•
Adding 1,1,1,2-PCA synonym for 1,1,1,2 tetrachloroethane to Appendix I to Table 1.
•
Adding 1,1,2,2-PCA synonym for 1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane to Appendix I to Table 1.
•
Adding 1,1,1-TCA synonym for 1,1,1 trichloroethane to Appendix I to Table 1.
Comparison with federal regulations
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) establishes health based drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), cancer risk levels and health advisories (HAs). Federal drinking water MCLs are established based on scientific risk assessments and, in some cases, economic and technological considerations. Cancer risk levels are established as the concentration of a chemical in drinking water that corresponds to a specific excess estimated lifetime cancer risk. Federal lifetime health advisories (LHAs) are developed based on an established health risk acceptable daily intake (ADI) level or reference dose (RfD). An ADI or RfD is the daily oral exposure to a chemical that is likely to be without an appreciable risk over a lifetime.
No federal drinking water MCLs have yet been established for any of the substances for which new Wisconsin state groundwater quality standards are proposed. Federal 1 in 1,000,000 drinking water cancer risk levels have been established at 3 ppb for 1,4-Dioxane and at 0.05 ppb for DNT (mixture of 2,4-/2,6-DNT). US EPA LHAs have been established at 2 ppb for Chlorpyrifos, at 300 ppb for Manganese and at 10 ppb for Propazine. The US EPA has also developed an “Interim Drinking Water Health Advisory" of 15 ppb for Perchlorate. RfDs have been established by EPA for: Dimethenamid at 0.05 mg/kg-day, Ethyl Ether at 0.2 mg/kg-day and Perchlorate at 0.0007 mg/kg-day. A Reference Concentration (RfC) for Chronic Inhalation Exposure of 50 mg/cu.m has been established by EPA for Chlorodifluoromethane.
US EPA Contaminant Candidate List (CCL): The Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) is the US EPA's list of unregulated contaminants which may require national drinking water regulation in the future. The current list is designated Contaminant Candidate List 2 (CCL 2). Substances currently on EPA's CCL 2 include: Aluminum, Acetochlor, Acetochlor-ESA, Acetochlor-OXA, Metolachlor-ESA, Metolachlor-OXA and Perchlorate. Substances currently proposed for inclusion on EPA's draft CCL 3
include: 1,4-Dioxane, Acetochlor, Acetochlor-ESA, Acetochlor-OXA, Chlorodifluoromethane, Metolachlor- ESA, Metolachlor-OXA, and Perchlorate.
Comparison of rules in adjacent states
The proposed amendments to ch.
NR 140, Wis. Adm. Code, would add new state numeric groundwater quality standards for 15 substances: 1,4-Dioxane, Acetochlor, Acetochlor ESA + OXA, Aluminum, Ammonia (as N), Chlorodifluoromethane, Chlorpyrifos, Dimethenamid/ Dimethenamid-P, Dinitrotoluenes (Total Residues), Ethyl Ether, Manganese, Metolachlor ESA + OXA, Perchlorate, Propazine and Tertiary Butyl Alcohol. The groundwater quality standards contained in ch.
NR 140 are used in Wisconsin by state regulatory agencies as state groundwater protection standards. These standards are used as contamination site cleanup levels, design and management criteria for regulated activities and as minimum public health and welfare protection standards for contaminants in groundwater.
The states surrounding Wisconsin: Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois and Iowa, also use groundwater protection values/levels/standards in their regulation of practices and activities that might impact the quality of groundwater resources. Three of the states surrounding Wisconsin have promulgated individual state groundwater protection standards and one utilizes established federal standards (federal drinking water maximum contaminant levels, lifetime health advisory levels and established cancer risk levels) as their state groundwater protection standards.
Groundwater protection quality standards are usually developed based on health risk assessments. States are often required to follow state specific health risk assessment methodology when establishing groundwater protection quality standards. States may use state specific health risk assessments; factors and methodology in calculating and developing their groundwater protection standards. This use of different health risk assessment factors and methodologies has lead to the establishment of different state groundwater protection standard levels for the same substance. For example, the health based groundwater protection quality standard for manganese used by the states surrounding Wisconsin varies by state - the standard used in Minnesota is 300 ppb, the standard used in Michigan is 860 ppb, Illinois uses 150 ppb and the standard used in Iowa is 300 ppb, the federal Lifetime Health Advisory level.
Minnesota:
The state of Minnesota has established state groundwater protection “Health Risk Limits" (HRLs) under Minnesota Statutes Section 103H.201. The State of Minnesota has established HRLs for Acetochlor at 9 ppb and for Ethyl Ether at 1,000 ppb. The Minnesota Department of Health has also calculated “Health Based Values" (HBVs) for some groundwater contaminants. Minnesota HBVs are not standards that have been promulgated by rule but are calculated concentrations that may be used as advisory levels by Minnesota state groundwater and environmental protection programs. The State of Minnesota has established HBVs for: Metolachlor-ESA at 800 ppb, Metolachlor-OXA at 800 ppb, Acetochlor-ESA at 300 ppb and Acetochlor-OXA at 100 ppb. The Minnesota Department of Health also issues Risk Assessment Advice (RAA) levels for some groundwater contaminants. Minnesota Department of Health RAAs are advisory concentrations developed to assist Minnesota agencies in evaluating potential health risks to humans from exposures to a chemical. Generally, RAAs contain greater uncertainty than HRLs and HBVs because the information available to develop them is more limited. The State of Minnesota has established a RAA for Manganese at 300 ppb.
Michigan:
The state of Michigan has established state groundwater protection quality standards. Michigan “Drinking Water Criteria and Risk Based Screening Levels (RBSLs)" are Michigan state groundwater protection standards authorized in accordance with Michigan's Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451 (NREPA). The State of Michigan has established a Drinking Water Criteria/RBSL for: 1,4-Dioxane at 85 ppb, Manganese at 860 ppb, Aluminum at 300 ppb, Propazine at 200 ppb, Chlorpyrifos at 22 ppb, Ethyl Ether at 3,700 ppb and Tertiary Butyl Alcohol at 3,900 ppb. The State of Michigan also has established a Drinking Water Criteria/RBSL for “all potential sources of nitrate-nitrogen", including ammonia nitrogen, in groundwater drinking water supplies at 10,000 ppb.
Illinois:
The state of Illinois has established state groundwater quality standards for “potable resource groundwater". Illinois Groundwater Quality Standards are state groundwater protection standards promulgated in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620, environmental protection regulations. Illinois state “Groundwater Quality Standards for Class I: Potable Resource Groundwater" have been established for Manganese at 150 ppb. The state of Illinois also has established “Groundwater Cleanup Objectives" in 8 Ill. Adm. Code 259. Illinois Groundwater Cleanup Objectives include both Illinois state Groundwater Quality Standards and Human Threshold Toxicant Advisory Concentrations (HTTACs). Illinois has established state Groundwater Cleanup Objectives for Class I, Potable Resource Groundwater: at 21 ppb for Chlorpyrifos, at 2 ppb for Acetochlor and at 10,000 ppb for Ammonia. The Illinois Acetochlor groundwater cleanup objective value was established in accordance with the Acetochlor Registration Agreement monitoring program. The state groundwater cleanup objective for Ammonia was developed based on the US EPA's 30,000 ppb Lifetime Health Advisory level for ammonia in drinking water.
Iowa:
The state of Iowa has not established specific state groundwater protection standards. In accordance with Iowa Environmental Protection Regulations 567 IAC Chapter
133, Iowa uses established federal EPA
lifetime health advisory levels, “negligible risk levels" (NRLs) for carcinogens (estimate of one additional cancer case per million people over a lifetime of exposure) and federal drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) as “Action Levels" in their regulation of practices and activities that may adversely impact groundwater quality. As noted in section 6 above, federal lifetime health advisory levels have been established at 2 ppb for Chlorpyrifos, at 300 ppb for Manganese and at 10 ppb for Propazine. Federal 1 in 1,000,000 drinking water cancer risk levels have been established at 3 ppb for 1,4-Dioxane and at 0.05 ppb for DNT (mixture of 2,4-/2,6-DNT).
Summary of the factual data and analytical methodologies
In accordance with s. 160. 07, Stats., the Department is required, for substances of public health concern, to propose rules establishing recommendations from the Department of Health Services (DHS) as state groundwater quality enforcement standards. In accordance with s.
160.15, Stats., the Department is required to establish by rule a preventive action limit for each substance for which an enforcement standard is established.
The DHS has provided the Department, in a document titled Scientific Support Documentation for Cycle 9 Revisions of NR 140.10 Groundwater Enforcement Standard & Preventive Action Limit Recommendations (dated May 2009), its recommendations for new state public health related groundwater quality standards for 15 substances: 1,4-Dioxane, Acetochlor, Acetochlor ESA + OXA, Aluminum, Ammonia (as N), Chlorodifluoromethane, Chlorpyrifos, Dimethenamid/Dimethenamid-P, Dinitrotolu- enes, Ethyl Ether, Manganese, Metolachlor ESA + OXA, Perchlorate, Propazine and Tertiary Butyl Alcohol. DHS has also provided recommendations for revisions to existing public health related state groundwater quality standards for 15 additional substances: 1,3-Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-Dichloropropene, Acetone, Boron, Carbaryl, Chloromethane, Dibutyl Phthalate, Ethylene Glycol, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, Metolachlor, Metribuzin, Phenol, Prometon, Toluene and Xylene.
The Department is proposing rules establishing the DHS enforcement standard recommendations as ch.
NR 140, Wis. Adm. Code, state groundwater quality enforcement standards. The Department is also proposing rules establishing ch.
NR 140, Wis. Adm. Code, state groundwater quality preventive action limits in accordance with s.
160.15 (1), Stats.
Analysis and supporting documentation used to determine effect on small businesses
In its determination of the effect of this proposed rule on small businesses, the Department used analysis and supporting documentation that included information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture—National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the University of Wisconsin (UW)—Department of Agronomy and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP). Information used from the United States Department of Agriculture NASS included agricultural chemical usage reports from 2001-2007, and the NASS Agricultural Chemical Use Database. Information used from the UW Department of Agronomy included the UW Extension 2008 Herbicide price list and the UW Extension Corn and Soybean Herbicide Chart. Information from DATCP included data from DATCP's Agricultural Chemicals in Wisconsin Groundwater - Final Report March 2008 document and results from the agency's groundwater monitoring and pesticide registration databases.
Small Business Impact
The Department has determined that this rule order will not have a significant economic impact on small businesses. Chapter
NR 140, Wis. Adm. Code, currently contains groundwater standards for 123 substances of public health concern, 8 substances of public welfare concern and 15 indicator parameters. The proposed groundwater standard revisions would apply to all regulated facilities, practices and activities which may impact groundwater quality.
The enforcement of Wisconsin state groundwater quality standards is done by state regulatory agencies through their groundwater protection programs. State regulatory agencies, in exercising their statutory powers and duties, establish groundwater protection regulations that assure that regulated facilities and activities will not cause state groundwater quality standards to be exceeded. A state regulatory agency may establish specific design and management criteria to ensure that regulated facilities and activities will not cause the concentration of a substance in groundwater, affected by the facilities or activities, to exceed state groundwater quality enforcement standards or preventive action limits at an applicable “point of standards application" location.
Regulated facilities, practices and activities, which are sources of the substances for which new and revised groundwater standards are proposed are, for the most part, likely sources of substances for which groundwater standards already exist. Consequently, there will likely be few cases where the proposed standards will be exceeded where existing standards are not currently being exceeded. Additional monitoring costs may be imposed upon regulated facilities, practices and activities, but the extent of such monitoring and any costs associated with it, while too speculative to quantify at this time, are not expected to be significant.
The proposed revisions to state groundwater quality standards include new and revised standards for some pesticides and pesticide degradation products found in Wisconsin groundwater. New proposed groundwater quality standards include standards for the insecticide chlorpyrifos, the herbicides acetochlor, dimethenamid and propazine, and the herbicide degradation products acetochlor ethane sulfonic acid and oxanilic acid, and metolachlor ethane sulfonic acid and oxanilic acid.
The insecticide active ingredient chlorpyrifos is used in corn to control rootworm, and in soybeans to control aphids and spider mites. There are currently 32 insecticide products registered in Wisconsin that contain the active ingredient chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos has been reported as detected in groundwater at 2% of DATCP Agricultural Chemical Cleanup Program sites. In a DATCP 2007 statewide survey of agricultural chemicals in Wisconsin groundwater, no chlorpyrifos was reported detected in 398 private water supply wells sampled.
Acetochlor and dimethenamid/dimethenamid-P are herbicides that have been used in Wisconsin to control weeds in corn and soybeans. There are currently 46 herbicide products registered in Wisconsin that contain the active ingredient acetochlor or dimethenamid/dimethenamid-P. Acetochlor has been reported as detected in groundwater at 25% of DATCP Agricultural Chemical Cleanup Program sites and dimethenamid/dimethenamid-P has been reported as detected at 27% of those sites. In DATCP's 2007 statewide survey of agricultural chemicals in Wisconsin groundwater, no “parent" acetochlor or dimethenamid/dimethenamid-P were reported as detected in 398 private water supply wells sampled. Metabolite degradation products of these herbicides were, however, detected in some of the sampled wells.
Propazine is a herbicide used for weed control on sorghum, umbelliferous crops (carrots, parsley etc.) and greenhouse ornamentals. It is also a contaminant of the herbicide atrazine, which is used in Wisconsin on corn. There are currently no herbicide products registered in Wisconsin that contain the active ingredient propazine. Propazine has been reported as detected in groundwater at 22% of DATCP Agricultural Chemical Cleanup Program sites.
The acetochlor ethane sulfonic acid and oxanilic acid (acetochlor ESA & OXA) degradation products of acetochlor have been found in Wisconsin groundwater. In DATCP's 2007 statewide survey of agricultural chemicals in Wisconsin groundwater, acetochlor ESA & OXA were reported as detected in 16 private water supply wells and 3 private water supply wells respectively, of 398 wells sampled. The highest levels of acetochlor ESA & OXA reported in the DATCP study were 2.32 ppb and 4.36 ppb respectively. The highest levels reported in the DATCP groundwater monitoring database for private water supply wells are 9.52 ppb for acetochlor-ESA and 4.36 ppb for acetochlor-OXA.
In the DATCP's 2007 statewide survey of agricultural chemicals in Wisconsin groundwater, metolachlor ESA & OXA were reported as detected in 106 private water supply wells and 18 private water supply wells respectively, of 398 wells sampled. The highest levels of metolachlor ESA & OXA reported in the DATCP study were 6.54 ppb and 1.37 ppb respectively. The highest levels reported in the DATCP groundwater monitoring database for private water supply wells are 31.2 ppb for metolachlor-ESA and 22.8 ppb for metolachlor-OXA.
As it appears that the occurrence of the pesticides chlorpyrifos, acetochlor, dimethenamid/dimethenamid-P and propazine in Wisconsin groundwater is limited to DATCP Agricultural Chemical Cleanup Program sites, and as the pesticide metabolite degradation products acetochlor ESA & OXA and metolachlor ESA & OXA have been detected statewide at levels relatively low compared to proposed state groundwater quality standards for those substances, and as comparably priced alternative herbicide products appear to be available to state farmers, the Department has determined that any management practice restrictions placed on the pesticides chlorpyrifos, acetochlor, dimethenamid/dimethenamid-P and propazine to limit their impact on Wisconsin groundwater, or on acetochlor or metolachlor to limit the impact of their ESA or OXA metabolite degradation products on groundwater, are unlikely to have a significant economic impact on corn or soybean growers in Wisconsin.
Small business regulatory coordinator
Environmental Analysis
The Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch.
NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
Although additional monitoring costs may be imposed upon the state or local government entities that are within the regulated community, the extent of such monitoring and any costs associated with it — while too speculative to quantify at this time — are not expected to be significant. Further, any increased monitoring costs associated with the setting of an ES and PAL for new substances and the lowering of the existing ES and PAL for other substances may be offset by cost savings associated with the relaxing of ESs and PALs for other compounds. Thus, on balance, the Department believes it is unlikely that there will be additional costs to state and local governments resulting from adopting these groundwater standards
State fiscal effect
None.
Local government costs
None.
Agency Contact Person
Mike Lemcke, Chief, Groundwater Management Section, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Drinking Water & Groundwater, 101 S. Webster Street, Madison, WI 53707-7921; (608) 266-2104;
Michael.Lemcke@wisconsin.gov.
Notice of Hearings
Revenue
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant to ss.
71.80 (9m) (c),
77.61 (19) (c), and
227.24, Stats., the Department of Revenue will hold public hearings to consider emergency rules and the creation of permanent rules revising Chapters
Tax 2 and
11, relating to penalties for failure to produce records.
Hearing Information
The hearings will be held:
December 10, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.
Events Room
State Revenue Building
2135 Rimrock Road
Madison, Wisconsin
December 21, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.
Events Room
State Revenue Building
2135 Rimrock Road
Madison, Wisconsin
Handicap access is available at the hearing location.
Submission of Written Comments
Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearings and may make an oral presentation. It is requested that written comments reflecting the oral presentation be given to the department at the hearings. Written comments may also be submitted to the contact person shown below no later than December 21, 2009. Written comments will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearings.
Dale Kleven
Department of Revenue
Mail Stop 6-40
2135 Rimrock Road
P.O. Box 8933
Madison, WI 53708-8933
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Revenue
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
Sections
71.80 (9m) (c) and
77.61 (19) (c), Stats., provide that the Department shall promulgate rules to administer the penalties for failure to produce records.
Related statute or rule
There are no other applicable statutes or rules.
Plain language analysis
This proposed rule does the following:
•
Reflects changes in Wisconsin's tax laws due to the adoption of penalties for failure to produce records.
•
Provides guidance to Department employees and taxpayers so that the penalties can be administered in a fair and consistent manner. This includes providing a standard response time, a standard for noncompliance, and penalty waiver provisions.
Comparison with federal regulations
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the rule.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
The department is not aware of a similar rule in an adjacent state.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
2009 Wisconsin Act 28 adopted statutory changes creating penalties for failure to produce records. Within these provisions are requirements that the Department promulgate rules to administer these penalties. The department has created this rule to reflect these changes in Wisconsin's tax laws and comply with statutory requirements.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
As explained above, this emergency rule is created to reflect changes in Wisconsin's tax laws and comply with statutory requirements. As the rule itself does not impose any significant financial or other compliance burden, the department has determined that it does not have a significant effect on small business.
Anticipated costs incurred by private sector
This proposed rule does not have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector.
