Scope statements
Natural Resources
Subject
Objective of the rule. Revise the Hazardous Waste rule series (chs.
NR 660 to
679, Wis. Adm. Code) to incorporate new, national uniform Federal hazardous waste manifest regulations.
Policy analysis
A special manifest document must be used to lawfully transport hazardous wastes from generators to treatment, storage or disposal facilities. The manifest system is an important component of the “cradle to grave" regulation of hazardous wastes in the United States under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and similar state laws, such as ch.
291, Wis. Stats. Hazardous waste manifest forms are intended to ensure that hazardous waste is tracked and managed safely from the moment it leaves the generation site to the moment it arrives at a treatment, storage or disposal facility.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently promulgated significant revisions to the manifest regulations that take effect September 5, 2006. The new EPA regulations require the use of standard manifest forms in all states, and require certification from EPA to be allowed to print the manifest forms. While the new federal requirements will apply in all states, including Wisconsin they will not override or supersede Wisconsin's state-specific hazardous waste manifest requirements. To prevent potential conflicts and confusion with our current manifest rules, Wisconsin's rules must be revised or the advantages of a single, uniform nationwide system will be lost. As the permanent rule process is underway, the Department proposes to adopt the new federal uniform manifest requirements as an emergency rule, in order to be in effect by September 5, 2006, when the new federal forms are required to be used in Wisconsin.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
Approximately 120 hours of staff time will be needed for these revisions.
Comparison with federal regulations
Although the use of manifests is federally mandated, states until now have had the option to provide or require the use of state-specific manifest forms, which Wisconsin has done. Wisconsin's manifest form differs from the new federal uniform manifest form, and our manifest requirements relating to recordkeeping and handling of the manifest also differ. The proposed rule will revise the state requirements to conform to the new federal requirements: standardizing the content and appearance of the manifest form and continuation sheet; making the forms available from a greater number of sources; and adopting new procedures for tracking certain types of waste shipments.
Natural Resources
Subject
Objective of the rule.
1. To be consistent with the federal Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative, an update to ch.
NR 105 (Wis. Adm. Code) is needed to bring Wisconsin into conformance with federal fish and aquatic life water quality criteria for copper, endrin, nickel, and selenium.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency took formal action in December 2000 to object to the State of Wisconsin's water quality criteria for four substances regulated under the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (GLI) – an federal law passed in 1995. In response to the federal GLI, Wisconsin promulgated changes to ch.
NR 105 (Wis. Adm. Code) that were believed to be consistent with the requirements of the federal law. U.S. EPA's objections were based on differences between the published water quality criteria for copper, endrin, nickel, and selenium for the protection of fish and aquatic life. Several reasons exist for the differences:
a. Wisconsin's published water quality criteria for copper and nickel are different than the federal criteria because a calculation error was made in the derivation of the criteria for fish and aquatic life protection. These errors are corrected as part of the proposed code revisions.
b. Wisconsin's criteria for criteria for copper are different because certain species of organisms that affected the federal criteria are not present in the Great Lakes Basin or in waters of the Upper Mississippi River basin and were not used in the derivation of state criteria. No additional changes based on the regional test data are proposed at this time.
c. Wisconsin did not adopt water quality criteria for selenium when it last updated ch.
NR 105 (Wis. Adm. Code) in 1997.
d. Wisconsin considered more recent toxicological data on copper and nickel that had not yet been published in the scientific literature when the federal criteria were originally promulgated in 1995.
This rulemaking effort will address the concerns expressed by U.S. EPA and will provide Wisconsin with water quality criteria for these four substances based on contemporary science. The resultant changes will include revisions to the existing acute and chronic water quality criteria for copper and nickel, a revision to the chronic criterion for endrin, and the establishment of a new chronic criterion for selenium.
2. To be consistent with the human health water quality criteria published by U.S. EPA in accordance with Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, an update to Chapter
NR 105 (Wis. Adm. Code) is needed to bring Wisconsin into conformance with federal water quality criteria for 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichloropropene, 3,3-dichlorobenzidine, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chlorobenzene, chromium
+3, chromium
+6, cyanide, ethylbenzene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, and toluene.
Under the authority of section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, U.S. EPA periodically revises and/or publishes new federal water quality criteria for substances that may adversely affect the health of humans, wildlife, fish and other aquatic life. These updates are generally in response to the availability of new toxicological data that provides contemporary information on the risks associated with exposure to the chemical pollutants. U.S. EPA has reviewed all of the criteria that have been updated since Wisconsin last revised Chapter
NR 105 (Wis. Adm. Code). U.S. EPA identified differences between Wisconsin's published water quality criteria for those substances listed above and has indicated a need for Wisconsin to update its water quality standards to be as protective as U.S. EPA.
Policy analysis
1. Copper, Endrin, Nickel: there are no policy changes associated with the revisions to the copper, nickel, and endrin criteria because the procedure for calculating the acute and chronic criteria is unchanged from the existing rule. Only the numerical results are different because of the additional data, the regional-specific data adjustment, and the correction of the calculation errors. Based on effluent data for Wisconsin dischargers, revisions to the criteria for copper, nickel, and endrin are not likely to cause significant impacts to the regulated community.
As for copper, the tentative changes to the water quality criteria will result in slightly more stringent effluent limitations for about 125 permitted facilities in the Great Lakes Basin that currently have effluent limitations. It is possible that a small number of additional permitted facilities will also see effluent limitations for the first time. It is the belief of staff that these changes will not result in a significant impact to the overall compliance status of many of the affected WPDES permittees.
Effluent limitations for nickel resulting from the tentative changes will most likely be more stringent than found in current permits. However, because effluent concentrations are historically very low for nickel, the changed limitations are not expected to result in an increase in noncompliance for the affected WPDES permittees.
Similarly, endrin has rarely been detected in wastewater effluents and effluent limitations have not been necessary. In fact, endrin has only been detected in the effluents of 2 of 395 municipal dischargers and has not been detected in any of the 209 industrial dischargers. As such, it is unlikely that any compliance issues will be observed as a result of the tentative changes in water quality criteria.
2. Selenium: there are also no new policy changes associated with the tentative selenium criterion change, although Wisconsin does not currently have a chronic fish and aquatic life criteria published in Chapter
NR 105 (Wis. Adm. Code). Wisconsin does have a human health water quality criterion, but chose not to adopt a chronic selenium criterion in its 1997 rule revision due to concerns about U.S. EPA's use of toxicological translators. As a result, U.S. EPA over-promulgated Wisconsin and has indicated that the federal criterion must be used to establish effluent limitations where applicable to Great Lakes Basin discharges.
Based on the effluent concentration data submitted with WPDES permit applications, a new chronic criterion for selenium is not likely to cause significant impacts to the regulated community. In a recent review of effluent data, selenium has only been detected in 11 of 395 municipal discharges and 12 of 219 industrial discharges. None of those facilities has an effluent limitation based on human health protection. It is also unlikely that any of those facilities will require a limitation for the protection of fish and aquatic life.
3. Human Health Water Quality Criteria Changes: 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichloropropane, 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine, antimony, chlorobenzene and hexachlorocyclopentadiene are detected very rarely in industrial and municipal effluents. Chromium
+3 and Chromium
+6, ethylbenzene and toluene are detected more frequently, but the typical concentrations found in effluents are well below the proposed criteria such that permit limits are not expected to be necessary. Cadmium and cyanide are detected relatively often. However, the proposed human health criteria are less stringent than current toxicity criteria included in ch.
NR 105 for the protection of fish and aquatic life. As such, inclusion of effluent limitations in a WPDES permit would be driven by the more stringent fish and aquatic life criteria instead of on human health.
Similarly, change in the human health criteria for arsenic is not likely to result in more effluent limitations. This is due to the fact that the proposed federal arsenic criteria are less stringent than those already included in ch.
NR 105. At this time, the only areas of the state in which human health-based arsenic limits are needed in permits are in detected discharges directly to the waters of Lakes Michigan and Superior.
Statutory authority
Statutes interpreted: ss.
281.15, Stats.
Staff time required
No changes are proposed in the procedures for calculating water quality criteria or in how the criteria are used to calculate effluent limitations for WPDES permits. Only the numerical criteria for noted substances are being revised for the reasons indicated above. As a result, staff does not believe that significant time or explanation will be needed to explain the proposed language changes.
Staff also do not believe that any significant unresolved issues exist with this package since there are no actual narrative language changes and a significant amount of information sharing has already taken place with U.S. EPA regarding the new criteria. Approximately 100 hours of staff time will be needed to process this rule.
Comparison with federal regulations
U.S. EPA promulgated regulations for copper, endrin, nickel, and selenium in the states bordering the Great Lakes in 1995 (60 FR 15366, March 23, 1995) as part of the Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes system. The Department promulgated rules in 1997 to incorporate these federal requirements. The proposed rulemaking effort is needed to so that the criteria for copper, nickel, selenium, and endrin are as protective as the Federal guidance. Although the Great Lakes regulations are designed to provide consistency within the Great Lakes basin, Wisconsin's rules would apply these criteria statewide in order to establish regulatory consistency between the waters in the Great Lakes basin and the waters in the Upper Mississippi River basin.
Further, U.S. EPA has published a number of updates to federal water quality criteria in accordance with the requirements of Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act. Updates to human health criteria published through November 2003 are included in this request. U.S. EPA has indicated that Wisconsin must in turn update state water quality criteria to be as protective as the federal criteria or face the risk of federal over-promulgation.
Entities affected by the rule
Municipal and industrial permittees with surface water discharges that have detected any of the substances described above may be affected by these rules. It is possible that detections may warrant more frequent effluent monitoring or even possible limitations to show compliance with the necessary limitations. Effluent monitoring has historically indicated that most permitted dischargers do not detect most of the substances addressed in this memo. As such, there are no indications that the tentative criteria changes will result in a significant change in the number of permit limitations required.
With respect to copper, however, it is commonly detected in wastewater effluent. In fact, about one of nine municipal dischargers has an acute copper limitation in their WPDES permits while one of twelve includes a chronic limitation. For industries, one in six permittees has an acute limitation and one in eleven has a chronic limitation. Since the proposed criteria are lower than those in the current rule, it is possible these ratios could increase as well. With the small number of facilities that have limits, however, and the fact that the criteria are only changing by about 10%, it is unlikely that there will be a significant increase in the number of limitations needed. For those permittees that already have a copper limitation, it may be necessary to reissue future permits with a slightly more stringent effluent limitation than is included in a current permit. It is not anticipated that these differences will require significant changes in operation of treatment facilities or source controls.
Regulation and Licensing
Subject
Setting standards and procedures relating to continuing education program content and hours for dental hygienists.
Policy analysis
Objective of the rule. In April 2006, the Legislature passed and the Governor enacted
2005 Wisconsin Act 318, which established a continuing education requirement for dental hygienists as a precondition to license renewal. Act 318 requires the Department of Regulation and Licensing to establish rules regarding the biennial requirements for required clinical coursework and number of hours.
Act 318 brings dental hygienists into a large group of professionals in Wisconsin that have a continuing education requirement as a component of license renewal, in addition to 47 other states that have a continuing education requirement for dental hygienists. Continuing education requirements are seen as helpful in fields that have a significant opportunity to affect the public's health, welfare and safety. The legislation allows the department, after consultation with the Dentistry Examining Board and the Department of Health and Family Services, to adjust the number of hours and to require coursework in specific clinical subjects.
Entities affected by the rule
Dental hygienists and the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing.
Comparison with federal regulations
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation.
Statutory authority
