2. Eliminate the need for coordination and duplication of effort to keep the rules synchronized.
3. Eliminate any question about the applicability of ch.
DOC 310 to WRC inmates, since the inmates continue to be a DOC responsibility.
4. Allow DOC to continue to be involved in decision-making regarding inmate complaints at WRC for the purposes of continuity.
5. Reduce the current confusion that s.
HFS 97.14 causes by bringing the DHFS Secretary into the decision-making process, but not linking that decision to that of the DOC Secretary.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
Less than 20 hours of Department staff time to develop and promulgate the rulemaking order.
Health and Family Services
Subject
Ch.
HFS 158, relating to the fee for monitoring radiation emissions in the vicinity of nuclear power plants.
Policy analysis
Under section 254.41 of the Wisconsin statutes, the Department of Health and Family Services is responsible for monitoring radiation emissions around nuclear plants operating in or near Wisconsin. The Department assesses a fee to operating nuclear plants in Wisconsin that supports the Department's and local health agencies' collection of emissions and analysis activities. Chapter
HFS 158 specifies the Department's annual base fee, which is currently $47,500. Chapter
HFS 158 also allows the Department to raise the fee each year based on changes in the consumer price index. Consequently, the current fee is $55,940. The Department's monitoring costs over the past 13 years have risen at a rate exceeding that of the consumer price index. In addition, federal and other funding sources that also supported monitoring activities have either been eliminated or reduced. Consequently, the fee has become the primary funding source for monitoring activities. In response to these revenue losses, the Department reduced the scope of monitoring activities rather than raise the base fee in ch.
HFS 158. However, the Department cannot further reduce monitoring activities without compromising minimal national standards. Therefore, to continue to monitor activities at a minimum level consistent with national standards, the Department will propose increasing the base fee in ch.
HFS 158 to $95,000..
Statutory authority
Staff time required
Approximately 8 hours of Radiation Protection Section staff time to develop the rules in preparation for Department review. The Department does not intend to use an advisory group to assist with rule drafting.
Natural Resources
Subject
The program to pay for damage done by species listed as Endangered or Threatened in Wisconsin was established in the 1983-85 budget bill (ss.
20.370 (1) (fs) Wis Stats.). Funds for these payments come from the Endangered Resources Voluntary Payments Fund (i.e. the “Tax Check-off"). The 1999-01 budget bill added Endangered Resources (Wolf) License Plate funding and added that damage by Gray Wolves will be paid for by this fund even after wolves are delisted.
To date, the WI DNR has settled 179 damage claims totaling $ 352,056.62. The majority of these claims, 144, - (totaling $ 312,266.83) have been paid for damage done by gray wolves (See Attachment 1- Wolf Damage Summary).
The Endangered Resources Program has administered this program since 1985 without permanent rules because the program was very small, the species on the state's Endangered and Threatened list would change from year to year, and there was no controversy about the program. There is now a need for permanent rules because wolf damage has been made a permanent part of the payment program and there is significant public controversy about the wolf damage payment program.
Policy analysis
The Wisconsin wolf population has increased from just 25 animals in 1980 to 335 in 2003. From 1985 to 1998 wolf damage payments ranged from $200.00 to $ 12, 000.00 per year. Wolf damage payments from 1999 to 2004 have averaged $ 43,800 per year. We can anticipate that wolf damage claims will be reduced somewhat in the future now that the Department has the authority to destroy wolves that are causing depredations to livestock. However, 37% of all wolf damage payments are paid to reimburse dog owners for killed or damaged dogs. Most all of these dogs are hound dogs killed or injured by wolves while the dogs are pursuing legal game animals such as bear, bob cat and coyote. Now that wolves have been recovered in Wisconsin, some legislators, stakeholders, and contributors to the Endangered Resources fund are questioning the need to continue to pay for hound dogs. Contributors to the Endangered Resources fund have also questioned the current policy of paying for missing livestock.
The Wisconsin Wolf Stakeholders Group discussed the need for permanent Administrative rules to govern the Department's payment program at a meeting in Wausau on October 25, 2003. They concluded that the following list of topics need to be addressed by any proposed Administrative Rule:
•Livelihood versus recreation
•Compensation/consumption sports
•Seek financial partnerships to help with payments
•Sources of money used for payments
•What types of property are eligible for payments
•Rule should limit certain types of money (to exclude some specific fund)
•Limitations to reimbursement
•Criteria to be applied to judge
•Incentives for prevention measures
•Non-lethal measures
•Caps on payment
•Reporting requirements
•Value determination
•Verification
•Land Ownership
•Owner negligence/responsibility
•Interdepartmental cooperation
•Population cap – relationship between wolf numbers and payments
•Game farm situation
•Percent of ER funds to pay claims
•Look at statute change
The Bureau of Endangered Resources would like permission to conduct public input sessions and work with the Wisconsin Wolf Stakeholders group and the Wisconsin Wolf Science Team to draft proposed rules to govern this payment program.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
Approximately, 360 hours of staff time will be needed by the Department.
Federal regulatory analysis
The federal government does not pay for damages done by wildlife and does not have any regulations about state payment programs. This includes damage caused by species listed as Endangered or Threatened by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
The federal government does have a program to investigate damage complaints. The U.S. Department of Agriculture-APHIS-Wildlife Services agency conducts on site inspections of reported depredations in the state of Wisconsin. Wildlife Services provides the WI DNR with an independent evaluation of the incident and an estimate of the value of the loss. The WI DNR uses this information in our decision to pay and the amount of reimbursement but the WI DNR is not obligated by the Wildlife Service report.
Natural Resources
Subject
The NR 700 rule series governs site investigations and cleanup activities. Many of the revisions being proposed will update the sampling and laboratory requirements necessary for a complete site investigation and verification that a cleanup is working. Specific changes suggested are eliminating the requirement for analysis of gasoline range organics (GRO) and diesel range organics (DRO), eliminating the soil standard for GRO/DRO; revising reporting limits to the detection limit for all compounds; removing product names from sample storage devices and allowing for alternative storage devices; allowing for the use of preservation method SW-846 5035; updating chs.
NR 720/746 to be consistent with ch.
NR 726 requirements regarding inclusion of sites exceeding soil standards on the GIS Registry of Closed Remediation Systems, updating both statutory and rule citations and revising a standard format for site investigation reports to allow for more efficient review.
Policy analysis
GRO/DRO was originally used as a screening tool during the initial stages of a site investigation due to a lower cost. Compound specific levels are now obtainable at a similar price as for GRO, and are still needed for site characterization, determination of remedial options and for site closure. There is no longer a need to use DRO/GRO as a screening tool. There is also no corresponding groundwater standard for GRO/DRO.
Changing the reporting limit to be equal to the detection limit for all compounds will also be a change in policy. Doing so will provide more accurate data in the reporting of releases and in defining the effectiveness of cleanup actions. Allowing preservation method SW-846 5035 will change policy, as currently methanol preservation of soil samples for VOC analysis is required. Changing this method will result in a more representative idea of site conditions, and will reduce the use of hazardous materials. An approval process for allowing the use of storage devices is proposed instead of listing acceptable devices in rule, so as to allow a greater range of devices as they come onto the market. The change is needed to remove product names, which discriminates against other acceptable methods.
Currently, sites closing under ch.
NR 746 are exempted from ch.
NR 720, Soil Standards. Revising the rules to require that these sites, while closing under ch.
NR 746, must also be included on the GIS Registry for sites with residual soil contamination will ensure consistency with other sites with residual soil contamination closing under ch.
NR 726. As very few sites have closed under ch.
NR 746, we do not expect this change to be controversial.
Statutory authority
Summary/Comparison of Federal Regulations: There are no comparable existing or proposed federal requirements that address the issues outlined in these proposed rule revisions.
Staff time required
Approximately 200 hours will be needed.
Public Service Commission
Subject
The proposed rule will update and revise ch.
PSC 135, Wis. Admin. Code, relating to the natural gas pipeline safety code, including updates to the state additions to the pipeline safety code.
Objective of the rules. Under an agreement with the US Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, the Commission enforces the federal pipeline safety regulations for Wisconsin's natural gas utilities. As part of this agreement, the Commission is required to adopt changes to
49 CFR Part 192, the federal pipeline safety regulations, as state rules. Under this agreement, the Commission also has the authority to make additions to the federal code that are more stringent than the federal standards. The Commission in the past has made a number of state additions to the federal code. For example, Wis. Admin. Code PSC 135.723 sets out leak survey inspection criteria and schedules that are more detailed and more frequent than those found in the federal code provisions.
Although the Commission regularly adopts the federal code revisions – the most recent changes were adopted in December, 2003 – it has been 14 years since a comprehensive review of the state additions to the natural gas pipeline safety regulations has been conducted. Since that time there have been many changes in the gas industry across the country and in Wisconsin.
Policy analysis
PSC ch.
135, Gas Safety, was last comprehensively reviewed and revised in 1990. During that time period the natural gas utility industry has seen many changes. For example, the use of automated meter reading systems (AMR) has been adopted by several Wisconsin utilities. AMR uses radio transmissions to remotely read the gas meters, and as a result substantially reduces the number of times a gas company employee actually sees a gas meter or its setting. In the past, a company employee would see the gas meter nearly every month when obtaining the meter reading for billing purposes. This monthly contact ensured that any damage, corrosion or encroachment of the meter and its installation would be detected. With the implementation of AMR, a utility employee would need to view most gas meters only twice in a five year period to comply with the current federal safety code.
The natural gas industry has been, like other businesses, subject to increasing pressures to control costs and expenses. The Operations and Maintenance functions of the utilities have been subject to the same pressures to reduce staff and expenditures as the rest of the utility functions. This may have had an impact on how utilities approach compliance with the federal pipeline safety code. Commission staff has observed a trend at most of our natural gas utilities of just meeting the minimum federal standards. For example, some Wisconsin natural gas utilities have previously conducted leak surveys of service lines on a three year schedule; they now do the surveys on a five year schedule where allowed, because this is the minimum federal standard.
Another example is the practice of allowing construction contractors that perform work for gas utilities to inspect their own work. The federal code requires that the utility inspect the work being done on its system, such as the installation of new services and mains. The utilities use their own employees to inspect and certify that the construction meets their standards and is being installed according to their requirements. Today, however, there are at least two Wisconsin utilities that allow limited self-inspection by their contractors. In 1990, when the state additions to the safety code were last comprehensively revised, to the best of staff's knowledge there were no gas utilities in the state allowing this practice. Staff has worked to limit this practice, sending interpretation letters to our gas utilities stating that we feel this practice presents a possible conflict of interest for the contractor, and in staff's opinion does not constitute an effective inspection. It would be much easier to limit this practice if there were a specific rule regulating it.
In general, there have been practices put into place by natural gas utilities in the last 14 years that may not contribute to a higher level of pipeline safety. The existing state additions to the pipeline safety rules should be reviewed and revisions made, where appropriate, to improve pipeline safety in Wisconsin.
This rulemaking will also be used to adopt any federal revisions that have been made since November 25, 2003, the date of the last federal revisions that the has Commission adopted. The Commission will also review and consider adopting by reference CFR 49 Part 190, Subparts A and B, and Part 191 of the federal pipeline safety code. These provisions encompass definitions, investigation and enforcement actions and reporting requirements under the federal code that have not been adopted as part of the state code thus far.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
The Commission estimates approximately 400 hours of staff time will be required to develop these rules. No additional resources are likely to be needed in order to complete this project.
