Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

SEPTEMBER 1, 2013

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

 Correct and Clarify Water Quality Standards for Toxics

Short summary 

DEQ proposes revisions to the toxic water quality standards rules to correct and clarify the standards. The proposed rules are generally not substantive, but correct several toxic pollutant criteria that EPA recently disapproved and address other minor revisions to the Toxic Substances rule. For example, EPA disapproved criteria for 11 pesticides based on an unclear reading of the frequency and duration components of these criteria. DEQ expects that clarifying this aspect of the criteria will remedy the disapproval of 35 pesticide criteria values associated with 11 pesticides. DEQ also proposes to correct an error in the expression of freshwater selenium criteria (i.e. currently expressed as “total recoverable selenium” and is proposed to be expressed as “dissolved selenium”) and is re-proposing freshwater and saltwater arsenic criteria and chromium VI saltwater criteria that were inadvertently left off the criteria table during a 2007 rulemaking. DEQ is also correcting typographical errors made during the 2011 Human Health Toxics Rulemaking.

In addition, DEQ proposes to move all effective aquatic life criteria from Tables 20, 33A, and 33B into a new aquatic life criteria table, Table 30 and to refer to the new Table in the Toxic Substances rule language. As a result, Tables 20, 33A, and 33B are no longer needed and would be repealed under this proposal. DEQ also proposes to delete aluminum from Table 30 to reflect EPA’s disapproval of the freshwater criteria for aluminum because the disapproval renders the criteria ineffective and there are no other criteria for aluminum. DEQ anticipates adopting revised freshwater criteria for aluminum in a future rulemaking process.

EPA must approve the following water quality standard revisions before they become effective under the Clean Water Act: (1) revisions to pesticides and selenium criteria; (2) reinstatement of arsenic and chromium VI criteria and the associated conversion factors; and (3) revisions to the Toxic Substances rule in OAR 340-041-0033. EPA may act on the editorial and formatting changes in this proposal, but will not likely act on criteria previously approved and simply consolidated into a single table. Ultimately, EPA will determine which water quality standards it must formally approve or disapprove.

Brief history

On Jan. 31, 2013, EPA took action on Oregon’s aquatic life toxics criteria that the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission adopted and submitted to EPA in 2004. DEQ proposed these water quality criteria, which EPA recommended, to protect aquatic organisms such as fish, shellfish, and aquatic insects. The aquatic life toxics criteria for each pollutant are typically have four values: acute (short term) and chronic (long term) values for freshwater protection, and acute and chronic values for saltwater protection. EPA approved 38 criteria values associated with 14 toxic pollutants. EPA disapproved the freshwater acute criterion for cadmium based on findings in the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) August 2012 Biological Opinion. EPA disapproved the ammonia criteria because new toxicity data showed that the criteria were not protective of mollusks. EPA also disapproved criteria associated with 14 other pollutants (11 pesticides, copper, selenium and aluminum) due to inconsistencies associated with EPA’s nationally recommended criteria. The Clean Water Act requires Oregon to fix the deficiencies identified in EPA’s disapproval action. If Oregon does not make these revisions, EPA is required to put in place its own regulations addressing the deficiencies. This rulemaking does not address the disapproval of the freshwater criteria for aluminum, ammonia, copper, and cadmium (acute criterion only.) DEQ expects to address the more substantive issues for these pollutants in a future rulemaking rather than delay and potentially confuse the straightforward corrections in this proposal.

Regulated parties

Regulated parties possibly affected by this rulemaking include industrial and municipal dischargers to waters of the state. Specifically, regulated parties include those industrial dischargers categorized as “primary dischargers” by the federal permitting regulations and required to monitor for toxic pollutants, and generally major municipal dischargers(average dry weather design flow of more than one million gallons per day.)

Agricultural and forest activities are subject to Agricultural Water Quality Management (AgWQM) Area Plans and Rules and the Forest Practices Act, respectively. Those laws require these nonpoint sources to meet all water quality standards.

Request for other options

During the public comment period, DEQ requests public comment on whether to consider other options for achieving the rule's substantive goals while reducing negative economic impact of the rule on business.

Federal relationship

"It is the policy of this state that agencies shall seek to retain and promote the unique identity of Oregon by considering local conditions when an agency adopts policies and rules. However, since there are many federal laws and regulations that apply to activities that are also regulated by the state, it is also the policy of this state that agencies attempt to adopt rules that correspond with equivalent federal laws and rules..."

Relationship to federal requirements

The proposed rules are not “different from or in addition to federal requirements” and impose stringency equivalent to federal requirements.

The proposed rules would implement a federal requirement. The federal Clean Water Act requires states to adopt water quality standards to protect beneficial uses of the nation’s waters. The standards must be based on substantial evidence. DEQ must submit the proposed standards to EPA for approval after they are adopted by the EQC. DEQ has concluded that the proposed standards revisions meet federal requirements. DEQ has worked with EPA through the development of the proposed rules and we expect that EPA will approve the new and revised rules. Other revisions propose to correct errors or provide additional clarifications to the Toxic Substances Rule.

What alternatives did DEQ consider, if any?

[DESCRIBE WHY DEQ DID NOT PURSUE THESE ALTERNATIVES] Enter text here

Lead division            Program or activity

Water Quality Division      Water Quality Standards and Assessment

?       Chapter 340 action      

 Recommendation  Division  Rule  Title  SIP/Land use*

 amend  041  0033  Toxic Substances Rule  Land use

 amend  041  0009  Bacteria Rule  Land use

 amend  040  0020  Groundwater Quality Protection  Land use

 amend  040  0080  Numerical Groundwater Quality  Land use

*  SIP – This rule is part of the State Implementation Plan.

*  Land use – DEQ State Agency Coordination Program considers this rule, program or activity a land use program.

Statutory authority

ORS 468B.010, ORS 468B.020, ORS 468B.035, ORS 468B.110

}  

Statute implemented  Legislation  Year

ORS  [ENTER CITATIONS?] Enter here  N/A  N/A

Documents relied on for rulemaking  ORS 183.335(2)(b)(C)

Statement of fiscal and economic impact      ORS 183.335 (2)(b)(E)

Statement of Cost of Compliance  

Introduction

This proposal would correct a number of criteria EPA disapproved in its Jan. 31, 2013 action on Oregon’s aquatic life toxics criteria submitted to EPA in 2004. In addition, DEQ proposes other clarifications and corrections to the Toxic Substances rule unrelated to EPA’s action. DEQ determined that these clarifications and corrections are consistent with the intent of the 2004 rulemaking and will result in minimal fiscal or economic impacts, if any. Any fiscal impacts related to changes to the aquatic life toxics criteria were accounted for as part of the 2004 DEQ rulemaking. For information on the fiscal and economic impact of revising toxics criteria in 2004, see Attachment F for Agenda Item B, Rule Adoption: Water Quality Standards, including Toxics Criteria May 20-21, 2004 EQC meeting at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/about/eqc/agendas/attachments/may2004/5.20.04.ItemB.AttchF.pdf

Note that the revisions proposed in this rulemaking resulted from errors occurring from rulemakings in 2004, 2007, and 2011. The 2004 rulemaking was comprised of a number of actions, including revising toxics criteria for aquatic life and human health. In 2007, DEQ proposed a number of corrections and clarifications, one which included revising Tables 33A and 33B to correctly show which of the toxic pollutants criteria could and could not be used for permitting until EPA approval. The 2011 rulemaking consisted of revising human health criteria based on a higher fish consumption rate, and also included the development of several permitting implementation tools.

1.  Impacts on general public

DEQ does not expect that the general public will incur direct or indirect fiscal or economic impacts as a result of the proposed revisions to the toxics water quality standards rules. . The revisions proposed in this rulemaking correct typographical errors associated with the aquatic life criteria and human health criteria that EQC adopted in 2004, 2007, and 2011, and are intended to address issues identified by EPA in its Jan. 31, 2013 disapproval action so that EPA will be able to promptly approve the criteria adopted by the EQC in 2004, as revised in this ?.

DEQ anticipates the changes to the toxics rule will provide a benefit to members of the public by reducing confusion over which criteria are effective and consolidating all effective aquatic life toxics criteria into one table (i.e. Table 30), instead of three tables (i.e. Table 20, Table 33A, and Table 33B).

2.  Cost of compliance on small businesses (those with 50 or fewer employees). ORS 183.336

DEQ does not expect small businesses to be affected by these rule revisions. . For those few small businesses that do discharge to a waterbody and have toxics monitoring requirements (i.e. identified as “primary industries” by federal permitting regulations), or are subject to pretreatment requirements where the business discharges to a municipal wastewater facility, the proposed changes in this rulemaking do not impose new requirements. DEQ conducted an economic and fiscal impact assessment on revising or proposing new aquatic life criteria as part of the 2004 rulemaking. Instead, this corrects and clarifies toxics regulations and tables and responds to the regulatory consequences of EPA disapproval and approval of aquatic life criteria submitted in 2004. DEQ conducted an economic and fiscal impact assessment on revising or proposing new aquatic life criteria as part of the 2004 rulemaking.

This proposal would re-adopt freshwater and saltwater criteria for arsenic and saltwater criteria for chromium VI originally adopted by the EQC in 2004. DEQ inadvertently omitted these criteria in Table 33B during the 2007 water quality standards rulemaking. Despite this omission, these re-proposed criteria are not considered new water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life and do not need to undergo an economic analysis. In addition, although the correction to the selenium criteria (i.e. expressed in the dissolved form) does result in slightly more stringent criteria, the expression of most metals to the dissolved form, including selenium, was accounted for as part of the 2004 rulemaking fiscal analysis.

Some small businesses may need to conduct minor recordkeeping activities to correctly reference the effective aquatic life toxics criteria in their discharge monitoring reports if the EQC amends the proposed rules. DEQ expects the economic impact to be minimal.

DEQ anticipates these changes will provide a benefit to small businesses subject to toxics water quality criteria by reducing confusion over which criteria are effective and consolidating all effective aquatic life toxics criteria into one table (Table 30), rather than in the current three tables (Table 20, Table 33A, and Table 33B.)

Many farms, ranches, and small timber operations fall under the category of small businesses. Agricultural and forest activities are subject to Agricultural Water Quality Management (AgWQM) Area Plans and Rules and the Forest Practices Act, respectively, which require these nonpoint sources to meet water quality standards. These plans and rules already require and provide the mechanism for agriculture and small forest land owners to meet water quality standards and TMDL load allocations. This rulemaking does not change requirements in these plans and rules. Because this rulemaking only proposes clarifications and corrections to toxics regulations and tables, DEQ does not anticipate that this proposed rulemaking will have direct or indirect fiscal impacts or effects on small farms,ranches and small forest land owners.

3. Impact on large businesses (all businesses that are not small businesses under #2 above)

Large businesses that discharge to waterbodies are regulated under the Clean Water Act and are subject to toxics monitoring requirements. However, DEQ does not expect large businesses, such as pulp and paper or electronic processing types of industry, to incur significant direct or indirect fiscal or economic impacts as a result of the proposed revisions to the toxics water quality standards rule. This rulemaking does not propose new water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life or human health. Instead, this rulemaking proposes to correct typographical errors associated with the aquatic life and human health criteria adopted by the EQC in 2004 and 2011, respectively, and responds to the regulatory consequences of EPA’s approval and disapproval actions associated with the 2004 aquatic life criteria. DEQ conducted an economic and fiscal impact assessment on revising or proposing new aquatic life criteria as part of the 2004 rulemaking.

DEQ proposes re-adopt freshwater and saltwater criteria for arsenic and saltwater criteria for chromium VI originally adopted by the EQC in 2004. DEQ inadvertently omitted these criteria in Table 33B during the 2007 water quality standards rulemaking. Despite this omission, these re-proposed criteria are not considered new water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life and do not warrant undergoing an economic analysis. In addition, although the correction to the selenium criteria (i.e. expressed in the dissolved form) does result in slightly lower criteria, the expression of most metals to the dissolved form, including selenium, was accounted for as part of the 2004 rulemaking fiscal analysis.

Some large businesses may need to conduct minor recordkeeping activities to correctly reference the effective toxics criteria following this rulemaking. DEQ expects the economic impact to be minimal.

DEQ anticipates these changes will very likely provide a benefit to large businesses subject to requirements based on toxics criteria by clarifying which criteria are effective and combining effective aquatic life toxics criteria into one table (Table 30), rather than distributed among three tables (Table 20, Table 33A, and Table 33B).

4. Impact on local government other than DEQ

DEQ does not expect local governments, such as municipal wastewater treatment facilities (i.e. domestic facilities or Publicly Owned Treatment Works), to incur measurable direct or indirect fiscal or economic impacts as a result of the proposed revisions to the toxics rule. This rulemaking does not propose new water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life or human health. Instead, this rulemaking proposes to correct typographical errors associated with the aquatic life and human health criteria adopted by the EQC in 2004 and 2011, respectively, and responds to the regulatory consequences of EPA’s approval and disapproval actions associated with the 2004 aquatic life criteria.

Most, if not all, major domestic sources are subject to toxic pollutant monitoring requirements. Generally, minor domestic sources (average dry weather design flow of less than one million gallons per day (MGD)) have much reduced monitoring and permitting requirements than major domestic sources.

The re-adoption of arsenic and chromium VI criteria and the expression of the freshwater selenium criteria to dissolved, as noted above under impacts to large businesses, does not require an economic analysis. DEQ conducted an economic and fiscal impact assessment on revising or proposing new aquatic life criteria as part of the 2004 rulemaking.

Some wastewater treatment facilities may need to conduct minor recordkeeping activities to correctly reference the effective toxics criteria following this rulemaking. DEQ expects the economic impact to be minimal.

DEQ anticipates these changes will very likely provide a benefit to local governments subject to toxics criteria by clarifying which criteria are effective and combining effective aquatic life toxics criteria into one table (Table 30), rather than distributed among three tables (Table 20, Table 33A, and Table 33B).

5. Impact on DEQ

DEQ does not expect that DEQ will incur significant direct or indirect fiscal or economic impacts as a result of the proposed revisions to the toxics rule. Although many DEQ programs use water quality criteria for toxics in various water quality programs (e.g. water quality assessment, Total Maximum Daily Load program, NPDES permitting, groundwater rules, clean-up program, etc.), this rulemaking does not propose new water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life or human health. DEQ conducted an economic and fiscal impact assessment on revising or proposing new aquatic life criteria as part of the 2004 rulemaking. Instead, this rulemaking proposes to correct typographical errors associated with the aquatic life and human health criteria adopted by the EQC in 2004 and 2011, respectively, and responds to the regulatory consequences of EPA’s approval and disapproval actions associated with the 2004 aquatic life criteria. However, some DEQ

programs may need to conduct minor recordkeeping activities to correctly reference effective toxics criteria following this rulemaking. DEQ expects the economic impact to be minimal.

DEQ anticipates these changes will very likely provide a benefit to DEQ staff by clarifying which criteria are effective and combining effective toxics aquatic life criteria into one table (Table 30), rather than distributed among three tables (Table 20, Table 33A, and Table 33B).

Documents relied on for fiscal and economic impact

None.

Housing cost

To comply with ORS 183.534, DEQ determined the proposed rules would have no effect on the development cost of a 6,000-square-foot parcel and construction of a 1,200-square-foot detached single-family dwelling on that parcel.

Fees

Not applicable.

For proposals that address numerous issues, the rule design team may use one of the methods under the Statement of Need section if it clarifies how this section applies to the disparate elements of this rulemaking. Delete this box after the team has settled on a method.

“It is the Commission's policy to coordinate the Department's programs, rules and actions that affect land use with local acknowledged plans to the fullest degree possible.”  

                              ORS 197.180, OAR 660-030

Land-use considerations

To determine whether the proposed rules involve programs or actions that are considered a land-use action, DEQ considered:

▪  Statewide planning goals for specific references. Section III, subsection 2 of the DEQ State Agency Coordination Program} document identifies the following statewide goal relating to DEQ's authority:

 Goal  Title

 5    Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources

 6    Air, Water and Land Resources Quality

 11    Public Facilities and Services

 16    Estuarial resources

 19    Ocean Resources

▪  OAR 340-018-0030 for EQC rules on land-use coordination. Division 18 requires DEQ to determine whether proposed rules will significantly affect land use. If yes, how will DEQ:

◦  Comply with statewide land-use goals, and

◦  Ensure compatibility with acknowledged comprehensive plans, which DEQ most commonly achieves by requiring a Land Use Compatibility Statement.

▪  DEQ’s mandate to protect public health and safety and the environment.

▪  Whether DEQ is the primary authority that is responsible for land-use programs or actions in the proposed rules.

▪  Present or future land uses identified in acknowledged comprehensive plans.

Determination

DEQ determined that the proposed rules identified under the 'Chapter 340 Action' section above may affect existing rules, programs or activities that are considered land-use programs and actions in OAR 340-018-0030 or in the DEQ State Agency Coordination Program. However, while the water quality standards program in general could affect land uses, the proposed rule amendments do not. These rule amendments propose to correct or clarify errors associated with past rulemakings, or provide additional clarifications, but the beneficial uses of State waters will not be changed and the water quality standards will continue to protect those uses. The proposed changes are adequately covered by the existing statewide goals.

[OPTION 1]DEQ’s statewide goal compliance and local plan compatibility procedures adequately cover the proposed rules. [DESCRIBE BRIEFLY WHY IT IS ADEQUATE.] [EXAMPLE 1: 340-018-0040(1) - compliance with statewide planning goals achieved by ensuring compatibility with acknowledged comprehensive plans] [EXAMPLE 2: 340-018-0050(2)(a) - ensuring compatibility with acknowledged comprehensive plans may be accomplished through a Land Use Compatibility Statement.] Enter text here.

[OPTION 2]DEQ’s statewide goal compliance and local plan compatibility procedures do not cover the proposed rules. [DESCRIBE CRITERIA AND RATIONALE USED TO DETERMINE THE PROPOSED RULES ARE LAND-USE RULES.] Enter text here.

[POTENTIAL TEXT] DEQ reasonably expects the program, rules or actions to have Choose an item. effect on resources, objectives or areas in the planning goals. [PLEASE EXPLAIN] Enter text here.

[OPTION 3]The proposed rules are not subject to existing compliance and local plan compatibility procedures. To ensure compliance and compatibility, DEQ will [EXPLAIN NEW PROCEDURES DEQ WILL USE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE AND COMPATIBILITY] Enter text here.

 Advisory committee

DEQ established an advisory committee in January 2013 to provide input to DEQ on any potential fiscal impacts, that may result from this rulemaking. The rulemaking was subsequently delayed and then re-initiated in May 2013. DEQ met with the advisory committee on June 25, 2013 and July 11, 2013. The committee includes eight members representing industrial, municipal, tribal and environmental organizations with an interest in actions related to developing or revising water quality standards for toxic pollutants. See the Advisory Committee Charter for more information.

DEQ sent the draft fiscal analysis to the committee on July 2, 2013 to prepare for the fiscal analysis discussion at the July 11, 2013 meeting. In compliance with ORS 183.333, DEQ asked for the committee’s recommendations on:

•  Whether the proposed rules would have a fiscal impact,

•  The extent of the impact, and

•  Whether the proposed rules would have a significant impact on small businesses and compliance with ORS 183.540.

DEQ considered the committee’s comments on the fiscal and economic impact statement. The committee agreed that the fiscal and economic impact to the regulated community, including small businesses, was minimal, if any. This rulemaking focuses on addressing EPA disapproval of pesticide and freshwater selenium criteria, and other corrections and clarifications to the toxics rules. The remedy to address the pesticide disapprovals is the addition of clarifying language only. The underlying criteria do not change. To address EPA’s disapproval of the freshwater criteria for selenium, DEQ applied the conversion factors to convert selenium criteria expressed as total recoverable to a dissolved expression as intended in the 2004 rulemaking. The 2004 fiscal analysis included any potential fiscal impacts from the change of total recoverable metals expression to a dissolved expression. This rulemaking does not propose new toxics criteria or other requirements. For more information about the advisory committee discussion, see the meeting minutes: future link to final meeting minutes. [SUMMARIZE RECOMMENDATION OR INVOLVEMENT AND LINK TO ANY FORMAL RECOMMENDATION.]

 Roster

 EQC prior involvement

DEQ shared information about this rulemaking through a Director's Dialogue at the EQC meeting June 19-20, 2013. EQC members did not ask to participate in this rulemaking.

Public notice (to be completed at time of public notice)

[ADAPT TENSE. USE “PLANS” FOR FUTURE TENSE.] The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with Hearing [WITHOUT HEARING] for this proposed rulemaking will publish in the mmm dd, yyyy Oregon Bulletin. DEQ also:

•  Posted notice on DEQ’s webpage http://www.deq.state.or.us/regulations/proposedrules.htm on mmm dd, yyyy.

•  E-mailed notice to:

•   #### interested parties through GovDelivery on mmm dd, yyyy.

•  #### stakeholders on the [LIST OTHER MAILING LIST].

•  ## key legislators required under ORS 183.335 on mmm dd, yyyy. Key legislators included:

◦  Name, Title, Committee

◦  Name, Title, Committee

◦  Name, Title, Committee

•  Members of the advisory committee on mmm dd, yyyy.

•  Mailed the notice by U.S. Postal Service to ## interested parties on mmm dd, yyyy.

•  Sent notice to EPA on mmm dd, yyyy. 

•  Other

Public hearings

DEQ plans to hold one public hearing. [OPTION]The hearing is accessible by:

Conference call:  (###) ###-####

Webinar:       (###) ###-####  Participant code: #####

Before taking public comment, DEQ will describe the rule proposal. The following table lists the public hearing location:

Close of public comment period

The comment period will close on Sept. 30, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.

jhickman, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
I suggest including a brief explanation that WQS don’t become effective until approved by EPA, and in order for previously adopted WQS to become effective, we need to address EPA’s concerns. Explain we will submit the revised rules to EPA again for approval and that, due to the limited scope of the revisions, we expect speedy approval by EPA.

dsturde, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
since they disapproved that I don't think they need to act again on the removal of it from the table

jhickman, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
Suggest we either explain the significance of this explanation, or delete this paragraph.

jhickman, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
Does this apply only for cadmium or to the other criteria as well?

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
I'm unclear on the numbers below

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
add date

dsturde, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
I think the separate tables provided some clarity for people in what was otherwise a very confusing situation.

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
This is a good sententence for the summary. It is clear.

dsturde, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
Should we drop the "C" now that this will be the only remaining Table 33? Or renumber it as Table 31, if we think the reference to 33 will be confusing?

dsturde, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
This may need to be worded differently as EPA will likely decline to act on the non-substantive/formatting changes. Unless they have told you they've changed their view of this and will approve everything.

jhickman, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
Placeholder to re-visit when issue is resolved.

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:25:00Z
Of the rule?? Of the????

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:26:00Z
Keep the problem statement separate from the solution statement

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
Check numbering

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
Add a more direct link to the solution below.

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
check numbering

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
This is part of solving the problem

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
Limit use of the word "since" when referring to time

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
See comments in similar sections above.

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
Make sure to limit section above to the problem and this section to the solution.

jhickman, 2013-07-25T16:13:00Z
I suggest we say that we requested comment as required but did not receive any.

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
No but we are required to ask.

jhickman, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
Did we receive any comments about that?

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
Please verify this new OPTION is accurate.

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
You need to answewr this question. In this case, the "do nothing" alternative" or the add it to the future rulemaking. Maybe others. You only need a couple of sentences.

jhickman, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
See Larry K’s comments

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
Leave this her and simply say "No other authorities"

jhickman, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
See Larry K’s comments

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:58:00Z
Some of the comon repetative information below could go in thei section.

jhickman, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
Maybe we should list this fiscal impact statement as one of the documents relied upon in this rulemaking?

jhickman, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
Suggest we elither explain why not, or better yet, just delete this sentence.

jhickman, 2013-07-25T14:17:00Z
I assume this is where the corrections would need to be made?

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T14:47:00Z
Could we cross reference the industrial dischargers to waters of the state with small business owners from Employment? Did Larry K have any heartburn over this sentence?

mvandeh, 2013-07-25T15:36:00Z
I stopped her because this is still a work in progress.

jhickman, 2013-07-25T16:18:00Z
No hyphen in “land use”