria	Critical Use*
Alkalinity	Alk	Minimum 20 mg/l as CaCO3, except where natural conditions are less. Where discharges are to waters with 20 mg/l or less alkalinity, the discharge should not further reduce the alkalinity of the receiving waters.	CWF, WWF, TSF, MF
Ammonia Nitrogen	Am	[The maximum total ammonia nitrogen concentration (in mg/L) at all times shall be the numerical value given by: un-ionized ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) × (log-1[pKT-pH] + 1), where: un-ionized ammonia nitrogen = 0.12 × f(T)/f(pH) f(pH) = 1 + 101.03(7.32-pH) f(T) = 1, T ≥ 10°C    1 + 10(9.73-pH) f(T) = ______ , T < 10°C    1 + 10(pKT-pH-) 2730 and pKT = 0.090 + [ ______ ], the dissociation constant for ammonia (T+273.2) in water.   The average total ammonia nitrogen concentration over any 30 consecutive days shall be less than or equal to the numerical value given by: un-ionized ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) × (log-1[pKT-pH] + 1), where: un-ionized ammonia nitrogen = 0.025 × f(T)/f(pH) f(pH) = 1, pH ≥ 7.7 f(pH) = 100.74(7.7-pH), pH < 7.7 f(T) = 1, T ≥ 10°C    1 + 10(9.73-pH) f(T) = ______ , T < 10°C    1 + 10(pKT-pH)
		The pH and temperature used to derive the appropriate ammonia criteria shall be determined by one of the following methods:   1) Instream measurements, representative of median pH and temperature—July through September.
		2) Estimates of median pH and temperature—July through September—based upon available data or values determined by the Department. For purposes of calculating effluent limitations based on this value the accepted design stream flow shall be the actual or estimated lowest 30-consecutive-day average flow that occurs once in 10 years.]
		In freshwater, the concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) shall not exceed (more than once in three years on average), the concentration calculated (in milligrams of TAN per liter) by the following:
		1-hour average Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC) acute criterion equation:
		0.275      39.0 CMC = MIN (( ______ + ______ ) , 1 + 107.204-pH 1 + 10pH-7.204 0.0114     1.6181  ( 0.7249 × (______ + ______ ) × (23.12 × 100.036×(20-T)) )) 1 + 107.204-pH 1 + 10pH-7.204
		30-day average Criteria Continuous Concentration (CCC) chronic criterion equation: 0.0278      1.1994 CCC = 0.8876 × (______ + ______ ) × (2.126 × 100.028×(20-MAX(T,7))) 1 + 107.688-pH 1 + 10pH-7.688   Chronic concentration is not to exceed 2.5 times the CCC as a 4-day average within 30 days (e.g. 2.5 × 1.9 mg TAN/L at pH 7 and 20°C or 4.8 mg TAN/L) more than once in 3 years on average.   The pH and temperature used to derive the appropriate ammonia criteria shall be determined by instream measurements or best estimates, representative of the median pH and temperature of the receiving stream for the applicable time period and design conditions.	CWF, WWF, TSF, MF
Bacteria	Bac1	[(Fecal coliforms/ 100 ml)] (Escherichia coli/100 ml)—During the swimming season (May 1 through September 30), the maximum [fecal coliform] E. coli level shall be a geometric mean of [200] 126 per 100 milliliters (ml) based on [a minimum of five] consecutive samples, each sample collected on different days during a 30-day period. No more than 10% of the total samples taken during a 30-day period may exceed [400] 410 per 100 ml. (Fecal coliforms/ 100 ml) For the remainder of the year, the maximum fecal coliform level shall be a geometric mean of 2,000 per 100 milliliters (ml) based on a minimum of five consecutive samples collected on different days during a 30-day period.	WC
	[Bac2	(Coliforms/100 ml)—Maximum of 5,000/100 ml as a monthly average value, no more than this number in more than 20 of the samples collected during a month, nor more than 20,000/100 ml in more than 5% of the samples.	PWS]
Chloride	Ch	Maximum 250 mg/l.	PWS
*  *  *  *  *

§ 93.8a. Toxic substances.

*  *  *  *  *

 (b) Water quality criteria for toxic substances shall be established as described under Chapter 16 (relating to water quality toxics management strategy—statement of policy). The Department will develop water quality criteria for toxic substances not listed in Chapter 93, Table 5 in accordance with § 93.8d (relating to development of site-specific water quality criteria) and Chapter 16. [Appendix A, Table 1A in Chapter 16 lists] The Department will maintain a publicly available online table of site-specific human health and aquatic life criteria that have been recently developed or adopted by the Department based on approved methodologies and the best scientific information currently available. [The] For any analytical procedures or detection limits that are not EPA approved, the approved analytical procedures and detection limits for these substances will also be listed in Chapter 16. Chapter 16, along with changes made to it, is hereby specifically incorporated by reference.

*  *  *  *  *

 (j) The requirements for discharges to and antidegradation requirements for the Great Lakes System are as follows:

*  *  *  *  *

 (3) Statewide antidegradation requirements in this chapter and Chapter 96 (relating to water quality standards implementation) [and in the Federal regulation in 40 CFR 131.32(a) (relating to Pennsylvania)] as applicable, apply to all surface waters of the Great Lakes System.

*  *  *  *  *

§ 93.8c. Human health and aquatic life criteria for toxic substances.

 (a) Table 5 and [Chapter 16, Appendix A, Table 1A (relating to site-specific water quality criteria for toxic substances)] the table of site-specific criteria maintained by the Department list the aquatic life and human health criteria for toxic substances which the Department uses in development of effluent limitations in NPDES Permits and for other purposes. The human health criteria, which include probable modes of exposure (such as, but not limited to ingestion from drinking water and fish consumption, inhalation and dermal absorption), are further defined as to the specific effect (that is, cancer or threshold health effects). For those aquatic life criteria which are [hardness related and] a function of local water quality conditions and are specified as a formula, such as several of the heavy metals, the [Department will use the specific hardness of the receiving stream after mixing with the waste discharge in calculating criteria on a case-by-case basis] hardness and pH values used to derive the appropriate water quality criteria shall be determined by instream measurements or best estimates, representative of the median concentrations or conditions of the receiving stream for the applicable time period and design conditions. The priority pollutants are a set of specific chemical pollutants regulated by the EPA. The priority pollutant numbers (PP NO) used by the EPA to identify priority pollutants are included in Table 5 for reference purposes. The toxics without a PP NO are nonpriority pollutants or State-derived criteria.

 (b) Some of these criteria may be superseded for the Delaware Estuary, Ohio River Basin, Lake Erie Basin[,] and Genesee River Basin under interstate and international compact agreements with the Delaware River Basin Commission, Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission and International Joint Commission, respectively. [The criteria in Table 5 do not apply to the Great Lakes System.] Water quality criteria for the Great Lakes System are contained in § 93.8e (relating to special criteria for the Great Lakes System) and Table 6 [(relating to Great Lakes Aquatic Life and Human Health Criteria)]. Criteria in Table 5 may apply to the Great Lakes System for those substances not listed in Table 6. Criteria may be developed for the Great Lakes System for substances other than those listed in [§ 93.8e] Tables 5 and 6, under the methodologies in § 16.61 (relating to special provisions for the Great Lakes [system] System).

TABLE 5
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES

			Fish and Aquatic Life Criteria		Human Health Criteria (ug/L)
PP NO	Chemical Name	CAS Number	Criteria Continuous Concentrations (ug/L)	Criteria Maximum Concentration (ug/L)
1M	ANTIMONY	07440360	220	1100	5.6 †	H
2M	ARSENIC	07440382	150 (As3+)	340 (As3+)	10	H
3M	BERYLLIUM	07440417	N/A	N/A	N/A	-
4M	CADMIUM	07440439	*{1.101672-(In[H]×0.041838)}×	*{1.136672-(ln[H]×0.041838)}×	N/A
			Exp(0.7409×ln[H]-4.719)	Exp(1.0166×ln[H]-3.924)		-
			(ex: @H=100, CCC=0.25)	(ex: @H=100, CMC=2.0)
5M	CHROMIUM III	16065831	*0.860×Exp(0.819×ln[H]+0.6848)	*0.316×Exp(0.819×ln[H]+3.7256)	N/A	-
			(ex: @H=100, CCC=74)	(ex: @H=100, CMC=570)
5M	CHROMIUM VI	18540299	[*10] *11	*16	N/A	-
6M	COPPER	07440508	*0.960×Exp(0.8545×ln[H]-1.702)	*0.960×Exp(0.9422×ln[H]-1.700)	N/A	-
			(ex: @H=100, CCC=9.0)	(ex: @H=100, CMC=13)
7M	LEAD	07439921	*{1.46203-(ln[H]×0.145712)}×	*{1.46203-(ln[H]×0.145712)}×	N/A	-
			Exp(1.273×ln[H]-4.705)	Exp(1.273×ln[H]-1.460)
			(ex: @H=100, CCC=2.5)	(ex: @H=100, CMC=65)
8M	MERCURY	07439976	*0.77 (Hg2+)	*1.4 (Hg2+)	0.05	H
9M	NICKEL	07440020	*0.997×Exp(0.846×ln[H]+0.0584)	*0.998×Exp(0.846×ln[H]+2.255)	[610] 600 †	H
			(ex: @H=100, CCC=52)	(ex: @H=100, CMC=470)
10M	SELENIUM	07782492	*4.6	N/A	N/A	-
11M	SILVER	07440224	N/A	*0.850×Exp(1.72×ln[H]-6.590)	N/A	-
				(ex: @H=100, CMC=3.2)
12M	THALLIUM	07440280	13	65	0.24 †	H
13M	ZINC	07440666	*0.986×Exp(0.8473×ln[H]+0.884)	*0.978×Exp(0.8473×ln[H]+0.884)	N/A	-
			(ex: @H=100, CCC=120)	(ex: @H=100, CMC=120)
14M	CYANIDE, FREE	00057125	5.2	22	[140] 4.0	H
1A	2-CHLOROPHENOL	00095578	110	560	[81] 30	H
2A	2,4-DICHLORO[-]PHENOL	00120832	340	1700	[77] 10	H
3A	2,4-DIMETHYL[-]PHENOL	00105679	130	660	[380] 100	H
4A	4,6-DINITRO-o-CRESOL (2 METHYL-4,6-DINITROPHENOL)	00534521	16	80	[13] 2.0	H
5A	2,4-DINITRO[-]PHENOL	00051285	130	660	[69] 10	H
E	DINITROPHENOLS	25550587	N/A	N/A	10	H
6A	2-NITROPHENOL	00088755	1600	8000	N/A	-
7A	4-NITROPHENOL	00100027	470	2300	N/A	-
8A	P-CHLORO-m-CRESOL (3 METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOL)	00059507	30	160	[N/A] 500	[-] H
9A	PENTACHLORO[-]PHENOL	00087865	Exp(1.005×[pH]-5.134)	Exp(1.005×[pH]-4.869)	[0.27] 0.03	CRL
			@pH= 6.5 7.8 9.0	@pH= 6.5 7.8 9.0
			Crit= 4.1 15 50	Crit= 5.3 19 65
10A	PHENOL	00108952	N/A	N/A	[10400] 4000	H
E	2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL	00095954	N/A	N/A	300	H
11A	2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL	00088062	91	460	[1.4] 1.5	CRL
1V	ACROLEIN	00107028	3.0	3.0	[6.0] 3.0	H
2V	ACRYLONITRILE	00107131	130	650	[0.051] 0.06	CRL
3V	BENZENE	00071432	130	640	[1.2] 0.58	CRL
5V	BROMOFORM	00075252	370	1800	[4.3] 7.0	CRL
6V	CARBON TETRACHLORIDE	00056235	560	2800	[0.23] 0.4	CRL
7V	CHLORO[-]BENZENE	00108907	240	1200	[130] 100	H
8V	CHLORODIBRO[-] MO[-]METHANE	00124481	N/A	N/A	[0.40] 0.8	CRL
9V	CHLOROETHANE	00075003	N/A	N/A	N/A	-
10V	2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER	00110758	3500	18000	N/A	-
11V	CHLOROFORM	00067663	390	1900	[5.7] 6.5	[CRL] H
12V	DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE	00075274	N/A	N/A	[0.55] .95	CRL
14V	1,1-DICHLORO[-]ETHANE	00075343	N/A	N/A	N/A	-
15V	1,2-DICHLORO[-]ETHANE	00107062	3100	15000	[0.38] 9.9	CRL
16V	1,1-DICHLORO[-]ETHYLENE	00075354	1500	7500	[33.0] 30	H
17V	1,2-DICHLORO[-]PROPANE	00078875	2200	11000	[N/A] 0.90	[-] CRL
18V	1,3-DICHLORO[-]PROPYLENE	00542756	61	310	[0.34] 0.27	CRL
19V	ETHYLBENZENE	00100414	580	2900	[530] 68	H
20V	METHYL BROMIDE	00074839	110	550	[47] 100	H
21V	METHYL CHLORIDE	0074873	5500	28000	N/A	-
22V	METHYLENE CHLORIDE	00075092	2400	12000	[4.6] 20	CRL
23V	1,1,2,2-TETRA[-]CHLOROETHANE	00079345	210	1000	[0.17] 0.2	CRL
24V	TETRACHLORO[-]ETHYLENE	00127184	140	700	[0.69] 10	CRL
25V	TOLUENE	00108883	330	1700	[1300] 57	H
26V	[1,2-trans-DICHLORO-ETHYLENE] trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE	00156605	1400	6800	[140] 100	H
[—] D	1,2 cis-DICHLORO[-]ETHYLENE	00156592	N/A	N/A	[12] 11	H
27V	1,1,1-TRICHLORO[-]ETHANE	00071556	610	3000	[N/A] 10000	[-] H
28V	1,1,2-TRICHLORO[-]ETHANE	00079005	680	3400	[0.59] 0.55	CRL
29V	TRICHLORO[-]ETHYLENE	00079016	450	2300	[2.5] 0.6	CRL
31V	VINYL CHLORIDE	00075014	N/A	N/A	[0.025] 0.02	CRL
1B	ACENAPHTHENE	00083329	17	83	[670] 70	H
2B	ACENAPHTHYLENE	00208968	N/A	N/A	N/A	-
3B	ANTHRACENE	00120127	N/A	N/A	[8300] 300	H
4B	BENZIDINE	00092875	59	300	[0.000086] 0.0001	CRL
5B	BENZO(a)-ANTHRACENE	00056553	0.1	0.5	[0.0038] 0.001	CRL
6B	BENZO(a)PYRENE	00050328	N/A	N/A	[0.0038] 0.0001	CRL
7B	3,4-BENZO-FLUORANTHENE (BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE)	00205992	N/A	N/A	[0.0038] 0.001	CRL
8B	BENZO(ghi)-PERYLENE	00191242	N/A	N/A	N/A	-
9B	BENZO(k)-FLUORANTHENE	00207089	N/A	N/A	[0.0038] 0.01	CRL
E	BIS(CHLOROMETHYL)ETHER	00542881	N/A	N/A	0.0002	CRL
10B	BIS(2-CHLORO[-] ETHOXY)METHANE	00111911	N/A	N/A	N/A	-
11B	BIS(2-CHLORO[-] ETHYL)ETHER	00111444	6000	30000	0.030	CRL
12B	[BIS(2-CHLORO- ISOPROPYL)ETHER] BIS(2-CHLORO-1-METHYLETHYL) ETHER	00108601	N/A	N/A	[1400] 200	H
13B	BIS(2-ETHYL[-] HEXYL)PHTHALATE	00117817	910	4500	[1.2] 0.32	CRL
14B	4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER	00101553	54	270	N/A	-
15B	BUTYLBENZYL PHTHALATE	00085687	35	140	[150] 0.1	H
16B	2-CHLORO[-]NAPHTHALENE	00091587	N/A	N/A	[1000] 800	H
17B	4-CHLORO[-]PHENYL PHENYL ETHER	07005723	N/A	N/A	N/A	-
18B	CHRYSENE	00218019	N/A	N/A	[0.0038] 0.12	CRL
19B	DIBENZO(a,h)[-]ANTHRACENE	00053703	N/A	N/A	[0.0038] 0.0001	CRL
20B	1,2-DICHLORO[-]BENZENE	00095501	160	820	[420 for dichloro- benzene] 1000	H
21B	1,3-DICHLORO[-]BENZENE	00541731	69	350	[See 20B] 7.0	H
22B	1,4-DICHLORO[-]BENZENE	00106467	150	730	[See 20B] 300	H
23B	3,3-DICHLORO[-]BENZIDINE	00091941	N/A	N/A	[0.021] 0.05	CRL
24B	DIETHYL PHTHALATE	00084662	800	4000	[17000] 600	H
25B	DIMETHYL PHTHALATE	00131113	500	2500	[270000] 2000	H
26B	DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE	00084742	21	110	[2000] 20	H
27B	2,4-DINITRO[-]TOLUENE	00121142	320	1600	0.05 for dinitro- toluene	CRL
28B	2,6-DINITRO[-]TOLUENE	00606202	200	990	See 27B	CRL
29B	DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE	00117840	N/A	N/A	N/A	-
30B	1,2-DIPHENYL[-]HYDRAZINE	00122667	3	15	0.036	CRL
31B	FLUORANTHENE	00206440	40	200	[130] 20	H
32B	FLUORENE	00086737	N/A	N/A	[1100] 50	H
33B	HEXACHLORO[-]BENZENE	00118741	N/A	N/A	[0.00028] 0.00008	CRL
34B	HEXACHLORO[-]BUTADIENE	00087683	2	10	[0.44] 0.01	CRL
35B	HEXACHLORO[-] CYCLOPENTADIENE	00077474	1	5	[40] 4.0	H
36B	HEXACHLORO[-]ETHANE	00067721	12	60	[1.4] 0.1	CRL
37B	INDENO(1,2,3-cd)PYRENE	00193395	N/A	N/A	[0.0038] 0.001	CRL
38B	ISOPHORONE	00078591	2100	10000	[35] 34	H
39B	NAPHTHALENE	00091203	43	140	N/A	-
40B	NITROBENZENE	00098953	810	4000	[17] 10	H
41B	N-NITROSO[-]DIMETHYLAMINE	00062759	3400	17000	[0.00069] 0.0007 †	CRL
42B	N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE	00621647	N/A	N/A	0.005 †	CRL
43B	N-NITROSO[-]DIPHENYLAMINE	00086306	59	300	3.3 †	CRL
E	PENTACHLOROBENZENE	00608935	N/A	N/A	0.1	H
44B	PHENANTHRENE	00085018	1	5	N/A	-
45B	PYRENE	00129000	N/A	N/A	[830] 20	H
E	1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE	00095943	N/A	N/A	0.03	H
46B	1,2,4-TRICHLORO[-]BENZENE	00120821	26	130	[35] 0.07	H
1P	ALDRIN	00309002	0.1	3	[0.000049] 0.0000008	CRL
2P	alpha-[BHC] HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE (HCH)	00319846	N/A	N/A	[0.0026] 0.0004	CRL
3P	beta-[BHC] HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE (HCH)	00319857	N/A	N/A	[0.0091] 0.008	CRL
4P	gamma-[BHC] HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE (HCH) (LINDANE)	00058899	N/A	0.95	[0.098] 4.2	H
5P	delta-BHC	00319868	N/A	N/A	N/A	-
6P	CHLORDANE	00057749	0.0043	2.4	[0.00080] 0.0003	CRL
E	CHLOROPHENOXY HERBICIDE (2,4-D)	00094757	N/A	N/A	1000	H
E	CHLOROPHENOXY HERBICIDE (2,4,5-TP)	00093721	N/A	N/A	100	H
7P	4,4-DDT	00050293	0.001	1.1	[0.00022] 0.00003	CRL
8P	4,4-DDE	00072559	0.001	1.1	[0.00022] 0.00002	CRL
9P	4,4-DDD	00072548	0.001	1.1	[0.00031] 0.0001	CRL
10P	DIELDRIN	00060571	0.056	0.24	[0.000052] 0.000001	CRL
11P	alpha-ENDOSUL[-]FAN	00959988	0.056	0.22	[62 for endosulfan] 20	H
12P	beta-ENDOSULFAN	33213659	0.056	0.22	[See 11P] 20	H
13P	ENDOSULFAN SULFATE	01031078	N/A	N/A	[N/A] 20	[-] H
14P	ENDRIN	00072208	0.036	0.086	[0.059] 0.03	H
15P	ENDRIN ALDEHYDE	07421934	N/A	N/A	[0.29] 1.0	H
16P	HEPTACHLOR	00076448	0.0038	0.52	[0.000079] 0.000006	CRL
17P	HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE	01024573	0.0038	0.5	[0.000039] 0.00003	CRL
E	HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE (HCH)-TECHNICAL	00608731	N/A	N/A	0.007	CRL
E	METOXYCHLOR	00072435	N/A	N/A	0.02	H
18P	PCB		0.014	N/A	0.000064 for PCBs †	CRL
25P	TOXAPHENE	08001352	0.0002	0.73	[0.00028] 0.0007	CRL
PP	2,3,7,8-TCDD	01746016	N/A	N/A	5.0 E-9 †	CRL
D	ACETONE	00067641	86000	450000	[3500] 700	H
D	ACRYLAMIDE	00079061	N/A	N/A	0.07	CRL
D	ALUMINUM	07429905	N/A	750	N/A	-
D	BARIUM	07440393	4100	21000	[2400] 1000	H
D	BENZENE METADISULFONIC ACID	00098486	1600000	2600000	N/A	-
D	BENZENE MONOSULFONIC ACID	00098113	1200000	2000000	N/A	-
D	BENZYL CHLORIDE	00100447	N/A	N/A	0.2	CRL
D	BORON	07440428	1600	8100	[3100] 600	H
D	2-BUTOXY ETHANOL	00111762	N/A	N/A	700	H
D	COBALT	07440484	19	95	N/A	-
D	p-CRESOL	00106445	160	800	N/A	-
D	CYCLOHEXYLAMINE	00108918	N/A	N/A	1000	H
E	DIAZINON	00333415	0.17	0.17	N/A	-
D	FORMALDEHYDE	00050000	440	2200	[700] 1000	H
D	2-HEXANONE	00591786	4300	21000	N/A	-
D	LITHIUM	07439932	N/A	N/A	N/A	-
D	[METHYLETHYL] METHYL ETHYL KETONE	00078933	32000	230000	[21000] 300	H
D	[METHYLISO-BUTYL] METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE	00108101	5000	26000	N/A	-
D	METOLACHLOR	51218452	N/A	N/A	[69] 700	H
D	NONYLPHENOL	[00104405] 84852153	6.6	28	N/A	-
D	P-PHENOL SULFONIC ACID	00098679	1400000	3500000	N/A	-
D	[I] 1-PROPANOL	00071238	46000	230000	N/A	-
D	2-PROPANOL	00067630	89000	440000	N/A	-
D	RESORCINOL	01084603	7200	28000	[2700] 3000	H
D	STRONTIUM	07440246	N/A	N/A	4000	H
D	1,2,3-TRICHLORO[-]PROPANE	00096184	N/A	N/A	[210] 26	H
D	1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE	00095636	N/A	N/A	[72] 66	H
D	1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE	00108678	N/A	N/A	[72] 66	H
D	VANADIUM	07440622	100	510	N/A	-
D	XYLENE	01330207	210	1100	[70000] 10000	H

Acronyms and Footnotes to Table 5

 * Indicates dissolved metal criterion; others are total recoverable metals. Each listed dissolved criterion in Table 5 is equal to the corresponding total recoverable criterion before rounding (from the EPA National Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents) multiplied by the conversion factor (from the Conversion Factors Table); a criterion that is expressed as a hardness (H)-based equation is shown in Table 5 as the conversion factor (listed) multiplied by the hardness criterion equation; an example criterion at hardness=100mg/L is included.

 † Indicates criterion based on the exposure inputs of 2 liters per day of drinking water and consumption of 17.5 grams of fish per day, for protection of a 70 Kg person.

 CAS—Chemical Abstract Service number

 CRL—Cancer risk level at 1 × 10^-6

 D—DEP developed criteria

 E—EPA developed criteria

 H—Threshold effect human health criterion; incorporates additional uncertainty factor for some Group C carcinogens.

 ln [H]—Natural Logarithm of the Hardness of stream as mg/l CaCO₃

 ug/L—Micrograms per liter

 N/A—Criterion not developed

 PP NO—Priority Pollutant Number

§ 93.8d. Development of site-specific water quality criteria.

*  *  *  *  *

 (c) Scientific studies shall be performed in accordance with the procedures and guidance in the Water Quality Standards Handbook (EPA 1994), as amended and updated, including: ''Guidance on the Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals'' (February 1994); and the ''Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health'' (2000). The Department may require the use of the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) for the development of new or updated site-specific criteria for copper in freshwater systems. Other guidance approved by the Department, which is based on other EPA-approved or scientifically defensible methodologies, may be used.

*  *  *  *  *

 (f) If the Department determines that site-specific criteria are appropriate in accordance with subsection (a), the Department will do the following:

*  *  *  *  *

 (2) Maintain a publicly available [lists] online table of site-specific criteria.

*  *  *  *  *

§ 93.8e. Special criteria for the Great Lakes System.

*  *  *  *  *

 (b) Water quality criteria for the Great Lakes System. Human health and aquatic life criteria for the Great Lakes System are contained in Table 6 [(relating to Great Lakes aquatic life and human health criteria)]. For any pollutant not listed in the table, criteria in Table 5 may be used to protect existing and designated uses, or criteria will be developed by the Department, as needed, in accordance with this chapter and § 16.61 (relating to special provisions for the Great Lakes System).

*  *  *  *  *

DESIGNATED WATER USES AND WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

§ 93.9b. Drainage List B.

Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania
Lackawaxen River

Stream	Zone	County	Water Uses Protected	Exceptions to Specific Criteria
*  *  *  *  *
3—Van Auken Creek	Basin	Wayne	HQ-TSF, MF	None
2—Lackawaxen River	[Mainstem, confluence of West Branch Lackawaxen River and Van Auken Creek to Dyberry Creek] Main Stem	[Wayne] Pike	HQ-TSF, MF	None
3—Tributaries to Lackawaxen River	Basins, confluence of West Branch Lackawaxen River and Van Auken Creek to Dyberry Creek	Wayne	HQ-CWF, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *
3—Dyberry Creek	Basin, Big Brook to Mouth	Wayne	HQ-CWF, MF	None
[2—Lackawaxen River	Main Stem, Dyberry Creek to Mouth	Wayne	HQ-TSF, MF	None]
3—Tributaries to Lackawaxen River	Basins, Dyberry Creek to Wallenpaupack Creek	Wayne	HQ-CWF, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *

§ 93.9c. Drainage List C.

Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania
Delaware River

Stream	Zone	County	Water Uses Protected	Exceptions to Specific Criteria
*  *  *  *  *
2—Hornbecks Creek	Basin	Pike	HQ-CWF, MF	None
2—Spackmans Creek	Basin	Pike	HQ-CWF, MF	None
2—Toms Creek	Basin	Pike	EV, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *
2—Allegheny Creek	Basin	Northampton	CWF, MF	None
2—Mill Creek	Basin	Northampton	CWF, MF	None
2—Oughoughton Creek	Basin	Northampton	CWF, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *

§ 93.9d. Drainage List D.

Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania
Lehigh River

Stream	Zone	County	Water Uses Protected	Exceptions to Specific Criteria
1—Delaware River
2—Lehigh River	Basin, Source to Tobyhanna Creek	Luzerne-Monroe- Carbon	EV, MF	None
3—Tobyhanna Creek	[Main Stem] Basin, Source to Cross Keys Run	Monroe[-Carbon]	HQ-CWF, MF	None
[4—Unnamed Tributaries to Tobyhanna Creek	Basins	Monroe-Carbon	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Jim Smith Run	Basin	Monroe	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Pole Bridge Run	Basin	Monroe	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Singer Run	Basin	Monroe	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—East Branch Dresser Run	Basin	Monroe	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Pollys Run	Basin	Monroe	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Hummler Run	Basin	Monroe	HQ-CWF, MF	None]
4—Cross Keys Run	Basin	Monroe	EV, MF	None
3—Tobyhanna Creek	Basin, Cross Keys Run to Frame Cabin Run	Monroe	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Frame Cabin Run	Basin	Monroe	EV, MF	None
[4—Kistler Run	Basin	Monroe	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Wagner Run	Basin	Monroe	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Upper Tunkhannock Creek	Basin	Monroe	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Wolfs Spring Run	Basin	Monroe	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Deep Run	Basin	Monroe	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Davey Run	Basin	Monroe	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Red Run	Basin	Monroe	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Tunkhannock Creek	Basin	Monroe-Carbon	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Shingle Mill Run	Basin	Carbon	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Twomile Run	Basin	Monroe	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Stony Run	Basin	Monroe	HQ-CWF, MF	None]
3—Tobyhanna Creek	Basin, Frame Cabin Run to Mouth	Monroe-Carbon	HQ-CWF, MF	None
2—Lehigh River	Basin, Tobyhanna Creek to Buck Mountain Creek	Carbon	HQ-CWF, MF	None
3—Buck Mountain Creek	Main Stem	Carbon	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Unnamed Tributaries to Buck Mountain Creek	Basin	Carbon	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Indian Run	Basin	Carbon	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Shafer Run	Basin	Carbon	EV, MF	None
2—Lehigh River	Main Stem, Buck Mountain Creek to [PA 903 Bridge (at Jim Thorpe)] a point at 40° 52` 3.5" N; 75° 44` 9.3" W	Carbon	HQ-CWF, MF	None
3—Unnamed Tributaries to Lehigh River	Basins, Buck Mountain Creek to [PA 903 Bridge] the point at 40° 52` 3.5" N; 75° 44` 9.3" W	Carbon	HQ-CWF, MF	None
3—Drakes Creek	Basin	Carbon	HQ-CWF, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *
3—Robertson Run	Basin	Carbon	HQ-CWF, MF	None
2—Lehigh River	Main Stem, [PA 903 Bridge] the point at 40° 52` 3.5" N; 75° 44` 9.3" W to Allentown Dam	Lehigh	TSF, MF	None
3—Unnamed Tributaries to Lehigh River	Basins, [PA 903 Bridge] the point at 40° 52` 3.5" N; 75° 44` 9.3" W to Allentown Dam	Carbon-Lehigh	CWF, MF	None
3—Silkmill Run	Basin	Carbon	CWF, MF	None
3—Mauch Chunk Creek
[3—Mauch Chunk] 5—White Bear Creek	Basin, Source to SR 902 Bridge	Carbon	EV, MF	None
[3—Mauch Chunk] 5—White Bear Creek	Basin, SR 902 Bridge to [Mouth] inlet of Mauch Chunk Lake	Carbon	CWF, MF	None
4—Mauch Chunk Lake	Basin	Carbon	CWF, MF	None
3—Mauch Chunk Creek	Basin, Mauch Chunk Lake Dam to Mouth	Carbon	CWF, MF	None
3—[Beaverdam] Beaver Run	Basin	Carbon	CWF, MF	None
3—Long Run	Basin	Carbon	CWF, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *
4—Jordan Creek	Main Stem	Lehigh	TSF, MF	None
5—[Unnamed] Tributaries to Jordan Creek	Basins, Source to Mill Creek	Lehigh	HQ-CWF, MF	None
[5—Switzer Creek	Basin	Lehigh	HQ-CWF, MF	None
5—Lyon Creek	Basin	Lehigh	HQ-CWF, MF	None]
5—Mill Creek	Basin	Lehigh	CWF, MF	None
[5—Hassen Creek	Basin	Lehigh	HQ-CWF, MF	None]
5—Tributaries to Jordan Creek	Basins, Mill Creek to Mouth	Lehigh	HQ-CWF, MF	None
3—Little Lehigh Creek	Basin, Jordan Creek to Mouth	Lehigh	HQ-CWF, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *

§ 93.9e. Drainage List E.

Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania
Delaware River

Stream	Zone	County	Water Uses Protected	Exceptions to Specific Criteria
*  *  *  *  *
2—Frya Run	Basin	Northampton	HQ-CWF, MF	None
2—Cooks Creek	Basin	Bucks	EV, MF	None
2—Rodges Run	Basin	Bucks	TSF, MF	None
2—Gallows Run	Basin	Bucks	CWF, MF	None
2—Falls Creek	Basin	Bucks	TSF, MF	None
2—Swamp Creek	Basin	Bucks	TSF, MF	None
2—Tinicum Creek	Basin	Bucks	EV, MF	None
2—Smithtown Creek	Basin	Bucks	TSF, MF	None
2—Tohickon Creek	Basin, Source to Lake Nockamixon Dam	Bucks	TSF, MF	None
2—Tohickon Creek	Basin, Lake Nockamixon Dam to Deep Run	Bucks	CWF, MF	None
3—Deep Run	Basin	Bucks	WWF, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *
1—Delaware Estuary	Tidal Portions of Basin, Head of Tide to Burlington-Bristol Bridge	Bucks	WWF, MF	See DRBC regulations— Water Quality Zone 2
2—Unnamed Tributaries to Delaware Estuary	Non-Tidal Portion of Basins, Head of Tide to Burlington-Bristol Bridge	Bucks	WWF, MF	None
2—Biles Creek	Non-Tidal Portion of Basin	Bucks	WWF, MF	None
2—Martins Creek	Non-Tidal Portion of Basin	Bucks	WWF, MF	None
2—Levittown Lake	Basin	Bucks	TSF, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *

§ 93.9f. Drainage List F.

Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania
Schuylkill River

Stream	Zone	County	Water Uses Protected	Exceptions To Specific Criteria
*  *  *  *  *
3—Tulpehocken Creek	Main Stem, Blue Marsh Reservoir Dam to T 921	Berks	CWF, MF	None
4—Unnamed Tributaries to Tulpehocken Creek	Basins, Blue Marsh Reservoir Dam to T 921	Berks	WWF, MF	None
[5] 4—Plum Creek	Basin, Source to [Unnamed Tributary at RM 0.45] UNT 01867 at 40° 22` 30.2" N; 76° 0` 45.2" W	Berks	WWF, MF	None
[6—Unnamed Tributary to Plum Creek at RM 0.45] 5—UNT 01867 to Plum Creek	Basin	Berks	WWF, MF	None
[5] 4—Plum Creek	Basin, UNT [at RM 0.45] 01867 to Mouth	Berks	CWF, MF	None
4—Cacoosing Creek	Basin, Source to Little Cacoosing Creek	Berks	CWF, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *
3—UNTs to Schuylkill River	Basins, in Spring City and Phoenixville	Chester	WWF, MF	None
3—Manatawny Creek	[Main Stem	Berks	CWF, MF	None
4—Unnamed Tributaries to Manatawny Creek	Basins	Berks	CWF, MF	None]
4—Pine Creek	Basin	Berks	EV, MF	None
4—Bieber Creek	Basin	Berks	EV, MF	None
3—Manatawny Creek	Basin, Confluence of Pine Creek and Bieber Creek to Oysterville Creek	Berks	CWF, MF	None
[4—Little Manatawny Creek	Basin	Berks	CWF, MF	None]
4—Oysterville Creek	Basin, Source to T 634 Bridge [(RM 2.6)] at 40° 23` 45.9" N; 75° 42` 30.0" W	Berks	EV, MF	None
4—Oysterville Creek	Basin, T 634 Bridge [(RM 2.6)] to Confluence of UNT 01680 at 40° 22` 44.6" N; 75° 43` 48.0" W	Berks	HQ-CWF, MF	None
5—UNT 01680 to Oysterville Creek	Basin	Berks	CWF, MF	None
4—Oysterville Creek	Basin, UNT 01680 to Mouth	Berks	HQ-CWF, MF	None
[4—Furnace Run	Basin	Berks	CWF, MF	None]
3—Manatawny Creek	Basin, Oysterville Creek to Trout Run	Berks	CWF, MF	None
4—Trout Run	Basin	Berks	EV, MF	None
3—Manatawny Creek	Basin, Trout Run to Ironstone Creek	Berks	CWF, MF	None
4—Ironstone Creek	Basin	Berks	TSF, MF	None
3—Manatawny Creek	Basin, Ironstone Creek to Mouth	Berks	CWF, MF	None
3—Sprogels Run	Basin	Montgomery	WWF, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *
3—Perkiomen Creek	Basin, Source to SR 1010 Bridge at Hereford	Berks	HQ-CWF, MF	None
3—Perkiomen Creek	Main Stem, SR 1010 Bridge to Green Lane Reservoir Dam	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None
4—[UNTs] Tributaries to Perkiomen Creek	Basins, SR 1010 Bridge to [Green Lane Reservoir Dam] Hosensack Creek	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None
4—Hosensack Creek	Basin	Montgomery	CWF, MF	None
4—Tributaries to Perkiomen Creek	Basins, Hosensack Creek to West Branch Perkiomen Creek	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None
4—West Branch Perkiomen Creek	Basin, Source to SR 1022 Bridge [(RM 12.9)] at 40° 26` 49.6" N; 75° 37` 16.2" W	Berks	CWF, MF	None
4—West Branch Perkiomen Creek	Basin, SR 1022 Bridge to SR 2069 Bridge [(RM 8.0)] at 40° 23` 45.8" N; 75° 36` 31.5" W	Berks	EV, MF	None
4—West Branch Perkiomen Creek	Basin, SR 2069 Bridge to Mouth	Montgomery	CWF, MF	None
4—Tributaries to Perkiomen Creek	Basins, West Branch Perkiomen Creek to Unami Creek	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None
3—Perkiomen Creek	Main Stem, Green Lane Reservoir Dam to Mouth	Montgomery	WWF, MF	None
[4—Unnamed Tributaries to Perkiomen Creek	Basins, Green Lane Reservoir Dam to Mouth	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None
4—Macoby Creek	Basin	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None
4—Deep Creek	Basin	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None]
4—Unami Creek	Basin	Montgomery	HQ-TSF, MF	None
4—Tributaries to Perkiomen Creek	Basins, Unami Creek to Swamp Creek	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None
4—Swamp Creek	Basin, Source to Dam in Bechtelsville [(RM 15.5)] at 40° 22` 24.9" N; 75° 37` 51.5" W	Berks	HQ-CWF, MF	None
4—Swamp Creek	Basin, Dam in Bechtelsville to [Route] SR 100 Bridge	Berks	CWF, MF	None
4—Swamp Creek	Basin, [Route] SR 100 Bridge to Mouth	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None
[4—Mine Run	Basin	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None
4—East Branch Perkiomen Creek	Basin	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None
4—Lodal Creek	Basin	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None
4—Schoolhouse Run	Basin	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None
4—Doe Run	Basin	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None
4—Skippack Creek	Basin	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None
4—Mine Run	Basin	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None]
4—Tributaries to Perkiomen Creek	Basins, Swamp Creek to Mouth	Montgomery	TSF, MF	None
3—Valley Creek	Basin	Montgomery— Chester	EV, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *

§ 93.9g. Drainage List G.

Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania
Delaware River

Stream	Zone	County	Water Uses Protected	Exceptions To Specific Criteria
*  *  *  *  *
2—Ridley Creek	Non-Tidal Portions of Basin, LR 23013 Bridge to Mouth	Delaware	WWF, MF	None
2—Chester Creek	Basin (locally known as Goose Creek basin), Source to East Branch Chester Creek	Chester	[TSF] WWF, MF	None
3—East Branch Chester Creek	Basin[, Source to Westtown Run]	Chester	TSF, MF	None
[4—Westtown Run	Basin	Chester	WWF, MF	None
3—East Branch Chester Creek	Basin, Westtown Run to Mouth	Chester	TSF, MF	None]
2—Chester Creek	Basin, East Branch Chester Creek to Rocky Run	Delaware	TSF, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *
2—Chester Creek	Nontidal Portions of Basin, Dutton Mills Road Bridge to Mouth	Delaware	WWF, MF	None
2—[Stony] Stoney Creek	Non-Tidal Portions of Basin	Delaware	WWF, MF	None
2—Marcus Hook Creek	Non-Tidal Portions of Basin	Delaware	WWF, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *
4—East Branch Brandywine Creek	Main Stem, Shamona Creek to Confluence with West Branch	Chester	WWF, MF	None
5—[Unnamed] Tributaries to East Branch Brandywine Creek	Basins, Shamona Creek to [Confluence with West Branch (except in East Brandywine and Uwchlan Townships)] UNT 00322 at 40° 1` 29.5" N; 75° 42` 22.6" W	Chester	[WWF, MF] HQ-TSF, MF	None
5—[Unnamed] Tributaries to East Branch Brandywine Creek	Basins, [in East Brandywine and Uwchlan Townships] UNT 00322 to Beaver Creek	Chester	[HQ-TSF, MF] WWF, MF	None
5—Beaver Creek	Basin	Chester	CWF, MF	None
5—Tributaries to East Branch Brandywine Creek	Basins, Beaver Creek to Confluence with West Branch	Chester	WWF, MF	None
5—Valley Creek	Basin, Source to Broad Run	Chester	CWF, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *
3—Brandywine Creek	[Main Stem] Basin, Confluence of East and West Branches to [PA-DE State Border] Pocopson Creek	[Delaware] Chester	WWF, MF	None
[4—Unnamed Tributaries to Brandywine Creek	Basins (all sections in PA), Confluence of East and West Branches to PA-DE State Border	Chester-Delaware	WWF, MF	None
4—Plum Run	Basin	Chester	WWF, MF	None
4—Radley Run	Basin	Chester	WWF, MF	None]
4—Pocopson Creek	Basin	Chester	TSF, MF	None
[4—Bennetts Run	Basin	Chester	WWF, MF	None
4—Brinton Run	Basin	Chester	WWF, MF	None
4—Ring Run	Basin	Chester	WWF, MF	None
4—Harvey Run	Basin	Chester	WWF, MF	None]
3—Brandywine Creek	Basin (all sections in PA), Pocopson Creek to PA-DE State Border	Chester-Delaware	WWF, MF	None
3—Brandywine Creek (DE)
4—[Unnamed] Tributaries to Brandywine Creek	Basins (all sections in PA), PA-DE State Border to Mouth	Delaware	WWF, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *

§ 93.9j. Drainage List J.

Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania
Lackawanna River

Stream	Zone	County	Water Uses Protected	Exceptions To Specific Criteria
*  *  *  *  *
3—Meadow Brook	Basin	Lackawanna	CWF, MF	None
3—Roaring Brook	Basin, Source to Inlet of Elmhurst Reservoir	Lackawanna	HQ-CWF, MF	None
3—Roaring Brook	Basin, Inlet of Elmhurst Reservoir to Mouth	Lackawanna	CWF, MF	None
3—Stafford Meadow Brook	Basin, Source to Farthest Downstream Crossing of Scranton-Moosic Corporate Boundary	Lackawanna	HQ-CWF, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *

§ 93.9k. Drainage List K.

Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania
Susquehanna River

Stream	Zone	County	Water Uses Protected	Exceptions To Specific Criteria
*  *  *  *  *
2—Warrior Creek	Basin	Luzerne	CWF, MF	None
2—Nanticoke Creek	Basin	Luzerne	CWF, MF	None
2—Newport Creek	Basin	Luzerne	CWF, MF	None
2—Harvey Creek	Basin, Source to Pikes Creek	Luzerne	HQ-CWF, MF	None
3—Pikes Creek	Basin	Luzerne	HQ-CWF, MF	None
2—Harvey Creek	Basin, Pikes Creek to Mouth	Luzerne	CWF, MF	None
*  *  *  *  *

[Continued on next Web Page]

---

No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.

---