Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
SEPT. 1, 2013
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Corrections and Clarifications to Toxics Water Quality Standards
Overview |
Short summary
DEQ proposes revisions to the water quality standards rules for toxic substances to correct and clarify the standards. Revisions to water quality standards require EPA approval before the revisions become effective for Clean Water Act programs. The proposed rules correct several toxic pollutant criteria that EPA recently disapproved and address other minor revisions to the Toxic Substances rule. EPA disapproved criteria for 11 pesticides based on potentially conflicting information in regards to how the frequency and duration components of these criteria are expressed. DEQ expects that clarifying this aspect of the criteria will lead to EPA approval of 36 pesticide criteria values associated with 11 pesticides. DEQ also proposes to correct an error in the expression of freshwater selenium criteria 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 As a result, Tables 20, 33A, and 33B are no longer needed and would be repealed under this proposal.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.
DEQ anticipates that EPA will take action on the following water quality standard revisions proposed in this rulemaking 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; (3) deletion of aluminum criteria; and (4) revisions to the Toxic Substances rule in OAR 340-041-0033. EPA will likely take an action on the editorial and formatting changes in this proposal, but not on the underlying criteria that were previously approved. 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 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 and disapproved 45 criteria values associated with 16 toxic pollutants. EPA disapproved the freshwater acute criterion for cadmium based on findings in the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 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, including 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.
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, those with an average dry weather design flow of more than one million gallons per day.
Agricultural and forest activities are subject to Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plans and Rules and the Forest Practices Act, respectively. Those laws require these nonpoint sources to meet all water quality standards.
Statement of need |
Proposed Rule or Topic | Discussion |
340-041-0033(1-5): Toxic Substances Rule | |
What problem is DEQ trying to solve? | Currently, Oregon’s water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life reside in three tables: Table 20, Table 33A, and Table 33B. In 2004, the EQC adopted Tables 33A and 33B:
• Table 33A contains criteria more stringent or remained the same as previous criteria and became effective for NPDES permitting Feb. 15, 2005.
• Table 33B contains criteria less stringent than previous criteria and therefore, would only be effective after EPA approval.
Table 20 contains criteria effective before the 2004 rulemaking and remained effective for all CWA programs, such as reporting to EPA on the condition of Oregon’s waters (i.e. sections 303(d) and 305(b)).
On Jan. 31, 2013, EPA took action on the 2004 criteria, thereby determining which new or revised criteria in Tables 33A and 33B are now effective under CWA authorities. Criteria that EPA disapproved automatically reverted back to any previously effective criteria contained in Table 20. Now that EPA has acted and it is clear which criteria are effective, there is no longer a need to have multiple tables showing different effective dates for the criteria. DEQ proposes combining these effective aquatic life criteria into one table—Table 30—and delete Tables 20, 33A, and 33B. Proposed revisions to the Toxic Substances rule replace references to Tables 20, 33A, and 33B with references to Table 30. Other proposed changes to the Toxic Substance Rule are for clarification purposes.
In addition, the proposed Table 30 contains changes to correct problems that EPA identified in its January 2013 disapproval of 11 pesticides and the freshwater criteria for selenium. Specifically, DEQ proposes adding introductory text to Table 30 to more clearly state the alternate frequency and duration components of the pesticide aquatic life criteria (the basis for EPA’s disapproval) for 11 pesticides. DEQ proposes additional edits to the footnote associated with the pesticides for better clarity. 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.
DEQ also proposes reinstating freshwater and saltwater criteria for arsenic and saltwater criteria for chromium VI. In a 2007 rulemaking, the Environmental Quality Commission adopted revisions to Tables 33A and 33B that included information showing which of the toxic pollutants criteria could be used for NPDES permitting and which criteria could not be used until EPA approval. DEQ inadvertently omitted the freshwater and saltwater aquatic life criteria for arsenic and the saltwater criteria for chromium VI from Table 33B. The arsenic and chromium VI criteria re-proposed here as part of this rulemaking are the same criteria that the EQC adopted in 2004. These criteria underwent Endangered Species Act consultation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service and were not found to create jeopardy for any ESA-listed species. EPA did not take action on these criteria as part of its Jan. 31, 2013 action, but noted that the omitted criteria are consistent with EPA’s 304(a) recommendations and recommended that Oregon re-adopt these criteria.
The proposed footnotes and introductory language to Table 30 provide additional clarification to the criteria and definitions.
There are additional proposed minor clarifications to Table 40, which contains toxics criteria for the protection of human health.
DEQ proposes revisions to Table 33C,which contains water quality guidance values for toxic pollutants, to be consistent with Agency table formatting guidelines. Other revisions would rename Table 33C as Table 31 and remove arsenic guidance values which are unnecessary because Oregon has aquatic life criteria for arsenic. In addition, DEQ proposes a correction in a reference made in the table to Oregon’s Narrative Toxic Substances Standard. The correct reference is OAR 340-041-0033(2).
The Secretary of State Bulletin now allows tables to be attached to the Oregon Administrative Rules. Therefore, proposed changes located at the end of the Toxic Substances rule state that Tables 30, 31, and 40 will be attached as PDF documents.
These proposed changes do not become effective until after EQC adoption and EPA approval. Upon EPA approval, the amendments become applicable for Clean Water Act purposes on April 18, 2014.
|
How would the proposed rule solve the problem? | Combining the aquatic life toxics criteria into one table will make it easier for DEQ staff, the public, and the regulated community to determine which criteria are effective.
In addition, the proposed changes to Table 30 reinstate the erroneously omitted arsenic and chromium VI criteria and respond to EPA’s disapproval of 11 pesticides and the freshwater criteria for selenium. Upon EQC adoption of the proposed revisions, DEQ anticipates that EPA will be able to promptly approve these criteria. |
How will DEQ know the problem has been solved? | DEQ will know if the problems described above have been solved based on outcomes such as: the rules clearly identify and define Oregon’s aquatic life toxics criteria; there are fewer inquiries to DEQ staff to determine which aquatic life toxics criteria are effective or how to interpret the criteria; and EPA promptly approves the rule revisions it identifies as water quality standards. |
1. 340-041-0033(7) Arsenic Reduction Policy Rule | |
What problem is DEQ trying to solve? | The Arsenic Reduction Policy rule adopted by the EQC in June 2011 has several reference errors. The rule incorrectly references the Arsenic Reduction Policy as section 4, rather than section 7. This error occurred during preparation of the final rule when the Arsenic Reduction Policy was moved from section 4 in the proposed rule to section 7 in the final toxics rule. DEQ also corrected another reference error in 340-041-0033(7)(f). |
How would the proposed rule solve the problem? | This proposal would correct references and provide clarification to the public and DEQ. |
How will DEQ know the problem has been solved? | Not applicable. The proposed changes only correct or clarify reference errors. |
340-041-0009 Bacteria Rule | |
What problem is DEQ trying to solve? | The Bacteria Rule references Table 20. This proposal would delete references to Table 20 because DEQ proposes to remove Table 20 from the Toxic Substances rule. |
How would the proposed rule solve the problem? | This proposal would reference the Toxic Substances rule in general to reduce future citation corrections if the table name changes again. |
How will DEQ know the problem has been solved? | Not applicable. The proposed changes only correct or clarify reference errors. |
340-040-0020 Groundwater Quality Protection | |
What problem is DEQ trying to solve? | The Groundwater Quality Protection rules reference Table 20. This proposal would delete references to Table 20 because DEQ proposes to remove Table 20 from the Toxic Substances rule.
Additionally, there is a citation to Division 41 that no longer exists. The correct reference is to the same antidegradation policy described and referenced in OAR 340-040-0020; therefore DEQ proposes to delete the citation. |
How would the proposed rule solve the problem? | This proposal would reference the Toxic Substances rule in general to reduce future citation corrections if the table name changes again. This proposal would also correct the citation error and provide clarification to the public and DEQ. |
How will DEQ know the problem has been solved? | Not applicable. The proposed changes only correct or clarify reference errors. |
340-040-0080 Numerical Groundwater Quality Reference Levels and Guidance Levels | |
What problem is DEQ trying to solve? | The Numerical Groundwater Quality Reference Levels and Guidance Levels rules reference Table 20. This proposal would delete references to Table 20 because DEQ proposes to remove Table 20 from the Toxic Substances rule. |
How would the proposed rule solve the problem? | This proposal would reference the Toxic Substances rule in general to reduce future citation corrections if the table name changes again. |
How will DEQ know the problem has been solved? | Not applicable. The proposed changes only correct or clarify reference errors. |
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.
|
"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?
The alternative to not pursuing these proposed amendments is that EPA would be required to put in place its own regulations addressing the deficiencies related to its Jan. 31, 2013 action on Oregon’s aquatic life toxics criteria submitted to EPA in 2004. In addition, the errors from past rulemakings would continue to persist in DEQ rules and complicate implementation of the toxics criteria.
DEQ considered addressing EPA’s disapproval of the aquatic life toxics criteria associated with aluminum, ammonia, cadmium and copper as part of this rulemaking. However, the potential remedies to address EPA’s disapproval are more complex and will involve in-depth conversations with EPA, the National Marine Fisheries Service, interested stakeholders, and DEQ staff. DEQ did not want to delay and potentially confuse these complex issues with the straightforward corrections proposed in this rulemaking.
Rules affected, authorities, supporting documents |
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 468.020, 468B.030, 468B.035 and 468B.048.
Other authority
No other authorities
Statute implemented Legislation Year
ORS 468B.030, 468B.035 & 468B.048. N/A N/A
Documents relied on for rulemaking ORS 183.335(2)(b)(C)
Document title | Document location |
EPA Jan. 31, 2013 action letter on OR’s 2004 aquatic life criteria and associated documents | Hardcopies may be found at: DEQ Headquarters Office, 811 SW Sixth Ave., Portland, OR 97204 Electronic versions may be found at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/toxics.htm#links
|
DEQ response letter to EPA’s Jan. 31, 2013 action letter on OR’s 2004 aquatic life criteria | Hardcopies may be found at: DEQ Headquarters Office, 811 SW Sixth Ave., Portland, OR 97204 Electronic versions may be found at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/ResponseLetterEPA.pdf
|
OAR 340-041-0033 OAR 340-041-0009 OAR 340-040-0020 OAR 340-040-0080 | Hardcopies may be found at: DEQ Headquarters Office, 811 SW Sixth Ave., Portland, OR 97204 Electronic versions may be found at: http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_300/oar_340/340_tofc.html
|
Tables 20, 33A, 33B, 33C | Hardcopies may be found at: DEQ Headquarters Office, 811 SW Sixth Ave., Portland, OR 97204 Electronic versions may be found at: |
Statement of fiscal and economic impact ORS 183.335 (2)(b)(E) |
Statement of Cost of Compliance
Introduction
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 some of the issues identified by EPA in its Jan. 31, 2013 disapproval action. This proposal would also 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 because these criteria revisions were accounted for as part of the 2004 fiscal 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. DEQ expects prompt EPA approval.
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.
DEQ determined that these clarifications and corrections are straight-forward 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.
DEQ anticipates these changes will provide a benefit to DEQ, the public, and to entities 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.). Correcting errors that occurred in 2004, 2007 and 2011 rulemakings will also provide greater clarification.
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.
2. Cost of compliance on small businesses (those with 50 or fewer employees). ORS 183.336
DEQ does not expect many small businesses to be affected by these rule revisions. Few small businesses are directly subject to toxics water quality criteria because most small businesses do not directly discharge wastewater to a waterbody. For those 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.
Some small businesses may need to conduct minor recordkeeping activities to correctly reference the effective aquatic life toxics criteria (e.g. in discharge monitoring reports) if the EQC amends the proposed rules. DEQ expects the economic impact to be minimal.
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.
a) Estimated number of small businesses and types of businesses and industries with small businesses subject to proposed rule.
| As part of its recordkeeping, DEQ does not track whether any of the entities subject to the proposed rule revisions are small businesses, therefore it is difficult to estimate businesses potentially affected. The types of small businesses/industries holding wastewater permits and may be required to monitor for toxics include, but are not limited to: smelting/refining operations, timber processing, wood products manufacturing, pulp and paper, retail operations, circuit boards, and petroleum hydrocarbon clean-up operations.
The Oregon Farm Bureau estimates that 97% of Oregon farms and ranches fall under the category of small businesses based on the definition of small businesses being fifty or fewer employees. Other types of businesses that could be subject to this rulemaking include nurseries, dairy and beef producers, fruit growers, and other food producers, industrial, and small forest land owners.
|
b) Projected reporting, recordkeeping and other administrative activities, including costs of professional services, required for small businesses to comply with the proposed rule.
| No additional activities are required for compliance with the proposed revisions; however, some small businesses may need to conduct minor recordkeeping activities to correctly reference the effective toxics criteria following this rulemaking. |
c) Projected equipment, supplies, labor and increased administration required for small businesses to comply with the proposed rule.
| No additional resources are required for compliance with the proposed rules. |
d) Describe how DEQ involved small businesses in developing this proposed rule.
| DEQ included the Association of Oregon Industries (AOI) as part of the advisory committee that advised DEQ on the cost of compliance for this rulemaking for small businesses. AOI’s membership includes large and small companies from all business classifications in Oregon. In addition, the Oregon Farm Bureau was also part of the advisory committee and represents many farms and ranches that are considered small businesses.
DEQ discussed this statement of fiscal and economic impact and solicited input from the Oregon Farm Bureau during one workgroup meeting on July 11, 2013. The representative from AOI did not attend. DEQ incorporated the input into this analysis.
|
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 generally 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 measurable direct or indirect fiscal or economic impacts as a result of the proposed revisions to the toxics water quality standards rule.
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.
4. Impact on local government other than DEQ
Generally, DEQ does not expect local governments, such as wastewater treatment facilities to incur measurable direct or indirect fiscal or economic impacts as a result of the proposed revisions to the toxics water quality standards rule.
Most, if not all, major wastewater treatment facilities are subject to toxic pollutant monitoring requirements. Generally, minor wastewater treatment facilities (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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Land use |
“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.”
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.
Stakeholder and public involvement |
Advisory committee
DEQ established an advisory committee in January 2013 to provide input to DEQ on any potential fiscal impacts and benefits 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: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/Minutes071113.pdf.
Roster
Name | Representing | Contact Information |
1. Curtis Barton | Clackamas Water Environment Services |
(503) 742-4615 |
2. Dianne Barton | Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission |
(503) 731-1259 |
3. Kathleen Collins | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency |
(206) 553-2108 |
4. Heath Curtiss | Oregon Forest Industries Council |
(503) 877-3225 |
5. Mike Freese | Oregon Farm Bureau |
(503) 399-1701 x308 |
6. John Ledger | Associated Oregon Industries |
(503) 227-5636 |
7. Andrea Matzke | OR Dept. of Environmental Quality |
(503) 229-5384 |
8. Kathryn VanNatta | NW Pulp and Paper Association |
(503) 844-9540 |
9. Jennifer Wigal | OR Dept. of Environmental Quality | wigal.jennifer@deq.state.or.us
(505) 229-5323 |
10. Travis Williams | Willamette Riverkeeper | travis@willametteriverkeeper.org
(503) 223-6418 |
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
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with Hearing for this proposed rulemaking will publish in the Sept. 1, 2013 Oregon Bulletin. DEQ also:
• Posted notice on DEQ’s webpage http://www.deq.state.or.us/regulations/proposedrules.htm on Aug. 14, 2013.
• E-mailed notice to:
• 3,900 interested parties through GovDelivery on Aug. 19, 2013.
• Key legislators required under ORS 183.335 on Aug. 19, 2013. Key legislators included:
◦ Senator Dingfelder, Chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
◦ Representative Bailey, Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Environment
• Members of the advisory committee on Aug. 19, 2013.
• Sent notice to EPA on Aug. 19, 2013.
• Other
Public hearings
DEQ plans to hold one public hearing. Before taking public comment, DEQ will describe the rule proposal. The following table lists the public hearing location:
Public Hearings | ||||
Hearing Date | Time | Location | Hearings Officer | |
Sept. 18, 2013 | 6 p.m. | Portland, OR | DEQ Staff | |
Close of public comment period
The comment period will close on Sept. 30, 2013 at 5 p.m.