October 20, 2020 Responsiveness Summary

OAC 3745-1
Ohio Surface Water Quality Standards
for
Ohio Administrative Code

3745-1-32 Ohio river standards.

3745-1-33 Water quality criteria for water supply use designation.
3745-1-34 Water quality criteria for the protection of human health
[fish consumption].

Appendix C

October 15, 2019 Interested Party Comment

Period Notification
List of Interested Parties
Public Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Original Filed Rules and JCARR Forms
November 19, 2019 Notification of Revise Filing
Summary of Revisions Made to Proposed Rules
Revise Filed Rules
Hearing Summary Report
Summary of Refiled Rules Process
To Be Refiled Rules
JCARR Hearing Materials
 BEFORE THE
OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Public Notice
Public Hearing Scheduled For
Proposed Rulemaking Governing
Water Quality Standards Program

Notice is hereby given that a public hearing regarding proposed amendments to the Water Quality
Standards Program rules in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-1 has been scheduled for
December 4, 2019. This rulemaking includes the following rules:

Rule Number Rule Title

3745-1-32 Ohio river standards.
3745-1-33 Water quality criteria for water supply use designation.
3745-1-34 Water quality criteria for the protection of human health [fish
consumption].

OAC Chapter 3745-1 contains Ohio’s standards for water quality. This rulemaking includes the
review and update of three rules containing numeric water quality criteria to reflect the latest
scientific information available from U.S. EPA and the Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission
(ORSANCO).

The Agency invites all interested parties to comment on this rule. The public comment period will
run until December 4, 2019. A public hearing on this proposed rulemaking will be held to consider
public comments in accordance with Section 119.03 of the Ohio Revised Code. This hearing will be
held at Conference Room A at the Ohio EPA Central Office, 50 West Town Street, Suite 700,
Columbus, Ohio at 10:30 a.m. on December 4, 2019. All visitors to Ohio EPA must register at the
Security desk in the lobby upon arrival. Please bring photo identification (such as a valid driver's
license). For security reasons, visitors are required to wear their badge at all times while in the
building. Please arrive early to complete these procedures.

To facilitate the scheduling of oral presentations, persons intending to give testimony at the
hearing should notify the Ohio EPA Public Interest Center, P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43216-
1049, (614) 644-2160. Prior registration will ensure that registrants are heard ahead of those
individuals who register at the hearing. Oral testimony may be limited to five minutes, depending
on the number of persons testifying. All interested persons are entitled to attend or be
represented and to present oral and/or written comments concerning the proposed rulemaking.

Written testimony should be sent to the attention of Emily DeLay at the Division of Surface Water,
P.O. Box 1049, Columbus Ohio 43216-1049. Written comments may also be submitted to the
Hearing Officer at the public hearing. Written testimony will receive the same consideration as oral
testimony. All testimony received at the hearing or by close of business on December 4, 2019, will
be considered by Ohio EPA prior to final action on this rulemaking proposal. Written comments
submitted after this date may be considered as time and circumstances permit.

Pre-notice of this rulemaking is being given to provide a minimum of 45 days’ notice of the public
hearing. The preliminary proposed rule and a fact sheet explaining the rule revisions are posted on
the Ohio EPA website at www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/dswrules.aspx. Another notice will be provided
when this rule is officially filed with the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review and the rule will
be posted on the Ohio EPA website at the above link. Questions regarding this rule package should
be directed to Audrey Rush, at the Division of Surface Water, at (614) 644-2035.
DSW Rules

First Name Last Name Email Address DSW Rules

Lois Wachtman [email protected] Yes
John Reese [email protected] Yes
Joyce Kolakowski [email protected] Yes
Bruce Goff [email protected] Yes
Wm Scott Shields [email protected] Yes
John Sabo [email protected] Yes
Pamela Carter [email protected] Yes
Kelly Ellis [email protected] Yes
Kevin Bock [email protected] Yes
James Bailey [email protected] Yes
Kimberly D. Ciranko [email protected] Yes
Danine Schultz [email protected] Yes
Rick Day [email protected] Yes
Richard Timm [email protected] Yes
Laura Bommarito [email protected] Yes
Karen Okonta [email protected] Yes
Cathy Alexander [email protected] Yes
Mary Helen Smith [email protected] Yes
Helen Miller [email protected] Yes
Kara Long [email protected] Yes
Barbara Knecht [email protected] Yes
Martin Seltzer [email protected] Yes
George Colvin [email protected] Yes
Greg Smith [email protected] Yes
Charles Kulinski [email protected] Yes
Nick Maoloni [email protected] Yes
Edward Baker [email protected] Yes
Stephen Kovatch [email protected] Yes
Bruce Van Scoy [email protected] Yes
Scott Broski [email protected] Yes
Meghan Roe [email protected] Yes
Scott Blanchard [email protected] Yes
Mike Medvik [email protected] Yes
Scott Green [email protected] Yes
Katie Piepmeier [email protected] Yes
Mary Cottingham [email protected] Yes
Isaac Robinson [email protected] Yes
Geary Visca [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Roy Stanley [email protected] Yes
Jim Lynch [email protected] Yes
Mike Cappel [email protected] Yes
Rich Blasick [email protected] Yes
Al Harter [email protected] Yes
Terry McClain [email protected] Yes
Cynthia Paschke [email protected] Yes
Tim Schwendeman [email protected] Yes
Greg Nageotte [email protected] Yes
Rebecca Clarridge [email protected] Yes
Pamela Allen [email protected] Yes
Deron Smith [email protected] Yes
Brian Dolansky [email protected] Yes
michael born [email protected] Yes
April Bott [email protected] Yes
Robert Hodanbosi [email protected] Yes
Janet Henry [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Klein [email protected] Yes
NATHAN HUNT [email protected] Yes
Shara Dine [email protected] Yes
Joe Hollowell [email protected] Yes
Dick Brewer [email protected] Yes
JoAnne Rau [email protected] Yes
Joe Koncelik [email protected] Yes
Anne Tyler [email protected] Yes
Monica Styles [email protected] Yes
Lisa Matovic [email protected] Yes
Laura Walker [email protected] Yes
Ceccilia Walters [email protected] Yes
paul anteau [email protected] Yes
Chris Sallee No Value Yes
Joe Amabeli [email protected] Yes
Jim No Value [email protected] Yes
Cindy Leonard [email protected] Yes
Jerome Flint [email protected] Yes
Chuck DeJonckheere [email protected] Yes
Anthony Szilagye [email protected] Yes
Steven Moore B.S., R.S. [email protected] Yes
Aaron Walker [email protected] Yes
Toni Hines [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Sevlad [email protected] Yes
Anu Nathan [email protected] Yes
Barbara Banks [email protected] Yes
William Bruscino [email protected] Yes
William Caplan [email protected] Yes
Bernard Mount [email protected] Yes
Robert Klusty [email protected] Yes
Brian Mensinger [email protected] Yes
Brent Tracy [email protected] Yes
Tammy Bukach [email protected] Yes
Britt Wenzel [email protected] Yes
Al Moyer [email protected] Yes
Cheri Budzynski [email protected] Yes
Chuck Barksdale [email protected] Yes
Charles Kramek [email protected] Yes
Clifford Falls [email protected] Yes
Cheryl White [email protected] Yes
Darlene Smith [email protected] Yes
Christoper Mazur [email protected] Yes
Chris Heminger [email protected] Yes
Cindy Charles [email protected] Yes
Curt Jones [email protected] Yes
Clark Baubles [email protected] Yes
Clifford Ursich [email protected] Yes
Craig Miller [email protected] Yes
Daniel Collins [email protected] Yes
Andrea Comanitz [email protected] Yes
Curt Spence [email protected] Yes
Carl Wolf [email protected] Yes
Clyde Bingle [email protected] Yes
Dennis Bores [email protected] Yes
John Minich [email protected] Yes
David Osmun [email protected] Yes
Dave Glassner [email protected] Yes
Dianna Henslee [email protected] Yes
Dax Blake [email protected] Yes
Dave Oas [email protected] Yes
Julius Ciaccia [email protected] Yes
Michael Thomson [email protected] Yes
David Paul [email protected] Yes
David Rockman [email protected] Yes
Dirk Brown [email protected] Yes
David Showalter [email protected] Yes
Daniel Szwed [email protected] Yes
Danielle Carter [email protected] Yes
David Copeland [email protected] Yes
Ernesto DeJesus [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Elizabeth Tulman [email protected] Yes
Tony Finch [email protected] Yes
Frank Merrill [email protected] Yes
James Titmas [email protected] Yes
Gregory Taylor [email protected] Yes
Greg Morris [email protected] Yes
Lavendar King [email protected] Yes
Charles Hart [email protected] Yes
Harry Ballinger [email protected] Yes
Mary Beth Holley [email protected] Yes
Holly Senn [email protected] Yes
Chris Suits [email protected] Yes
J. Edwards [email protected] Yes
Sarah Schakow [email protected] Yes
James Ostberg [email protected] Yes
Jan O'Keefe [email protected] Yes
Christopher Walker [email protected] Yes
Jay Dahl [email protected] Yes
Jessica DeMonte [email protected] Yes
James Dobson [email protected] Yes
Jeff McCormack [email protected] Yes
John Hollback [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Lake [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Ewing [email protected] Yes
Jim Hays [email protected] Yes
John Jones [email protected] Yes
JOHN MCGOUGH [email protected] Yes
John McLeod [email protected] Yes
Joe Minadeo [email protected] Yes
Joseph Nemrava [email protected] Yes
Joanna Bambeck [email protected] Yes
John Lengel [email protected] Yes
Jon Amato [email protected] Yes
Jack Pounds [email protected] Yes
Janean Weber [email protected] Yes
Jack Salmon [email protected] Yes
John Wellman [email protected] Yes
Joshua Young [email protected] Yes
Karen Sherwood [email protected] Yes
Keith Gaydosh [email protected] Yes
Ken Willings [email protected] Yes
Kevin Flowers [email protected] Yes
Kathy Kunkel [email protected] Yes
Michelle Kolozsvary [email protected] Yes
Karen Walter [email protected] Yes
Karen Winters [email protected] Yes
Larry Antosch [email protected] Yes
Larry Hensley [email protected] Yes
Laura Bartling [email protected] Yes
Laura Sydro [email protected] Yes
Leonard Allen [email protected] Yes
Larry Hicks [email protected] Yes
Lindon Pierce [email protected] Yes
Lisa Brown [email protected] Yes
Lisa Moerner [email protected] Yes
Lisa Rainer [email protected] Yes
Ellen Shea [email protected] Yes
Leah Raney [email protected] Yes
Maggie Vance [email protected] Yes
Mark Hartman [email protected] Yes
Maureen Miller [email protected] Yes
Michael Blumenthal [email protected] Yes
Charles McCandless III [email protected] Yes
Mike Baker [email protected] Yes
Mike Flaherty [email protected] Yes
Melanie Kendrick [email protected] Yes
Matt Lindsay [email protected] Yes
Max Matteson [email protected] Yes
Mike Snyder [email protected] Yes
Mark Somerson [email protected] Yes
Mike Wisniewski [email protected] Yes
Drew Nicholson [email protected] Yes
Nicole Byrd [email protected] Yes
Concerned Citizens of Neave. Twp. No Value [email protected] Yes
Nathan Walden [email protected] Yes
Dave Oakley [email protected] Yes
Pat Jacomet [email protected] Yes
Patty Woodward [email protected] Yes
Paul Braun [email protected] Yes
Phil Young [email protected] Yes
Rachel Vocaire [email protected] Yes
RANDY BALL [email protected] Yes
Robb Beckstedt [email protected] Yes
Rick Buffalini [email protected] Yes
Ralph Blake [email protected] Yes
Robert Feltz [email protected] Yes
Robert Evans [email protected] Yes
Randall Flint [email protected] Yes
Rima Idzelis [email protected] Yes
Richard Graham [email protected] Yes
Rita Robinett [email protected] Yes
Russ Kapperman [email protected] Yes
RICHARD CUNNINGHAM [email protected] Yes
Bob Niemi [email protected] Yes
Ryan Oates [email protected] Yes
Robyn No Value [email protected] Yes
Rick Rupert [email protected] Yes
Sandra Brand [email protected] Yes
Shawn Bennett [email protected] Yes
Scott Danna [email protected] Yes
Shane Farolino [email protected] Yes
Steven Feisal [email protected] Yes
Sandra Denman [email protected] Yes
Sue Legault [email protected] Yes
Sandra Muehling [email protected] Yes
Steven Brandeberry [email protected] Yes
Ted Boggs [email protected] Yes
Tamara Sands [email protected] Yes
Allen Tatel [email protected] Yes
Terry Finn [email protected] Yes
Timothy Keslar [email protected] Yes
Todd Clifford [email protected] Yes
Tom Seguljic [email protected] Yes
Tonja Hardin [email protected] Yes
Anthony Sloma [email protected] Yes
Anthony Ruggiero [email protected] Yes
Timothy Peterkoski [email protected] Yes
Joseph Daniels [email protected] Yes
Greg Young [email protected] Yes
Zaheeruddin Memon [email protected] Yes
Amie Greene [email protected] Yes
Sharon Perrine [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Fidel Rul [email protected] Yes
Ben Iden [email protected] Yes
Robert Lopez [email protected] Yes
Dan Williams [email protected] Yes
Tracie Herrmann [email protected] Yes
Jerry Ross [email protected] Yes
JASON HAVERKOS [email protected] Yes
Maureen Brennan [email protected] Yes
Mark Wannemueller [email protected] Yes
Assunta Rossi [email protected] Yes
Brian Coghlan [email protected] Yes
Joy Hubbard [email protected] Yes
Michael Coker [email protected] Yes
Kathryn Crestani [email protected] Yes
Meagan DeJohn [email protected] Yes
Ronald Weslosky [email protected] Yes
Shelley Grieshop [email protected] Yes
Tracy Boros [email protected] Yes
Aubree Bovat [email protected] Yes
Ann McCormick [email protected] Yes
Andrew Pusateri [email protected] Yes
Nathan Banks [email protected] Yes
Beverly Kershner [email protected] Yes
Robert Terry [email protected] Yes
Chandra Jennings [email protected] Yes
Cory Bonifas [email protected] Yes
Carroll Shaw Jr. [email protected] Yes
David Ocamb [email protected] Yes
Dennis Stropko [email protected] Yes
Erika No Value [email protected] Yes
Greg Fout [email protected] Yes
Heather Appenzeller [email protected] Yes
Henry Cavanagh [email protected] Yes
Cristiano Taverna [email protected] Yes
Joe Bulzan [email protected] Yes
Jim Fain [email protected] Yes
John Irvine [email protected] Yes
John Rego [email protected] Yes
Kenna Coltman [email protected] Yes
Lisa Ramsey [email protected] Yes
Michael Turnbill [email protected] Yes
Mike Ratliff [email protected] Yes
Neil Morstadt [email protected] Yes
Nikki Kelekr [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Rob Eshenbaugh [email protected] Yes
Roger Frey [email protected] Yes
Rex Gordon [email protected] Yes
Russ Henderson [email protected] Yes
Steve Hadzinsky [email protected] Yes
Spencer Hunt [email protected] Yes
Vanessa Peckinpaugh [email protected] Yes
Vaughn Bentz [email protected] Yes
John Hughes [email protected] Yes
MaryAnn Figgins [email protected] Yes
Lee Sanders [email protected] Yes
Michael Blankestyn [email protected] Yes
James Adams [email protected] Yes
Ralph Kyanko [email protected] Yes
Craig Busenbark [email protected] Yes
Carl Schroeder [email protected] Yes
tanya arsh [email protected] Yes
Michael Resar [email protected] Yes
Daniel Crago [email protected] Yes
Rafe Christopherson [email protected] Yes
Michael StClair [email protected] Yes
Cynthia Erchenbrecher [email protected] Yes
Jodi Keller [email protected] Yes
Carol Crisenbery [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Jeremy Lamb [email protected] Yes
John Butler [email protected] Yes
Joe Weisgerber [email protected] Yes
Diane Palmer [email protected] Yes
Jinelle Crosser [email protected] Yes
Nicholas Steimle [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Helman [email protected] Yes
Ronald Lighthall [email protected] Yes
Bruce Richardson [email protected] Yes
Gary Bauer [email protected] Yes
Denise Curry [email protected] Yes
Tim Mcdaniel [email protected] Yes
Maura LaGreca [email protected] Yes
James Steudler [email protected] Yes
Timothy Haniford [email protected] Yes
Jessica Jacobs [email protected] Yes
Karen Dethloff [email protected] Yes
Ted Slavik [email protected] Yes
Robert Brennan [email protected] Yes
Karen Leber [email protected] Yes
Al Razem [email protected] Yes
William Barth [email protected] Yes
Lindsay Summit [email protected] Yes
Bob Gable [email protected] Yes
colin johnson [email protected] Yes
Daniel Jelinek [email protected] Yes
David Treleaven [email protected] Yes
Kristen Fink [email protected] Yes
Kathy Trent [email protected] Yes
Linda Aller [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Michael Cyphert [email protected] Yes
Michael Stepic [email protected] Yes
Michael Leone [email protected] Yes
Kirkland Norris [email protected] Yes
Richard Knechtges [email protected] Yes
Steve White [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Eric Partee [email protected] Yes
Steve Luebbe [email protected] Yes
Brian Benick [email protected] Yes
Erv Ball [email protected] Yes
Fraser Hamilton [email protected] Yes
Jason Menchhofer [email protected] Yes
Michael Marsh [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Frank Novak [email protected] Yes
Shane Mender [email protected] Yes
Paul Nortz [email protected] Yes
Mike SARVER [email protected] Yes
Brad Espen [email protected] Yes
Amanda Rhiel [email protected] Yes
Susan Strom [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
James Kemp [email protected] Yes
Tim Killeen [email protected] Yes
Teri Kline [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
William Palmer [email protected] Yes
Randy Miller [email protected] Yes
Dave Rice [email protected] Yes
Mark Mays [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Ken Radtke [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Robyn Sigler [email protected] Yes
Janet Kruse [email protected] Yes
Ron Wells [email protected] Yes
Scott Etter [email protected] Yes
Tina Davis-Zurface [email protected] Yes
Thomas Schroeter [email protected] Yes
Chris Marcelletti [email protected] Yes
Amy Lucia [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Gary Silcott [email protected] Yes
Robert Ashton [email protected] Yes
Roger Dietrich [email protected] Yes
Dan Johnson [email protected] Yes
Hannah Gonzalez [email protected] Yes
[email protected] Zoghaib [email protected] Yes
Michael Wisecarver [email protected] Yes
Homer Wilson [email protected] Yes
Patekka Pope Bannister [email protected] Yes
Jared Bartley [email protected] Yes
Julie Green [email protected] Yes
Dennis Baden [email protected] Yes
Aaron Neal [email protected] Yes
Paul Munn [email protected] Yes
james turner [email protected] Yes
Ike Habib [email protected] Yes
Wayde Hartwick [email protected] Yes
Scott A Foreman [email protected] Yes
Wayne Bishop [email protected] Yes
Becky Humphreys [email protected] Yes
Julia Zhang [email protected] Yes
Lonnie Mcghee, Jr [email protected] Yes
Mitchell Neff [email protected] Yes
Ray Flasco [email protected] Yes
Marcy Bolek [email protected] Yes
Dail Hollopeter [email protected] Yes
Susan Foust [email protected] Yes
Lana Jackson [email protected] Yes
carl Gatton [email protected] Yes
Chad Lehmann [email protected] Yes
Robert Hasenyager [email protected] Yes
Rebecca Fugitt [email protected] Yes
Frank Kellogg [email protected] Yes
Robert Wildey [email protected] Yes
Patrick Zimmerman [email protected] Yes
Beth Zajkowski [email protected] Yes
Mark Baumgardner [email protected] Yes
Adah Belle Rumer [email protected] Yes
John McKinney [email protected] Yes
Jeff DeLaet [email protected] Yes
Scott Smith [email protected] Yes
David Alexander [email protected] Yes
Tara Carpenter [email protected] Yes
Mike Rajko [email protected] Yes
Melissa Tucker [email protected] Yes
Daniel Haehn [email protected] Yes
Jeff Vaughn [email protected] Yes
Luke V. Homan [email protected] Yes
John Distin [email protected] Yes
Ken Broberg [email protected] Yes
Gregory Morgan [email protected] Yes
Heidi McKenzie [email protected] Yes
Marvin Lucas Jr. [email protected] Yes
Sean Hanna [email protected] Yes
Jerry Zander [email protected] Yes
Damon Gould [email protected] Yes
Sherri Zeller [email protected] Yes
Lisa Siembida [email protected] Yes
Charles Baumgartner, Jr. [email protected] Yes
Richard Reed [email protected] Yes
Douglas Catron [email protected] Yes
Anna Koperczak [email protected] Yes
Bill Sabo [email protected] Yes
Dan Krieg [email protected] Yes
Iona Branscum [email protected] Yes
Judith Box [email protected] Yes
Lance Traves [email protected] Yes
Ray Hahn [email protected] Yes
Stephen Chandler [email protected] Yes
Denise Seman [email protected] Yes
Marcy Moore [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Zavoda [email protected] Yes
Kathy Wiedeman [email protected] Yes
Cheryl Buckingham [email protected] Yes
Tony Ulrich [email protected] Yes
Kathy Brown [email protected] Yes
Rod Dunn [email protected] Yes
Tom Bell-Games [email protected] Yes
Lisa Dawn [email protected] Yes
Scott Lockhart [email protected] Yes
Christopher Miller [email protected] Yes
Eric Oldroyd [email protected] Yes
Joan Waugh [email protected] Yes
Garry Cole [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Russ Murray [email protected] Yes
Patrick Tracy [email protected] Yes
Dave Funk [email protected] Yes
Stephen Kilper [email protected] Yes
Thomas Maher [email protected] Yes
Sara Rykaczewski [email protected] Yes
Jeff McLeod [email protected] Yes
mark belcik [email protected] Yes
Leslie Wolfe [email protected] Yes
Nick Petruzzi [email protected] Yes
Matthew Mesaros [email protected] Yes
Luke Gamble [email protected] Yes
William Contenza [email protected] Yes
Betty Mowery [email protected] Yes
Tiffany Jenkins [email protected] Yes
Robert Gomez, Jr [email protected] Yes
Cheryl Shields [email protected] Yes
Jason Smith [email protected] Yes
Mark Clemons [email protected] Yes
James Hamilton [email protected] Yes
Christina Lovins [email protected] Yes
Krista Kessler [email protected] Yes
Andrea Salimbene [email protected] Yes
Jerid Shuryan [email protected] Yes
Doug Orf [email protected] Yes
kendra schroer [email protected] Yes
MaryBeth Holley [email protected] Yes
Michael Dort [email protected] Yes
Richard Neubauer [email protected] Yes
Larry Baxa [email protected] Yes
Alice Godsey [email protected] Yes
Terry Hair [email protected] Yes
Willard Vaughan [email protected] Yes
Amy Lester [email protected] Yes
Robert Pierce [email protected] Yes
Bernard Laseke [email protected] Yes
Charles Lewis [email protected] Yes
Chris Kiser [email protected] Yes
Deborah Calderazzo [email protected] Yes
James Troike [email protected] Yes
Peter Onyskiw [email protected] Yes
Tammy Endlish [email protected] Yes
Timothy Harvey [email protected] Yes
Kristy Engel [email protected] Yes
Kelly Steinmetz No Value Yes
Thomas Bouts [email protected] Yes
Laura Curtis [email protected] Yes
Eric Van Heyde [email protected] Yes
Roberta Jackson [email protected] Yes
Mindy Richards [email protected] Yes
Angela Vance [email protected] Yes
Tara Grove [email protected] Yes
Patrick Coyle [email protected] Yes
Mary Rochotte [email protected] Yes
Doug Knauer [email protected] Yes
Julie Ward [email protected] Yes
Dave Lobbestael [email protected] Yes
Mary Ivan-Garza [email protected] Yes
Loren Conrad [email protected] Yes
Sheree Hobgood [email protected] Yes
Timothy Wilkins [email protected] Yes
Mary McCarron [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Alan Ruffell [email protected] Yes
Fleming Mosely [email protected] Yes
Kristen Campbell [email protected] Yes
Joe Harrod [email protected] Yes
Marie Sell [email protected] Yes
Carl Roeger [email protected] Yes
Dan Oman [email protected] Yes
Bruce Rizzo [email protected] Yes
Brian Kliesch [email protected] Yes
Christina Polesovsky [email protected] Yes
Jon Croup [email protected] Yes
JIM HECKMAN [email protected] Yes
Florence Murray [email protected] Yes
Jeff Arp [email protected] Yes
Debbie Wallen [email protected] Yes
John Westfall [email protected] Yes
terry tonovitz [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Bob Ireson [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Thomas Helfrich [email protected] Yes
Joe Swisshelm [email protected] Yes
Karla Snyder [email protected] Yes
Greg Davis [email protected] Yes
Keith SUMMERS [email protected] Yes
Christine Jones [email protected] Yes
Mac Taylor [email protected] Yes
Sarah Raya [email protected] Yes
Cindy Slusarczyk [email protected] Yes
Allison Jeffers [email protected] Yes
Stephen Helmer [email protected] Yes
Laura F Funk [email protected] Yes
Kim Becker [email protected] Yes
Tarunjit Butalia [email protected] Yes
Martha Gilson [email protected] Yes
Lisa Bruce [email protected] Yes
Andrew Crabb [email protected] Yes
Brian Hatfield [email protected] Yes
Mandi Payton [email protected] Yes
Kristen Bridge [email protected] Yes
Matthew Barnett [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Alan Brailer [email protected] Yes
Andrea Ashley [email protected] Yes
Michele Holdgreve [email protected] Yes
Anthony Hanes [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Alan Wood [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Anthony Sasson [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Annie Snyder [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Bruce Bailey [email protected] Yes
Bill Barber [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Brent Bruggeman [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
WILLIAM DETER [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
William Fischbein [email protected] Yes
William Cody [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Larry Brown [email protected] Yes
unknown unknown [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Carl Gatton [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Cheryl Socotch [email protected] Yes
Cheryl Johncox [email protected] Yes
CHRIS COLASANTI No Value Yes
Christopher Hall [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Chris Hunt [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Michael Cochran [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Charles Regula [email protected] Yes
Curtis Truss [email protected] Yes
Corliss Hyer [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Douglas Davis [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Daniel Chatfield [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Dennis Meek [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Dale Gade [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
David Marquard [email protected] Yes
Don Leeds [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Douglas Dreinhart [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Delmar Perry [email protected] Yes
Dennis Propes [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Bert Dawson [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Erin Sherer [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Francis Evring [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Frank Foley [email protected] Yes
Heidi Fought [email protected] Yes
Frank Kiser [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Barbara Bradley [email protected] Yes
Gary Long [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Gary Hydinger [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Greg Feller [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Gino Monaco [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Greg McGlinch [email protected] Yes
Greg Sablak [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Robin Halperin [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Hugh Crowell, PWS [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Harold Huff [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Holly Tucker [email protected] Yes
Holly Utrata-Holcomb [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Harry Winfrey [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Inez Preyor [email protected] Yes
Robert Weisdack [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Judi Henrich [email protected] Yes
Timothy Hollinger [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Jason Sundrup [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Janet Bly [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Joe Chalfant [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
James Demboski [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
John Eastman [email protected] Yes
Jeff Deshon [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
John Tetzloff [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Janelle McManis [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Michaelson [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Joe Harmon [email protected] Yes
John Kellis [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Jack Pepper [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Jim Morris [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Kathryn Boylan [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Ken Carney [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Keith Doll [email protected] Yes
Keith Dylewski [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
James K Frey [email protected] Yes
Kirk Leifheit [email protected] Yes
Erin Risner [email protected] Yes
Kevin McMurray [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Kristy Meyer [email protected] Yes
Kendra Sherman [email protected] Yes
Kurt Erichsen [email protected] Yes
Kristin Yorko [email protected] Yes
Kathy Zook [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Luzerne Cover [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Larry Frimerman [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Laura Kuns [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Boyd Hoddinott [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Mitch Altier [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Mark Mann [email protected] Yes
Mark Stump [email protected] Yes
Mark Hudak [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Mary Beth Holley [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
The Honorable Kathy Catazaro-Perry [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Mary Ann Brouillette [email protected] Yes
Mike Carder [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Melinda Harris [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Michael B. Gardner [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
michael Miller [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Paul Rosile [email protected] Yes
Paul CAsper [email protected] Yes
Christopher Smith [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Paula Humphreys [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Paul Menz [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Ronald L Aldrich [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Pe, Phd, Richard C Westerfield [email protected] Yes
Robert Putnam [email protected] Yes
Ray Ewing [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Richard Robertson [email protected] Yes
Rob Reash [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Arthur Tamilia [email protected] Yes
Robert Ostendorf [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Ronald R. Janke [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Rob Schmidt [email protected] Yes
Roy Schrameck [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Randy Stoll [email protected] Yes
Russ Gibson [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Stephen Chalupa [email protected] Yes
Jeffrey Spradlin [email protected] Yes
Scott Fletcher [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Stephanie Dyer [email protected] Yes
Arthur Bain [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Scott Verner [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Stephen Haughey [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
J. Stephen Simmons [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Peter Swenson [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Terri Argent [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Tim Ingram [email protected] Yes
Terry Korzan [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Tom Denbow [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Elizabeth Toot-Levy [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Thomas E. Voldrich [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Aaron Putnam [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Vaughn Downey [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Vincent Squillace [email protected] Yes
Wade Leimeister [email protected] Yes
Stephen Koch [email protected] Yes
William Beach [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
wtp [email protected] [email protected] Yes
Yedavalli Sreedevi [email protected] Yes
Nate Rozic [email protected] Yes
Kelly Hamilton [email protected] Yes
Andrew Cooksey [email protected] Yes
Sam McKinley [email protected] Yes
Thomas Haley [email protected] Yes
Lindsey Kohlenburg [email protected] Yes
Grace Lange [email protected] Yes
Brian Riedmaier [email protected] Yes
Nathan Coey [email protected] Yes
William Collins [email protected] Yes
Katherine Wood-Pugh [email protected] Yes
Dilley Mark [email protected] Yes
Julianna Socha [email protected] Yes
Bob Eichenberg [email protected] Yes
Brian Williamson [email protected] Yes
David Bakalar [email protected] Yes
Deborah Osborne [email protected] Yes
Kim McGreal [email protected] Yes
Matthew Kastner [email protected] Yes
Steve Burke [email protected] Yes
Thomas Barnet [email protected] Yes
Timothy Walters [email protected] Yes
Wray Blattner [email protected] Yes
jerry chaffin [email protected] Yes
Clint White [email protected] Yes
Donna Corvo No Value Yes
James Lavrich [email protected] Yes
Tammy Braden [email protected] Yes
Judd Wanner [email protected] Yes
Helen Miller [email protected] Yes
Fred Rowe [email protected] Yes
Jeffery Hawkins [email protected] Yes
Rick Andres [email protected] Yes
Karen Winters [email protected] Yes
Catherine Eichel [email protected] Yes
Joe Fuhr [email protected] Yes
Timothy Stephens No Value Yes
Leo Karris [email protected] Yes
Brian Hackett [email protected] Yes
Michelle Rioux [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Deaton [email protected] Yes
Hal Hawk [email protected] Yes
Kristen Capp [email protected] Yes
Monica Carsten [email protected] Yes
Gregory Eastridge [email protected] Yes
Daniel Fannin [email protected] Yes
Chad Kirchner [email protected] Yes
Earl Marcum [email protected] Yes
Eric Marsh [email protected] Yes
Matthew Montag [email protected] Yes
Mick Shvorob [email protected] Yes
Suzanne Skrab [email protected] Yes
Lisa Spencer [email protected] Yes
Rob Zimmer [email protected] Yes
andrew balazs [email protected] Yes
William Albrecht No Value Yes
Randall Rothlisberger [email protected] Yes
Ted Boggs [email protected] Yes
Robert Geho [email protected] Yes
Colleen Loredo [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Donna McCaskey [email protected] Yes
Joe Peterlin [email protected] Yes
Troy Schultz [email protected] Yes
Not Known [email protected] Yes
Kenneth Kaczay [email protected] Yes
Kristie Rabasca [email protected] Yes
David Neely [email protected] Yes
Don Kudner [email protected] Yes
David Bentley [email protected] Yes
Charles Murphy, Sr [email protected] Yes
Dan Waligora [email protected] Yes
Kim Burke [email protected] Yes
David Waxman [email protected] Yes
Suzanne Fisher [email protected] Yes
Christie Kuhlmann [email protected] Yes
Larry Smith [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Scott Doran [email protected] Yes
Charles Hall [email protected] Yes
David B Mustafaga [email protected] Yes
William Rish [email protected] Yes
Eric Augustine [email protected] Yes
Nate Wanner [email protected] Yes
Barry Franz [email protected] Yes
Zach Pierce [email protected] Yes
Julie Pecoraro [email protected] Yes
craig kasper [email protected] Yes
Jacob Elder [email protected] Yes
Jeff Glaser [email protected] Yes
Dixie Marlin [email protected] Yes
Aaron Schindler [email protected] Yes
LD Pierce [email protected] Yes
Terry Palmer No Value Yes
Brian Linkey [email protected] Yes
Richard Hughes [email protected] Yes
Troy Kajfasz [email protected] Yes
Tim Vandersall [email protected] Yes
Ann Reiter [email protected] Yes
William Jeffries [email protected] Yes
Robert Schmidt [email protected] Yes
GEOS Environmental [email protected] Yes
Hans Gucker [email protected] Yes
Tony Gulla [email protected] Yes
Joseph Cottrill [email protected] Yes
patrick orth [email protected] Yes
Rich Atoulikian [email protected] Yes
Joseph DeVirgilio [email protected] Yes
Brett Kravitz [email protected] Yes
Joe Liello [email protected] Yes
Theresa Carter [email protected] Yes
Michael Hardy [email protected] Yes
Rob Guisinger [email protected] Yes
richard kundracik [email protected] Yes
James Akins [email protected] Yes
Donald Mader [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Arp [email protected] Yes
Dan Maltese [email protected] Yes
Elaine Veth [email protected] Yes
Ashley Korrer [email protected] Yes
Jeff Bindas [email protected] Yes
Kevin Stetter [email protected] Yes
Suzanne D'Souza [email protected] Yes
Kurt Smith [email protected] Yes
Shawn Hertzsch [email protected] Yes
Patrick Gsellman [email protected] Yes
Jim Whitaker [email protected] Yes
Mike Konrad [email protected] Yes
Brian Klink [email protected] Yes
Robert Blankenship [email protected] Yes
Lindsey Olmstead [email protected] Yes
Cathryn Loucas [email protected] Yes
David Cohen [email protected] Yes
Erin Begue [email protected] Yes
Rick Gollihue [email protected] Yes
Ralph Blake [email protected] Yes
Norm Roulet [email protected] Yes
Carolyn O'Neal [email protected] Yes
Craig Schmeisser [email protected] Yes
John Clark [email protected] Yes
Lise Sibicky [email protected] Yes
Michelle McKee [email protected] Yes
Ted Grigorieff [email protected] Yes
Jeff Nottingham [email protected] Yes
Janet Gammell [email protected] Yes
Laurie Moore [email protected] Yes
Nick Prince [email protected] Yes
Madenia Stafford [email protected] Yes
TYFFANY Still [email protected] Yes
Michael McCabe [email protected] Yes
Michele Nestor [email protected] Yes
Pamela Harvey [email protected] Yes
Susan Schepis [email protected] Yes
Janet Dalton [email protected] Yes
Jeanette Wierzbicki [email protected] Yes
Jean Lakamp [email protected] Yes
Bill Thompson [email protected] Yes
Steven Huszai [email protected] Yes
Evelyn Valerio [email protected] Yes
Bryson Cole [email protected] Yes
Jamie Frisbey [email protected] Yes
Donna Parish [email protected] Yes
Mike Berry [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Knittle [email protected] Yes
Lisa Bruce [email protected] Yes
Mathias Orndorf No Value Yes
Kevin Maynard [email protected] Yes
ben wickizer [email protected] Yes
Don Lord [email protected] Yes
Michael Trapp [email protected] Yes
Drema Harvey [email protected] Yes
Alex Csaszar [email protected] Yes
Kevin Dembiec [email protected] Yes
Jessica Sharrow [email protected] Yes
Melvin Garrison [email protected] Yes
Patricia Beaujon [email protected] Yes
Cindy Drill [email protected] Yes
Dale Kocarek [email protected] Yes
Judy Stroeh [email protected] Yes
Elizabeth McMeekin [email protected] Yes
Kristen Fink [email protected] Yes
Phillip Bennington [email protected] Yes
Susan Knobel [email protected] Yes
Roger Lovill [email protected] Yes
Ron Short [email protected] Yes
Jason Baker [email protected] Yes
Paula Steele [email protected] Yes
Tom Covrett [email protected] Yes
robert bohmer [email protected] Yes
Brandon Fox [email protected] Yes
John Poakeart [email protected] Yes
Jeffrey Nick [email protected] Yes
Lorraine Brown [email protected] Yes
Donald Moore [email protected] Yes
Steven Marincic [email protected] Yes
Tom Myers [email protected] Yes
Sarah Rehner [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
David Zappa [email protected] Yes
Kyle Russell [email protected] Yes
Anthony Dugan [email protected] Yes
Vincent Roberts [email protected] Yes
Amy Wright [email protected] Yes
Ahmed Hawari [email protected] Yes
Keith Schmidt [email protected] Yes
Chad Ulm [email protected] Yes
Jeff Martin No Value Yes
Debra kay Neal [email protected] Yes
Joe Pohlman [email protected] Yes
Ronald Taylor [email protected] Yes
Jessi Elson [email protected] Yes
donna bewley [email protected] Yes
Jeremy Wensink [email protected] Yes
Richmond Saylor [email protected] Yes
Lynn Sherman [email protected] Yes
Chris Stelzer [email protected] Yes
John Moher [email protected] Yes
Richard Hammond [email protected] Yes
Cochran Lisa [email protected] Yes
Stephen Elliott [email protected] Yes
Karen Winn [email protected] Yes
Rick Mason [email protected] Yes
Kelli Steward [email protected] Yes
Sean Hoblit [email protected] Yes
Chris Bradley [email protected] Yes
Erika Eckberg [email protected] Yes
Rick Garrison [email protected] Yes
Eric Cherry [email protected] Yes
Mark Lehnert [email protected] Yes
R. Michael Gambino [email protected] Yes
Clement Kutzli [email protected] Yes
Pat Brown [email protected] Yes
Ray J Ruiz [email protected] Yes
Jeff Fisher [email protected] Yes
Scott Heath [email protected] Yes
Anne Smith [email protected] Yes
DAWN MEYERS [email protected] Yes
Jenn Klein [email protected] Yes
Kathryn Doughty [email protected] Yes
Andy Balazs [email protected] Yes
Randolph Darpoh [email protected] Yes
Nathan Troyer [email protected] Yes
Matthew Barnett [email protected] Yes
Leslie Tipton [email protected] Yes
David Ryder [email protected] Yes
Nathan Coey [email protected] Yes
Edward Finger [email protected] Yes
Jim Carrell [email protected] Yes
virginia king [email protected] Yes
Aaron Appell [email protected] Yes
Jason Tourscher [email protected] Yes
Maria Cruset [email protected] Yes
Scott Ankrom [email protected] Yes
Carl J Sgalla [email protected] Yes
Brian Hackett [email protected] Yes
Robert Baughman [email protected] Yes
Mark Whitaker [email protected] Yes
Nick Bohland [email protected] Yes
Patricia Beaujon [email protected] Yes
Robert Wildey [email protected] Yes
Rane Wilson [email protected] Yes
David Waltermyer [email protected] Yes
Bryan Riley [email protected] Yes
Marlene Knopsnider [email protected] Yes
Allison Moyer [email protected] Yes
Christina Dudley [email protected] Yes
Billy Huston [email protected] Yes
Steven Sherrick [email protected] Yes
Michael Ketchum [email protected] Yes
William Keith Baker [email protected] Yes
Stephen Singer [email protected] Yes
tom erwin [email protected] Yes
Richard Meloy [email protected] Yes
Eric Markley [email protected] Yes
Trevor Berger [email protected] Yes
Todd Brown [email protected] Yes
Geneva Water Department [email protected] Yes
Cheryl Rex [email protected] Yes
Paul Mitchell [email protected] Yes
Jeff Blair [email protected] Yes
Robyn Duckworth [email protected] Yes
Frank DiMarco [email protected] Yes
Brenda Grass [email protected] Yes
Ryan Conkel [email protected] Yes
Brian Gresser [email protected] Yes
Robert Reckers [email protected] Yes
james cox [email protected] Yes
Darryl Young [email protected] Yes
Richard Goldsworth [email protected] Yes
Adam Zolciak [email protected] Yes
Kathleen Richards [email protected] Yes
Grant Maki [email protected] Yes
Holly Weatherhead [email protected] Yes
Kevin Ackerman [email protected] Yes
michael jividen [email protected] Yes
Cory Gonya [email protected] Yes
Tyler Linton [email protected] Yes
Taniqua Watkins [email protected] Yes
John Barkach [email protected] Yes
Rodger L Burgess [email protected] Yes
Dale Hacker [email protected] Yes
cal miller [email protected] Yes
Benjamin Latoche [email protected] Yes
Stephen Frank [email protected] Yes
George Holliday [email protected] Yes
Joseph Jackson [email protected] Yes
Bob Little [email protected] Yes
William Perry [email protected] Yes
gary weis [email protected] Yes
Sam Elam [email protected] Yes
Daniel Wood [email protected] Yes
Jeremiah Roth [email protected] Yes
Rick Dremann No Value Yes
Aaron Brown [email protected] Yes
jason canterbury [email protected] Yes
James Williams [email protected] Yes
Vicki Schneider [email protected] Yes
Greg Rhoades [email protected] Yes
Eric Pottenger [email protected] Yes
Tina McAllister [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
janet kuefler [email protected] Yes
William Russell [email protected] Yes
Eric Nost [email protected] Yes
Michael DeBraske [email protected] Yes
paul hotz [email protected] Yes
Hank Krouse [email protected] Yes
Stan King [email protected] Yes
Scott Hill [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Mike Dickerson [email protected] Yes
Leslie Wilsong [email protected] Yes
Maublette Hill [email protected] Yes
Katherine Fontaine [email protected] Yes
Linda Hutcheson [email protected] Yes
Mark Jordan [email protected] Yes
Jean Anderson [email protected] Yes
Richard Deluca [email protected] Yes
C Scott [email protected] Yes
Vivian Horvath [email protected] Yes
Karen Tenore [email protected] Yes
Paul Leist [email protected] Yes
Steven Hamit [email protected] Yes
Karen EHS Program Manager [email protected] Yes
Ed Merriman [email protected] Yes
Jim Springer [email protected] Yes
Susan Schepis [email protected] Yes
Pam Barnett [email protected] Yes
Thomas Slark [email protected] Yes
Bradley Knaack [email protected] Yes
Sky Schelle [email protected] Yes
Amy Boone [email protected] Yes
Craig A Harris [email protected] Yes
Michael Schmidt [email protected] Yes
Daniel Lincoln [email protected] Yes
Nick Maoloni [email protected] Yes
Alicia Adams [email protected] Yes
Darla Bokeno [email protected] Yes
Adam Howard [email protected] Yes
Melanie Schott [email protected] Yes
Jennie Ulrich [email protected] Yes
Mark Cain [email protected] Yes
RANDALL FERGUSON [email protected] Yes
keith sadler [email protected] Yes
Steve Steiner [email protected] Yes
Michael Seluga [email protected] Yes
MICHAEL HILL [email protected] Yes
Justin Newman [email protected] Yes
no value no value [email protected] Yes
Chris Skalski [email protected] Yes
Sue Fulk [email protected] Yes
Ned Parrish [email protected] Yes
Dale Adams [email protected] Yes
Robert Greytrak [email protected] Yes
Paul Marlow [email protected] Yes
Jenny Picciano [email protected] Yes
Bruce Rizzo [email protected] Yes
Michael Jones [email protected] Yes
Ted Lozier [email protected] Yes
MICHAEL GRAF [email protected] Yes
Kristen Kubitza [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Grant Stuller [email protected] Yes
Michael Navabi [email protected] Yes
Ishmael Pigman [email protected] Yes
Tessie Whetsel [email protected] Yes
Mary Mahr [email protected] Yes
steve heiby [email protected] Yes
Racheal Sams [email protected] Yes
Michael See [email protected] Yes
Tim Bowen [email protected] Yes
amy cseh [email protected] Yes
Eliza Thrush [email protected] Yes
Tracy Bleim [email protected] Yes
Heather Reed [email protected] Yes
Christy Zitzke [email protected] Yes
Todd Neeley [email protected] Yes
Dan McElhatten [email protected] Yes
Thomas Sabol [email protected] Yes
Tony Pink [email protected] Yes
Jennifer English [email protected] Yes
Marjorie Markopoulos [email protected] Yes
Constance White [email protected] Yes
Ken Radtke [email protected] Yes
Paul Fish [email protected] Yes
Karen Bezoski [email protected] Yes
Jeff Wiehe [email protected] Yes
dan garttman [email protected] Yes
Mark Zappe [email protected] Yes
John Norton [email protected] Yes
Roger Osburn [email protected] Yes
Stephanie Furnis [email protected] Yes
Natural Gas [email protected] Yes
Dianne Sumego [email protected] Yes
Eskil Eriksson [email protected] Yes
jeff dudley [email protected] Yes
Jerry Rowlands No Value Yes
Janine Whitken [email protected] Yes
Pat Antonelli [email protected] Yes
Irene Raiber [email protected] Yes
Steve Miller [email protected] Yes
Tom Novotny [email protected] Yes
Emily Poling [email protected] Yes
Suzanne Zazycki [email protected] Yes
JP Kleinle [email protected] Yes
Terry Korzan [email protected] Yes
Harry Gulley [email protected] Yes
Mark Hamlin [email protected] Yes
Jeff Kasler [email protected] Yes
Meredith Rockwell [email protected] Yes
Todd Colquitt [email protected] Yes
Whitney Sullinger [email protected] Yes
Mark Nielsen [email protected] Yes
Eric J. Luckage [email protected] Yes
Pilar Johansson [email protected] Yes
Steve Fox [email protected] Yes
Tony Lavinder [email protected] Yes
David Nitz [email protected] Yes
Mike Waligura [email protected] Yes
Roger Varner [email protected] Yes
Ted Masters [email protected] Yes
Rob Smith [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Bartsch [email protected] Yes
Tony Catalano [email protected] Yes
James Lewis [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Mester [email protected] Yes
Brian Leuner [email protected] Yes
Bruce Frazier [email protected] Yes
Alan Hyslip [email protected] Yes
Jeff Sharon [email protected] Yes
Timothy Stevneson [email protected] Yes
John DiNunzio [email protected] Yes
Dateesha Cavin [email protected] Yes
ken barton [email protected] Yes
Michelle Nochta [email protected] Yes
Daniel Susany [email protected] Yes
Bill Dickinson [email protected] Yes
Tim Greenway [email protected] Yes
Brian Babb [email protected] Yes
Janet Sterling [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Guyton [email protected] Yes
David Kramer [email protected] Yes
Andrew Foerg [email protected] Yes
Robert Lewis-Manning [email protected] Yes
Shannon Landrum [email protected] Yes
Curtis Zahn [email protected] Yes
Heather Rainwater [email protected] Yes
Michael Blankestyn [email protected] Yes
Shannon Wheeler [email protected] Yes
Tana Cenkus [email protected] Yes
Jeff Dick [email protected] Yes
rex green [email protected] Yes
Bill Harris [email protected] Yes
Christina Grasseschi [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Bartsch [email protected] Yes
Brian Metz [email protected] Yes
Glenn Marzluf [email protected] Yes
Courtney Campbell [email protected] Yes
Aaron Colson [email protected] Yes
Robert Large [email protected] Yes
michelle cohen [email protected] Yes
Jessica DeMonte [email protected] Yes
Jeff Hebeler [email protected] Yes
Andy Horton [email protected] Yes
Bill Fromme [email protected] Yes
Brenda Snyder [email protected] Yes
Brian Arledge [email protected] Yes
Bruce Whitteberry [email protected] Yes
Chuck Smith [email protected] Yes
David Ackerman [email protected] Yes
Dana Moore [email protected] Yes
Doug Beugly [email protected] Yes
Dave Sprague [email protected] Yes
heatehr mathews [email protected] Yes
Jim Ames [email protected] Yes
Jason Gibboney [email protected] Yes
Joseph Flahiff [email protected] Yes
Jon Collins [email protected] Yes
John Van Harlingen [email protected] Yes
Katie Jamriska [email protected] Yes
Kevin Givins [email protected] Yes
Larry Broughton [email protected] Yes
Lisa Engle [email protected] Yes
Matt Steele [email protected] Yes
Mathias Orndorf [email protected] Yes
Mary Woolard [email protected] Yes
Dean Reynolds [email protected] Yes
September Arriaga [email protected] Yes
Scott Belcher [email protected] Yes
Scott Shellhammer [email protected] Yes
Mathias Orndorf [email protected] Yes
Ronald Fauls [email protected] Yes
Ann Scott [email protected] Yes
Bradford Baker [email protected] Yes
Lero Chuck [email protected] Yes
Steve Aelker [email protected] Yes
Dennis White [email protected] Yes
Gary Evans [email protected] Yes
John Heil [email protected] Yes
Gary Wagner [email protected] Yes
Joe Riley [email protected] Yes
Kasey Carlisle [email protected] Yes
Gregory Danver [email protected] Yes
Marc Morgan [email protected] Yes
Chris Ladley [email protected] Yes
Patrick Hickman [email protected] Yes
Ron Suter [email protected] Yes
Stephen Kill [email protected] Yes
Ralph (RC) Wise [email protected] Yes
Gary Hynus [email protected] Yes
William Newsome [email protected] Yes
Terry West [email protected] Yes
Christy Anderson [email protected] Yes
Burt Brown [email protected] Yes
Burton Speakman [email protected] Yes
MELISA ELKINS [email protected] Yes
Carter Alleman [email protected] Yes
Kit Christopher St. Clair [email protected] Yes
Kimberly LaPlace [email protected] Yes
Sylvia White [email protected] Yes
david scofield [email protected] Yes
Mac Vance [email protected] Yes
Milo Baker [email protected] Yes
Robert Bock [email protected] Yes
Lee Wolf [email protected] Yes
Andrew Etter [email protected] Yes
Bryan Bartsch [email protected] Yes
Christina Nardozzi [email protected] Yes
Benjamin Amick [email protected] Yes
Brian O'Connell [email protected] Yes
Jack Hoogeveen [email protected] Yes
Shawn Vollmer [email protected] Yes
Randy Diller [email protected] Yes
Ray Flasco [email protected] Yes
Art Saunders [email protected] Yes
Ana Slocum [email protected] Yes
Brian Mcfarland [email protected] Yes
Brent Winslow [email protected] Yes
Craig Reed [email protected] Yes
Michael Bastin [email protected] Yes
Kevin George [email protected] Yes
Ben Pfefferle [email protected] Yes
Andrew Campbell [email protected] Yes
Thomas Likavec [email protected] Yes
Steve Amell [email protected] Yes
Beth Shiverdecker [email protected] Yes
Thomas Alban [email protected] Yes
Steven Wilson [email protected] Yes
Tina Stonemetz [email protected] Yes
James Cramer [email protected] Yes
Linda Denison [email protected] Yes
William Jeffries [email protected] Yes
Brent Huff [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Mary Sharrett [email protected] Yes
Matthew Scroggins [email protected] Yes
Aaron Van Ostran [email protected] Yes
Scott Ross [email protected] Yes
Julie Stahl [email protected] Yes
Inez Preyor [email protected] Yes
Jarret Goddard [email protected] Yes
Scott Bobst [email protected] Yes
Aaron Burkhardt [email protected] Yes
Richard Stuck [email protected] Yes
Jamie VanDusen [email protected] Yes
Russell Boes [email protected] Yes
Melinda Stahl [email protected] Yes
Katherine Beach [email protected] Yes
John Long [email protected] Yes
Keith O'Dell [email protected] Yes
Robert Baeppler [email protected] Yes
Harlan Toy [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Ponchak [email protected] Yes
Claiborne Thornton [email protected] Yes
Mike Eagan [email protected] Yes
Tom Marting [email protected] Yes
PATRICK Mahaney [email protected] Yes
Steve Wilson [email protected] Yes
Zach Fanning [email protected] Yes
clyde hadden [email protected] Yes
Tom Frank [email protected] Yes
Amy Toohey [email protected] Yes
dan ullman [email protected] Yes
David Rogers [email protected] Yes
Natshita Cook [email protected] Yes
Lloyd Hagerty [email protected] Yes
Frank Monetleone [email protected] Yes
Dennis McIntyre [email protected] Yes
Vicki Derr [email protected] Yes
Rose Hunyady [email protected] Yes
Paul Campbell [email protected] Yes
Kent Miller [email protected] Yes
Adam Pauley [email protected] Yes
michael forche [email protected] Yes
Scott Ballenger [email protected] Yes
Andrew Cole [email protected] Yes
The Honorable Terry Dockery [email protected] Yes
Perry Haggard [email protected] Yes
Edmund Collens [email protected] Yes
Mitch Reese [email protected] Yes
Tricia Haederle [email protected] Yes
Mark Burrier [email protected] Yes
Joan Gauthier [email protected] Yes
Gary Toplak [email protected] Yes
Steven York [email protected] Yes
Tom Yarnick [email protected] Yes
Denise Moyer [email protected] Yes
Thomas Gault, Jr [email protected] Yes
Stephen Giblin [email protected] Yes
Sarah Kreitzer [email protected] Yes
Tom Nelson [email protected] Yes
Aaron Sommer [email protected] Yes
Laura Fay [email protected] Yes
Chris Phillips [email protected] Yes
Steve Rennells [email protected] Yes
Timothy Evans [email protected] Yes
Terrence Brogdon [email protected] Yes
Nicole L. Diak [email protected] Yes
Robert Brundrett [email protected] Yes
Michael Weinstein [email protected] Yes
Zane Cox [email protected] Yes
Robert McGormley [email protected] Yes
William Theiss [email protected] Yes
Richard Cap [email protected] Yes
Ryan Fimmen [email protected] Yes
Thomas Zwick [email protected] Yes
Dave Matthews [email protected] Yes
Joseph Tatarek [email protected] Yes
Robin Carney [email protected] Yes
Luke Dostal [email protected] Yes
Tracy Shearer [email protected] Yes
Nathan Goodrich [email protected] Yes
Cynthia Petretich [email protected] Yes
Kevin Fantozzi [email protected] Yes
Katherine Wolff [email protected] Yes
Joe LEONARD [email protected] Yes
Melissa Hamsher [email protected] Yes
Wayne Brenner [email protected] Yes
Sharon Herman [email protected] Yes
chris rowland [email protected] Yes
Jim Mangas [email protected] Yes
Bob Mason [email protected] Yes
Susan Hamilton [email protected] Yes
Neil Tunison [email protected] Yes
Allen Messer [email protected] Yes
Teresa Brenner [email protected] Yes
Montecalvo Matt [email protected] Yes
GREG BECKMAN [email protected] Yes
Kevin Svitana [email protected] Yes
Jeremy Swope [email protected] Yes
Glen Hacker [email protected] Yes
Matthew Mckown [email protected] Yes
Jessica Zahn [email protected] Yes
Jessica Adine [email protected] Yes
Mike Stoll [email protected] Yes
Jill Novak [email protected] Yes
Brian Clark [email protected] Yes
Susan Grover [email protected] Yes
Tim Check [email protected] Yes
Ronald Mits [email protected] Yes
mike zelasko [email protected] Yes
Amanda Keith [email protected] Yes
Ryan Elliott [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Sheesley [email protected] Yes
bob dylan [email protected] Yes
Nancy Gillotti [email protected] Yes
Sherri Zeller [email protected] Yes
Michael Heilman [email protected] Yes
Clint White [email protected] Yes
Steve Wood [email protected] Yes
Mark Livengood [email protected] Yes
Susan Sulia [email protected] Yes
Monica Simpson [email protected] Yes
Christina Faith [email protected] Yes
Tom Kutcher [email protected] Yes
Martha Innes [email protected] Yes
Greg Tumbleson [email protected] Yes
Michelle Pautz [email protected] Yes
Belmont County SWCD [email protected] Yes
Julie Rude [email protected] Yes
David Wilson [email protected] Yes
rob howerton [email protected] Yes
Tom Nelson [email protected] Yes
Kimarie Winkelman [email protected] Yes
Albin Bauer [email protected] Yes
Susan Martin [email protected] Yes
John Leiendecker [email protected] Yes
Amanda LeFevre [email protected] Yes
Tom Mann [email protected] Yes
Linda Denison [email protected] Yes
Chuck Hall [email protected] Yes
Gary Pasheilich [email protected] Yes
Faith Terreri [email protected] Yes
Mike Casadonte [email protected] Yes
Michael Murray [email protected] Yes
Cindy Mullins [email protected] Yes
Dennis Griffith [email protected] Yes
James Amburgey [email protected] Yes
Rick Kelly [email protected] Yes
Alexandra Griffin [email protected] Yes
Brian Rankin [email protected] Yes
Jamie wingo [email protected] Yes
Christina Dudley [email protected] Yes
Paul Kanouff [email protected] Yes
Regina Henry [email protected] Yes
Dan Stuck [email protected] Yes
Brian Craft [email protected] Yes
Ron Zagrocki [email protected] Yes
Mike Long [email protected] Yes
Kate Anderson [email protected] Yes
Jeffrey Smith [email protected] Yes
bill harrison [email protected] Yes
Gary Smith [email protected] Yes
Chad Feehan [email protected] Yes
Cathy Davison [email protected] Yes
Tawnya Chott [email protected] Yes
Melissa Bryant [email protected] Yes
Jerilyn Davis [email protected] Yes
Kathryn Hoffmann [email protected] Yes
Don Hollister [email protected] Yes
Warren High [email protected] Yes
Sabrina Grimm [email protected] Yes
Gary Begue [email protected] Yes
Randy Puckett [email protected] Yes
John Jones [email protected] Yes
Erica Childress [email protected] Yes
Patrick Oberth [email protected] Yes
Jim Brett [email protected] Yes
Andrae Maze [email protected] Yes
Aaron Hixenbaugh [email protected] Yes
James Jones [email protected] Yes
Sue Bell [email protected] Yes
Skipp DeLeve [email protected] Yes
Tiffanie Cole [email protected] Yes
William Rosby [email protected] Yes
Jesse Daubert [email protected] Yes
michael shapiro [email protected] Yes
Amy Holinbaugh [email protected] Yes
Christopher Hirzel [email protected] Yes
Randy Bruback [email protected] Yes
Bradley Longberry [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Powell-Campbell [email protected] Yes
John Hoff [email protected] Yes
Alan Legault [email protected] Yes
Kent Halloran [email protected] Yes
Andrea Barnes [email protected] Yes
Jody Jones [email protected] Yes
Thomas Banks [email protected] Yes
Jarvis Armstrong [email protected] Yes
Shawn Reinhart [email protected] Yes
Rebecca Wilson [email protected] Yes
Abbot Stevenson [email protected] Yes
Justin McCullah [email protected] Yes
Dale Hacker [email protected] Yes
Philip Beal [email protected] Yes
greg seavers [email protected] Yes
Irv Oslin [email protected] Yes
Anthony Guerrero [email protected] Yes
Charles Schnurpel [email protected] Yes
Allen Aspacher [email protected] Yes
Randy Mahlman [email protected] Yes
Rob Eshenbaugh [email protected] Yes
Sarah Hippensteel [email protected] Yes
Zane Daniels [email protected] Yes
Bert Mechenbier [email protected] Yes
Susan Bell [email protected] Yes
Jill Binzer [email protected] Yes
Dave Gram [email protected] Yes
Michele Simmons [email protected] Yes
Amber Crawford [email protected] Yes
Brian Wopershall [email protected] Yes
Carl Ganocy [email protected] Yes
Mark Dodd [email protected] Yes
Daniel Fisher [email protected] Yes
Katherine Pugh [email protected] Yes
Alisa Parker [email protected] Yes
Jon Nagel [email protected] Yes
Ruthanne Flottman [email protected] Yes
Steve Curtis [email protected] Yes
Karii MacCune [email protected] Yes
Kelley Hand [email protected] Yes
Don Wilson [email protected] Yes
Dwight McCabe [email protected] Yes
Mike Eagan [email protected] Yes
Barry Zerkle [email protected] Yes
Larry Stadwick [email protected] Yes
Dianne Sumego [email protected] Yes
Rob Given [email protected] Yes
Scott Arentsen [email protected] Yes
Mallory Matthews [email protected] Yes
James Lewis [email protected] Yes
Brent Macolley [email protected] Yes
Tom Johnson [email protected] Yes
Marianne Bohn [email protected] Yes
Howard Chu [email protected] Yes
Eric Mather [email protected] Yes
Timothy Crum [email protected] Yes
Mark Stemm [email protected] Yes
Martin Kim [email protected] Yes
Carmella Shale [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Kathleen Vrable [email protected] Yes
Cheryl Green [email protected] Yes
Kris Klaus [email protected] Yes
Bill Smith [email protected] Yes
Sue Rojeck [email protected] Yes
Linda Holst [email protected] Yes
Jonathan barnett [email protected] Yes
Christie Sunderrajan [email protected] Yes
Dawn Taylor [email protected] Yes
Michael Shuler, Jr. [email protected] Yes
Michael J. Podolsky [email protected] Yes
rick snyder [email protected] Yes
Kelly Boreman [email protected] Yes
Byron Causey [email protected] Yes
John Woolard [email protected] Yes
Marc Milliron [email protected] Yes
Michael G. Musto [email protected] Yes
Heather Lauer [email protected] Yes
Thomas Novotny [email protected] Yes
Morkataa Dhinaa [email protected] Yes
Neil Teaford [email protected] Yes
LInda Oros [email protected] Yes
Terry Perry [email protected] Yes
Christopher Justice [email protected] Yes
Karen Ball [email protected] Yes
Daniel Knecht [email protected] Yes
Adrianne Clark [email protected] Yes
Judson Edgington [email protected] Yes
marcus harris [email protected] Yes
Jason Van Dyke [email protected] Yes
Gary Fricke [email protected] Yes
Laura Travers [email protected] Yes
Gordon Parish [email protected] Yes
Bill Thompson [email protected] Yes
Tom Biksey [email protected] Yes
David Yaussy [email protected] Yes
megan tussing [email protected] Yes
Ryan Elliott [email protected] Yes
Sean McGovern [email protected] Yes
Steve Lange [email protected] Yes
Stan Thomas [email protected] Yes
james myers [email protected] Yes
Shannon Householder [email protected] Yes
Charlotte Hickcox [email protected] Yes
Randy Mercer [email protected] Yes
Brian Queen [email protected] Yes
susan harrier [email protected] Yes
Gregory Stallings [email protected] Yes
Kim Trowbridge [email protected] Yes
Linda Dulik [email protected] Yes
Junnie Valentine [email protected] Yes
Natalie Conlon [email protected] Yes
Bill Meinert [email protected] Yes
Bob Brown [email protected] Yes
Joseph Logan [email protected] Yes
Walt Burd [email protected] Yes
Tim McKee [email protected] Yes
Kate Ryan [email protected] Yes
Nathan Taylor [email protected] Yes
Mohand Abbache [email protected] Yes
Kate Anderson [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Nicole Morinello [email protected] Yes
Rob Romes [email protected] Yes
Jeongsang Hahn [email protected] Yes
Darnella Robertson [email protected] Yes
Jim Bowery [email protected] Yes
Joyce Snyder [email protected] Yes
Mark Chandler [email protected] Yes
Jon Hulsmeyer [email protected] Yes
Wade Foster [email protected] Yes
Zack Hamilton [email protected] Yes
Kim Bowles [email protected] Yes
August Froehlich [email protected] Yes
Bob Parris [email protected] Yes
Michael Sponsler [email protected] Yes
Dan Valdez [email protected] Yes
Don Wilson [email protected] Yes
Robert Large [email protected] Yes
Mitch Reese [email protected] Yes
Wendy Kidd [email protected] Yes
John Lazzaretti [email protected] Yes
Sean Withrow [email protected] Yes
Michele Smith [email protected] Yes
Bridget May [email protected] Yes
Roberta Gellner [email protected] Yes
Tom Beatty [email protected] Yes
Tim Galieti [email protected] Yes
Nick Bucurel [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Knittle [email protected] Yes
Susan Crowell [email protected] Yes
Kristy Foster Seachrist [email protected] Yes
Stephen Zdinak [email protected] Yes
Keith Orr [email protected] Yes
Dan Gill [email protected] Yes
Riley Walters [email protected] Yes
Michael Paessun [email protected] Yes
Andrae Maze [email protected] Yes
Alex Haslitt [email protected] Yes
Danielle Vandegriff [email protected] Yes
Roxana Herrera [email protected] Yes
Melinda Stahl [email protected] Yes
Katie Rousseau [email protected] Yes
Michael Miller [email protected] Yes
Steven Buffone [email protected] Yes
Bob Lentz [email protected] Yes
Robert Wright [email protected] Yes
Dan Kopec [email protected] Yes
David Sheaves [email protected] Yes
Jennie Celik [email protected] Yes
John Blackman [email protected] Yes
David McNeely [email protected] Yes
Shawn Hertzsch [email protected] Yes
Julie Hough [email protected] Yes
Holly Rast [email protected] Yes
Jennessa Gaffney [email protected] Yes
Richard Herrmann [email protected] Yes
Mike Morrow [email protected] Yes
Scott Perry [email protected] Yes
Amanda Jett [email protected] Yes
Kathleen Teuscher [email protected] Yes
Tess Kennedy [email protected] Yes
Katie Kistler [email protected] Yes
Mike Kovacs [email protected] Yes
paul reece [email protected] Yes
Arthur Hall [email protected] Yes
scott lockhart [email protected] Yes
Bruce Bauer [email protected] Yes
Michael Green [email protected] Yes
Rosty Caryk [email protected] Yes
Paul Chapman [email protected] Yes
Jason Miles [email protected] Yes
Patricia Cimpson [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Mark Bare [email protected] Yes
Amy Ross [email protected] Yes
Judi Henrich [email protected] Yes
Ray Stewart [email protected] Yes
Andrew Uy [email protected] Yes
Sheldon Funk [email protected] Yes
Ana Burns [email protected] Yes
Jeremiah Plank [email protected] Yes
HANNAH GONZALEZ [email protected] Yes
William Knapke [email protected] Yes
Sheryl Clemson [email protected] Yes
Cynthia Abdon [email protected] Yes
Kevin Roberts [email protected] Yes
Matt Perko [email protected] Yes
Jason Lykins [email protected] Yes
AVTAR MAVI [email protected] Yes
AVTAR MAVI [email protected] Yes
Fred Fisher [email protected] Yes
Brian Culler [email protected] Yes
Jerry Panzner [email protected] Yes
Heather Sloat [email protected] Yes
Heather Tahon [email protected] Yes
Aaron Houston [email protected] Yes
Henry Benedict III [email protected] Yes
Kellie Hebert [email protected] Yes
Bob Sturwold [email protected] Yes
Susan Harrier [email protected] Yes
Charles Weyland [email protected] Yes
Randy Kloberdanz [email protected] Yes
Mark Mays [email protected] Yes
Tate Tyson [email protected] Yes
Jeannette Voelzke [email protected] Yes
Alana Shockey [email protected] Yes
Steven Robinson [email protected] Yes
patrick harmon [email protected] Yes
Adam Weinandy [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Becky McClatchey [email protected] Yes
John McManus [email protected] Yes
Mark Moore [email protected] Yes
David Plante, AICP [email protected] Yes
Jim Best [email protected] Yes
Martin Booher [email protected] Yes
Bob Madej [email protected] Yes
Margaret Milman-Barris [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Chapman [email protected] Yes
Jeffrey Meinert [email protected] Yes
Tracy Behrend [email protected] Yes
Emily Scherer [email protected] Yes
Lyman Welch [email protected] Yes
David McAdams [email protected] Yes
Skyler Dewey [email protected] Yes
Debora Lasch [email protected] Yes
Richard Buda [email protected] Yes
Karen Stangl [email protected] Yes
Susan Davis [email protected] Yes
Tara Tarlton [email protected] Yes
Benjamin Fogle [email protected] Yes
Michael Young [email protected] Yes
Megan Seaman [email protected] Yes
Scott osborn [email protected] Yes
Scott Burkardt [email protected] Yes
Tracy Jamison [email protected] Yes
Tyler Padden [email protected] Yes
Brian Kunkemoeller [email protected] Yes
Roni Pyles [email protected] Yes
Ashley Clever [email protected] Yes
Patricia Dyer [email protected] Yes
Stephanie Vonderwell [email protected] Yes
Joseph Gosney [email protected] Yes
Richard Hollstegge [email protected] Yes
Jesse H. Hamman [email protected] Yes
Jillian Rhoades [email protected] Yes
jeanne Welch [email protected] Yes
Jon Wildish [email protected] Yes
Heather Avery [email protected] Yes
Wilson Rivera [email protected] Yes
Cory Gonya [email protected] Yes
Edward Pfau [email protected] Yes
Kimberly Ness [email protected] Yes
Mike Caprella [email protected] Yes
Scott Lewis [email protected] Yes
Timothy Ryan [email protected] Yes
Elizabeth Buening [email protected] Yes
Annette Nienajadly [email protected] Yes
Todd Fisher [email protected] Yes
NATHAN SCHAR [email protected] Yes
Nathan Korbas [email protected] Yes
David Demers [email protected] Yes
Chris Kahn [email protected] Yes
Frederick Slack [email protected] Yes
Eric Lopez [email protected] Yes
Norb Matthews [email protected] Yes
Aaron Smith [email protected] Yes
Al Coraz [email protected] Yes
Kari Gerwin [email protected] Yes
Mark Schmitzer [email protected] Yes
Frederick Slack [email protected] Yes
Erica Love [email protected] Yes
Joyce Arakelian [email protected] Yes
Mary Gardner [email protected] Yes
Don Nelson [email protected] Yes
Michael Williams Jr. [email protected] Yes
Anthony Nguyen [email protected] Yes
Alexis Penrod [email protected] Yes
umamaheswari palanisamy [email protected] Yes
Fred Magnus [email protected] Yes
Ahmed Badruddin [email protected] Yes
Kelly Birkenhauer [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Bruce Reye [email protected] Yes
Dennis Underwood [email protected] Yes
Nicholoas Marcelletti [email protected] Yes
Gina Suppa [email protected] Yes
Russell Dornbusch [email protected] Yes
Brad Sheely [email protected] Yes
Ryan Hansel [email protected] Yes
Brian Kissinger [email protected] Yes
Mary Novak [email protected] Yes
Roger Varner [email protected] Yes
Russell Boes [email protected] Yes
Kaniz Siddiqui [email protected] Yes
Michael Root [email protected] Yes
Giles Thrift [email protected] Yes
Donna Mellon [email protected] Yes
Gabrielle Mayse [email protected] Yes
Jason Leary [email protected] Yes
Schrenk John [email protected] Yes
David Lowery [email protected] Yes
Dominic Wray [email protected] Yes
TIM MILLER [email protected] Yes
David Plummer [email protected] Yes
Todd Danielson [email protected] Yes
Michael Busse [email protected] Yes
Angela Tipton [email protected] Yes
Larry Aldridge [email protected] Yes
Michael Carlson [email protected] Yes
Owen Karickhoff [email protected] Yes
Caroline Depp [email protected] Yes
Scott Doran [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Kathy Prowant [email protected] Yes
SHELLY COBLE [email protected] Yes
Patrick Leitch [email protected] Yes
Carrie Geiger [email protected] Yes
Jessica Greathouse [email protected] Yes
Bruce Rome [email protected] Yes
JUSTIN COOPER [email protected] Yes
Eric Montgomery [email protected] Yes
Amy Heinsman [email protected] Yes
Guy Jamesson [email protected] Yes
Roy Rakiewicz [email protected] Yes
Boyd Ramsey [email protected] Yes
Joe Williamson [email protected] Yes
Terry Nishimoto [email protected] Yes
Mark R. Keyser [email protected] Yes
Eric Coven [email protected] Yes
Ursula Musselman [email protected] Yes
Craig Pierce [email protected] Yes
Mary Woolard [email protected] Yes
Charles Farmer [email protected] Yes
Fredrick Tudor [email protected] Yes
Chris Kunkle [email protected] Yes
Keshia Kinney [email protected] Yes
Michael Franks [email protected] Yes
Albert Richnafsky [email protected] Yes
Tom McVicker [email protected] Yes
Chris Heminger [email protected] Yes
jeffrey brower [email protected] Yes
Natalie Pirvu [email protected] Yes
Sue Barto [email protected] Yes
Travis Horstman [email protected] Yes
Chad Kirchner [email protected] Yes
Robert Naftanail [email protected] Yes
LD Pierce [email protected] Yes
John Streb [email protected] Yes
Cory Vail [email protected] Yes
Nathan Vaughan [email protected] Yes
Douglas McLaughlin [email protected] Yes
Leatra Harper [email protected] Yes
Saya Qualls [email protected] Yes
Richard Kroeger [email protected] Yes
Marla Kennedy [email protected] Yes
Kathleen Kenyon [email protected] Yes
Bridget Bulthaup [email protected] Yes
Thomas Clemensen [email protected] Yes
Christine Morgan [email protected] Yes
Deb Cook [email protected] Yes
Shawn Kirkbride [email protected] Yes
Chris Bradley [email protected] Yes
Colin Johnson [email protected] Yes
Daniel Tupa [email protected] Yes
Thomas Schaffer [email protected] Yes
Stephanie Singer [email protected] Yes
Andy Archer [email protected] Yes
Linda Graham [email protected] Yes
Scott Walton [email protected] Yes
Jacob Twyman [email protected] Yes
Maureen McEnery [email protected] Yes
Shelley Lee [email protected] Yes
Julie Rody [email protected] Yes
Rod Lynch [email protected] Yes
Vince Waggle [email protected] Yes
Ann Schweitzer [email protected] Yes
Jarrod Yost [email protected] Yes
Mark Schott [email protected] Yes
Pamela Phillips [email protected] Yes
Allison Jeffers [email protected] Yes
Chad Eisenman [email protected] Yes
Heather McBurney [email protected] Yes
Katie Milk [email protected] Yes
Julie Pecoraro [email protected] Yes
Dan Woods [email protected] Yes
Daisy Childs [email protected] Yes
sara peters [email protected] Yes
David Rogers [email protected] Yes
Meagan Moore [email protected] Yes
Leigh Ann McCulla [email protected] Yes
Anthony Branham [email protected] Yes
S Smith [email protected] Yes
mike jividen [email protected] Yes
Jeffrey Keller [email protected] Yes
Thomas Poleck [email protected] Yes
Rebecca Garner [email protected] Yes
Mark Stammen [email protected] Yes
Scott Blanchard [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Helman [email protected] Yes
TARA BARRETT [email protected] Yes
Tabitha Koger [email protected] Yes
Brett Altier [email protected] Yes
Jessica Callaway [email protected] Yes
Steve Swatzel [email protected] Yes
Jake Lubbers [email protected] Yes
Rochelle Laipply [email protected] Yes
Justin Jent [email protected] Yes
Anthony Reitano [email protected] Yes
sheila rayman [email protected] Yes
Thomas Coleman [email protected] Yes
Daniel Jelinek [email protected] Yes
Angela Defenbaugh [email protected] Yes
Leah Zedella [email protected] Yes
Sheri Bussard [email protected] Yes
Jeffrey Thompson [email protected] Yes
William Stewart [email protected] Yes
Jeannette Voelzke [email protected] Yes
Jerry Armstrong [email protected] Yes
Steven Brown [email protected] Yes
Robb Beckstedt [email protected] Yes
Todd Smith [email protected] Yes
James Dozier [email protected] Yes
John Hannah [email protected] Yes
Rachel Seitz [email protected] Yes
Heather Maher [email protected] Yes
Allison Jeffers [email protected] Yes
Jim Cook [email protected] Yes
Steve Gutekunst [email protected] Yes
Ashley Ward [email protected] Yes
Leslie Williams [email protected] Yes
Jenn Klein [email protected] Yes
Lucinda Yinger [email protected] Yes
Wade Leimeister [email protected] Yes
Rick Coley [email protected] Yes
Scott Haney [email protected] Yes
Kathleen Temple [email protected] Yes
Keith Bush [email protected] Yes
Linda Sekrua [email protected] Yes
Ronald Fauls [email protected] Yes
Tiffany Taylor [email protected] Yes
Bill McIntire [email protected] Yes
Vaughn Kaufmann [email protected] Yes
kathy Gagin [email protected] Yes
Ray Stewart [email protected] Yes
Dee Shepperd [email protected] Yes
Michael Jones [email protected] Yes
Robert Canter [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Vatter [email protected] Yes
Michael Wigal [email protected] Yes
Jason E Figgins [email protected] Yes
Chris Brausch [email protected] Yes
Ron Williams [email protected] Yes
Jay Simonds [email protected] Yes
Ben Wetherell [email protected] Yes
Richard Cap [email protected] Yes
Karla Scheck [email protected] Yes
Thomas Carozza [email protected] Yes
Gina Graf [email protected] Yes
Collette Clinkscale [email protected] Yes
Christopher White [email protected] Yes
james porter [email protected] Yes
Dr. F. Charles Hart [email protected] Yes
Nathan Barr [email protected] Yes
Laura Romeo [email protected] Yes
Nicole Olin [email protected] Yes
Andrew Lehman [email protected] Yes
Pete Myhrum [email protected] Yes
Deborah Dandrea [email protected] Yes
Greg Snowden [email protected] Yes
Alexis Black [email protected] Yes
Sean Peffer [email protected] Yes
Michael Heiney [email protected] Yes
Mick Micacchion [email protected] Yes
Kathrine Mattison [email protected] Yes
Jonathan Cameron [email protected] Yes
Darrell S. Hollon [email protected] Yes
Tom Jedlinsky [email protected] Yes
Ebie Holst [email protected] Yes
Bill Stout [email protected] Yes
chad payton [email protected] Yes
Julianne Kurdila [email protected] Yes
Justin Campbell [email protected] Yes
Robert Moormann [email protected] Yes
Guy Jamesson [email protected] Yes
Ed Shadrick [email protected] Yes
Mike Eagan [email protected] Yes
Bruce Saddle [email protected] Yes
Mary Ann Nolan [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Fenderbosch [email protected] Yes
Greg Smith [email protected] Yes
Ben Pfefferle [email protected] Yes
Stephanie Kunze [email protected] Yes
Lance Langan [email protected] Yes
Doug Haynam [email protected] Yes
Amy Lawson [email protected] Yes
Jeff Grandstaff [email protected] Yes
Richard Kleinert Jr [email protected] Yes
Don SICKELS [email protected] Yes
Melissa Clark-Dross [email protected] Yes
Kim Hildreth [email protected] Yes
Heidi Griesmer [email protected] Yes
Heather Lauer [email protected] Yes
Vincent Roberts [email protected] Yes
Gina Thompson [email protected] Yes
Jarrod Allen [email protected] Yes
Teresa Breckenridge [email protected] Yes
Baba Yahaya [email protected] Yes
george elmaraghy [email protected] Yes
Gerard Morgan [email protected] Yes
Kelly Thiel [email protected] Yes
Lisa Pine [email protected] Yes
Toby Rupp [email protected] Yes
Laurie Carter [email protected] Yes
Vincent Roberts [email protected] Yes
JOE WOODLEY [email protected] Yes
Mike Turnbull [email protected] Yes
David Miller [email protected] Yes
Jim Alexander [email protected] Yes
Bobbie Beshara [email protected] Yes
Dane Vandewater [email protected] Yes
Taylor RUSSELL [email protected] Yes
Dennis Garbig [email protected] Yes
Marta Nelson [email protected] Yes
Joan Manzo [email protected] Yes
Bill Wakenhaw [email protected] Yes
Johnson Nathan [email protected] Yes
Trent Dougherty [email protected] Yes
Hallie Serazin [email protected] Yes
Adam Wilford [email protected] Yes
Daniel Casciato [email protected] Yes
Michael Weinstein [email protected] Yes
Amelia Harris [email protected] Yes
John Rhoads [email protected] Yes
Travis Hahn [email protected] Yes
Gretchen Addington [email protected] Yes
Mark Wincek [email protected] Yes
Anthony Rehrmann [email protected] Yes
Dennis Madorma [email protected] Yes
Jeff Lamson [email protected] Yes
Greg Burks [email protected] Yes
Daniel Coleman [email protected] Yes
Michael Schmit [email protected] Yes
Angela Layton [email protected] Yes
Karl Gebhardt [email protected] Yes
David Armstrong [email protected] Yes
Chad Kobelt [email protected] Yes
Domenica McClintock [email protected] Yes
James Hauck [email protected] Yes
shawn fitzgerald [email protected] Yes
George Young [email protected] Yes
David Bell [email protected] Yes
Justin Harris [email protected] Yes
Joseph Jerdonek [email protected] Yes
Donna Carver [email protected] Yes
Mark Apel [email protected] Yes
Michael Knox [email protected] Yes
marilyn k hunt [email protected] Yes
Lisa Rotenberry [email protected] Yes
Chris Schraff [email protected] Yes
JOE SHAW [email protected] Yes
Thomas Devault [email protected] Yes
David Northrop [email protected] Yes
Patrick Higgins [email protected] Yes
Bozana Lundberg [email protected] Yes
John Shimshock [email protected] Yes
Joseph Borzillo [email protected] Yes
Katie Wolff [email protected] Yes
Jesse Daubert [email protected] Yes
Jason Shank [email protected] Yes
Laura Arenschield [email protected] Yes
jacqueline armstrong [email protected] Yes
T Brad Ray [email protected] Yes
Heather Dardinger [email protected] Yes
Lisa Ramsey [email protected] Yes
Lauren Goff [email protected] Yes
Jason Earley [email protected] Yes
Matt Prickett [email protected] Yes
Christy Frost [email protected] Yes
Nancy Timmons [email protected] Yes
Joshua Noble [email protected] Yes
Matt Prickett [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Case [email protected] Yes
Mary Sharrett [email protected] Yes
Paul Stork [email protected] Yes
laura comek [email protected] Yes
John Prater [email protected] Yes
J Blair [email protected] Yes
Nate Rozic [email protected] Yes
Keith Collins [email protected] Yes
Tim Warren [email protected] Yes
Charles Ohrstedt [email protected] Yes
Michael Welch [email protected] Yes
Nicolas Sarkany [email protected] Yes
George Irvin, Jr. [email protected] Yes
Jerry Zielke [email protected] Yes
Sarah Herbert [email protected] Yes
John Gondek [email protected] Yes
steve samuels [email protected] Yes
james porter [email protected] Yes
Caron Koll [email protected] Yes
Jillian Cameron [email protected] Yes
Jason Ericson [email protected] Yes
Amy Gobel [email protected] Yes
Thomas Bauer [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Miller [email protected] Yes
Matthew Miller [email protected] Yes
John Shufflebarger [email protected] Yes
Jordan Hepler [email protected] Yes
Donald Daley [email protected] Yes
William Long [email protected] Yes
Michael Elliott [email protected] Yes
Kim Carter [email protected] Yes
Matt Lynch [email protected] Yes
Karen Keil [email protected] Yes
dave heimrick [email protected] Yes
BILL DICKINSON [email protected] Yes
Sarah Harvey [email protected] Yes
Jeff Yohe [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Kenneth Mann [email protected] Yes
Kenneth Yee [email protected] Yes
Kathleen Bradley [email protected] Yes
Emir Wadah [email protected] Yes
Maureen Stanton [email protected] Yes
Glenn Weist [email protected] Yes
Wayne Brenner [email protected] Yes
Steve Hill [email protected] Yes
Judy Carley [email protected] Yes
Brian Schultz [email protected] Yes
Michelle Hall [email protected] Yes
Bridget Morris [email protected] Yes
Travis Bayes [email protected] Yes
Samuel Jeyanayagam [email protected] Yes
Aaryn Camacho [email protected] Yes
Mark Drake [email protected] Yes
Matt Eslich [email protected] Yes
Elizabeth Sajewski [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Janowiecki [email protected] Yes
Michael Weinstein [email protected] Yes
Amber Gresh [email protected] Yes
Brian O'Grady [email protected] Yes
Casimir Rogala [email protected] Yes
Frank Skomorucha [email protected] Yes
Barbara Cox [email protected] Yes
Daniel Collins [email protected] Yes
David Davis [email protected] Yes
John Kessler [email protected] Yes
Jim Ramsey [email protected] Yes
Kristen Trolio [email protected] Yes
Mick Micacchion [email protected] Yes
Melinda Warner [email protected] Yes
Ryan Tekac [email protected] Yes
Sonya Mottram [email protected] Yes
Gabriel Capan [email protected] Yes
Michael Bump [email protected] Yes
Darren Mullins [email protected] Yes
Yi Wang [email protected] Yes
Glorianna Corman [email protected] Yes
Cheryl Shields [email protected] Yes
MICHAEL DESGRANGES [email protected] Yes
David Walker [email protected] Yes
Ralph Wiley [email protected] Yes
amy toohey [email protected] Yes
Veysel "Firat" Sever [email protected] Yes
Stephen Beckman [email protected] Yes
EMILY DIPPOLD [email protected] Yes
Dave Mathews [email protected] Yes
steve sturbaum [email protected] Yes
Matt Hoopes [email protected] Yes
Christie Ruffner [email protected] Yes
Edward Tackett [email protected] Yes
John Seymour [email protected] Yes
Ann Maczuga [email protected] Yes
Mark Buckley [email protected] Yes
Marissa Albright [email protected] Yes
Steven Arnold [email protected] Yes
Bryan Barker [email protected] Yes
James Lavrich [email protected] Yes
Charlotte Hickcox [email protected] Yes
city manager [email protected] Yes
James Chambers [email protected] Yes
Owen Cumiskey [email protected] Yes
Sharon Rutherford [email protected] Yes
Chris Suits [email protected] Yes
Gary Raymond [email protected] Yes
Michael Johnson [email protected] Yes
Heather McFeeters [email protected] Yes
Nick Agins [email protected] Yes
Thomas Montgomery [email protected] Yes
Sandra Bridenstine [email protected] Yes
Shawen Jenkins [email protected] Yes
james vaigl [email protected] Yes
Barbara McKean [email protected] Yes
Marvin E. Banks III [email protected] Yes
Jenny Morgan [email protected] Yes
Charles Willoughby [email protected] Yes
Chad Martin [email protected] Yes
Ryan Odendahl [email protected] Yes
Bridget Musumeci [email protected] Yes
Liz Marble [email protected] Yes
Duane Kenyon [email protected] Yes
Amy Harwood [email protected] Yes
JAYNE HAVERFIELD [email protected] Yes
Daniel Mix [email protected] Yes
Jonah Anderson [email protected] Yes
Holly Boyer [email protected] Yes
Luz Slauter [email protected] Yes
Julia Harber [email protected] Yes
Ana Slocum [email protected] Yes
Bradley Scott [email protected] Yes
Bill Beran [email protected] Yes
john pelton [email protected] Yes
Katie Wolf [email protected] Yes
Scott Whitacre [email protected] Yes
Steve Shoop [email protected] Yes
Mitchel Strain [email protected] Yes
Diane Keith [email protected] Yes
Stephanie Furnis [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Chris Carr [email protected] Yes
Hannah Kalk [email protected] Yes
David Desha [email protected] Yes
Mark McCabe [email protected] Yes
Kavalec Tiffani [email protected] Yes
Rachel Goodpaster [email protected] Yes
Shawn Mendt [email protected] Yes
Vincent Diviacchi [email protected] Yes
Emily Palmer [email protected] Yes
Julie Weatherington-Rice [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Weimer [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Mona Cook-Haught [email protected] Yes
Roxanne Webb [email protected] Yes
Mike Cope [email protected] Yes
Kevin Markus [email protected] Yes
Aaron Friend [email protected] Yes
Heriberto Tello [email protected] Yes
Serge Labbe [email protected] Yes
Karen Fields [email protected] Yes
ALLISON CARMICHAEL [email protected] Yes
Rick Harding [email protected] Yes
Randy Banette [email protected] Yes
Gary White [email protected] Yes
Shavonne Gordon [email protected] Yes
Michael Jones [email protected] Yes
Ciara Seitz [email protected] Yes
Michael Thelen [email protected] Yes
Thomas Flippo [email protected] Yes
Bill Burns [email protected] Yes
Jeff Nottingham [email protected] Yes
meghan blake [email protected] Yes
Julie Miller [email protected] Yes
Roger Baker [email protected] Yes
Bruce Bauer [email protected] Yes
Pattama Ulrich [email protected] Yes
Kellee Fletcher [email protected] Yes
Ralph Baker [email protected] Yes
Laura DeYoung [email protected] Yes
Brian Searcy [email protected] Yes
Ellias van Ekelenburg [email protected] Yes
Michael Brooks [email protected] Yes
Burbridge Cook [email protected] Yes
Tyler Pigam [email protected] Yes
Russell Thompson [email protected] Yes
Gerald Baum [email protected] Yes
William Simpson [email protected] Yes
B. J. Seagrist [email protected] Yes
jodie opie [email protected] Yes
Chris Stewart [email protected] Yes
Nick Iannaggi [email protected] Yes
Vicki Greene [email protected] Yes
Andy Coleman [email protected] Yes
John White [email protected] Yes
Gary Clough [email protected] Yes
Andrea Odendahl [email protected] Yes
Trevor Jones [email protected] Yes
Kyle Fannin [email protected] Yes
Michael Okamoto [email protected] Yes
Todd Haunhorst [email protected] Yes
Reed Sirak [email protected] Yes
Rodney Lagerstam [email protected] Yes
John Quinlisk [email protected] Yes
Joseph Maule [email protected] Yes
Elizabeth Cross [email protected] Yes
Jodi Keller [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Avellana [email protected] Yes
Amy Ross [email protected] Yes
Kyle Hoyng [email protected] Yes
Shaina Reed [email protected] Yes
Jamie Apt [email protected] Yes
Amber Snavley [email protected] Yes
Wesley Heefner [email protected] Yes
Josh McKinney [email protected] Yes
amy toohey [email protected] Yes
James Branson [email protected] Yes
Abbey Mahler [email protected] Yes
william adams [email protected] Yes
John Wohlleber [email protected] Yes
Scott Higgins [email protected] Yes
Andrew Caloway [email protected] Yes
TOM Harvey [email protected] Yes
Bryant Kiedrowski [email protected] Yes
Mark Slavens [email protected] Yes
Brian Quinney [email protected] Yes
Bryan Michael [email protected] Yes
Michael Herringshaw [email protected] Yes
Timothy Higgins [email protected] Yes
Robert Carpenter [email protected] Yes
Richard Shirk [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
An Lott [email protected] Yes
Bob Hockstok [email protected] Yes
michelle nochta [email protected] Yes
Mary Woolard [email protected] Yes
Tanner Weekley [email protected] Yes
Susan Sevy [email protected] Yes
Karla Scheck [email protected] Yes
Trevor Jones [email protected] Yes
Jon Mangles [email protected] Yes
michael spyra [email protected] Yes
Pam Hoover [email protected] Yes
Mary Helen Smith [email protected] Yes
Robert Dillman [email protected] Yes
Matt Kaminski [email protected] Yes
Robert Scoble [email protected] Yes
Lorin Kinney [email protected] Yes
Michael Pickens [email protected] Yes
Robert Higgs [email protected] Yes
Joey Van Skaik [email protected] Yes
u u [email protected] Yes
NATHANIEL/SHANNON STEPPS [email protected] Yes
Robert Wright [email protected] Yes
Kristopher Knue [email protected] Yes
Randy Perry [email protected] Yes
Aaron Gekle [email protected] Yes
Stefanie Frank [email protected] Yes
Tyler Padden [email protected] Yes
Jeff Smith [email protected] Yes
Joseph Cottrill [email protected] Yes
Michael Gray [email protected] Yes
Eric Foster [email protected] Yes
Stephen Bailey [email protected] Yes
Sarah Lynn [email protected] Yes
Marc Stone [email protected] Yes
Laura McKee [email protected] Yes
Davida Felix [email protected] Yes
RICK MILLER [email protected] Yes
Hector Escobar [email protected] Yes
Jeremy Kinney [email protected] Yes
Sarah Vondracek [email protected] Yes
Robin Reames [email protected] Yes
Rick Paul [email protected] Yes
Gerald Hetterscheidt [email protected] Yes
Annaliese Blankenship [email protected] Yes
Mindy Dilsaver [email protected] Yes
Jacob Lyndon [email protected] Yes
Jason Kerr [email protected] Yes
Orin McMonigle [email protected] Yes
Amy Bauer [email protected] Yes
Harry Kallipolitis [email protected] Yes
Chris Yoder [email protected] Yes
Kenneth Hardesty [email protected] Yes
Kathy Grattino [email protected] Yes
News Department [email protected] Yes
Nick Basile [email protected] Yes
Maggie Borland [email protected] Yes
Kevin Straubhaar [email protected] Yes
Robert Stoerkel [email protected] Yes
Sandra Muehling [email protected] Yes
Craig Suehrstedt [email protected] Yes
Megan Borror [email protected] Yes
Richard Hill [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Brown [email protected] Yes
Mandy Bishop [email protected] Yes
Karen Bezoski-Davis [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Roberts [email protected] Yes
wes douglas [email protected] Yes
Lance Kraft [email protected] Yes
Linda Smith [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
John Burglund [email protected] Yes
Amy Toohey [email protected] Yes
Dean Throckmorton III [email protected] Yes
ALBERT DANTZER [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Sherry Becker-Gorby [email protected] Yes
Tammy Bukach [email protected] Yes
Jason Eisenhuth [email protected] Yes
R Harvey Simmons [email protected] Yes
Heather Orr [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Davis [email protected] Yes
Henry Rodriguez [email protected] Yes
Andrea Maguire [email protected] Yes
Jim Kinninger [email protected] Yes
Franco Noce [email protected] Yes
Glenn Miller [email protected] Yes
Karen Burson [email protected] Yes
Ryan Wallace [email protected] Yes
Vincent Messerly [email protected] Yes
Derrick Cooper [email protected] Yes
Mark Allen [email protected] Yes
Doug Darrah [email protected] Yes
Rick Carleski [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
john roszmann [email protected] Yes
Catherine Cupal [email protected] Yes
Chris Guingrich [email protected] Yes
kristen schawalder [email protected] Yes
Craig Lefevre [email protected] Yes
Eve Hochhauser [email protected] Yes
Dan Harris [email protected] Yes
Robert Wright [email protected] Yes
Angela Kattmann [email protected] Yes
David Russell [email protected] Yes
Nichole Sajdak [email protected] Yes
Luke Soposki [email protected] Yes
Dave Miller [email protected] Yes
Gregory Frenk [email protected] Yes
Lauren Karch [email protected] Yes
Susan Engle [email protected] Yes
Donald Feller [email protected] Yes
Joe Reolfi [email protected] Yes
Keiven Cosgriff [email protected] Yes
joe jellick [email protected] Yes
Kathy Davis [email protected] Yes
Laura DeVaudreuil [email protected] Yes
John Miller [email protected] Yes
Sylvan Long [email protected] Yes
Mazeika Sullivan [email protected] Yes
Carol Prior [email protected] Yes
Heidi Heuer [email protected] Yes
Amanda Roberts [email protected] Yes
Ryan Deer [email protected] Yes
Laurie Webb [email protected] Yes
Della Ridley [email protected] Yes
Joe Cook [email protected] Yes
Adam Sackenheim [email protected] Yes
Jessica Harley [email protected] Yes
JUSTIN CONKLE [email protected] Yes
D Fenbert [email protected] Yes
Celia S Jackson [email protected] Yes
Laura Calvert [email protected] Yes
Matt Witter [email protected] Yes
Bruce Van Scoy [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Keith Schmidt [email protected] Yes
Kristin Long [email protected] Yes
John Pecora [email protected] Yes
Rita Ontko [email protected] Yes
Lynn Morsch [email protected] Yes
Paul Kovalcik [email protected] Yes
Jim Rush [email protected] Yes
Andrew Balazs [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Daphne Grimm [email protected] Yes
Eric Schmidt [email protected] Yes
Joel Moore [email protected] Yes
Cassandra Austin [email protected] Yes
James Mccoy [email protected] Yes
donavan turner [email protected] Yes
Mark Swiger [email protected] Yes
Jeff Smith [email protected] Yes
James Hogan [email protected] Yes
Tess Sabo [email protected] Yes
Karen Winters [email protected] Yes
Lisa Fishbeck [email protected] Yes
Elizabeth Workman [email protected] Yes
Vince Landino [email protected] Yes
Lawrence Fulton [email protected] Yes
Brian Wellman [email protected] Yes
Michael Bajorek [email protected] Yes
Stephanie Smith [email protected] Yes
Joni Lung [email protected] Yes
Thomas Boecher [email protected] Yes
Marki Johnson [email protected] Yes
Ronald Kastner [email protected] Yes
Aaron Osborn [email protected] Yes
Mark Livengood [email protected] Yes
Jennifer English [email protected] Yes
Susan Brown [email protected] Yes
Jerry Shofner [email protected] Yes
Todd Brandenburg [email protected] Yes
James Via [email protected] Yes
Cory Bonifas [email protected] Yes
Adrienne Nemura [email protected] Yes
Amy Owens [email protected] Yes
Charles Petty [email protected] Yes
Bridget Hatcher [email protected] Yes
Cheryl Myers [email protected] Yes
Maria Cruset [email protected] Yes
Peter Park [email protected] Yes
James Fath [email protected] Yes
Mary Ann Driscoll [email protected] Yes
matthew beard [email protected] Yes
Paul Anderson [email protected] Yes
Vincent Attardi [email protected] Yes
Melissa Breitenbach [email protected] Yes
NIck Coppage [email protected] Yes
Kathleen Dunlap [email protected] Yes
Jonathan Farrell [email protected] Yes
Erik Flickinger [email protected] Yes
Dan Giannamore [email protected] Yes
Michael Hatten [email protected] Yes
Sara Kuhn [email protected] Yes
Teagan Loew [email protected] Yes
Tara Meek [email protected] Yes
Chantil Milam [email protected] Yes
Judith Mitchell [email protected] Yes
Matthew Perlik [email protected] Yes
Mike Pettegrew [email protected] Yes
Jeff Rice [email protected] Yes
John Stark [email protected] Yes
Elayna Stierhoff [email protected] Yes
Rachel Taulbee [email protected] Yes
Cy Whitson [email protected] Yes
Carol Siegley [email protected] Yes
Allamon Heather [email protected] Yes
Scott Blanchard [email protected] Yes
Dan Wise [email protected] Yes
Nick Basta [email protected] Yes
Kimberly Reeder [email protected] Yes
Tom Coleman [email protected] Yes
Denise Marmer [email protected] Yes
Raymond Baker [email protected] Yes
Lauren Herron [email protected] Yes
Gary Amendola [email protected] Yes
Scott Shrader [email protected] Yes
Lindsey Branham [email protected] Yes
isaac garrison [email protected] Yes
Kristin Miller [email protected] Yes
Chris Brookbank [email protected] Yes
Tally Hoax [email protected] Yes
Jurate Virkutyte [email protected] Yes
Rose Aures [email protected] Yes
Elizabeth Toot-Levy [email protected] Yes
Eric Myers [email protected] Yes
Michelle Wazny [email protected] Yes
Carol McKnight [email protected] Yes
Sarah Gregg [email protected] Yes
John Seeley [email protected] Yes
Victor Reverendo [email protected] Yes
Daniel Patterson [email protected] Yes
debora roth [email protected] Yes
Doug McLaughlin [email protected] Yes
Shaina Marfil [email protected] Yes
Terry O'Malley [email protected] Yes
Darla Kuri [email protected] Yes
Rob Lanning [email protected] Yes
Brandon Arling [email protected] Yes
tyerrick Campbell [email protected] Yes
Bob O'Bryan [email protected] Yes
James Broz [email protected] Yes
Don Johnson [email protected] Yes
Robert Cherry [email protected] Yes
Adrienne Earley [email protected] Yes
Daniel Grenier [email protected] Yes
Alexandria Fair [email protected] Yes
Brooke Frusher [email protected] Yes
David Thomas [email protected] Yes
Trisha Cartmell [email protected] Yes
Julie Nieset [email protected] Yes
Kyrie Boisture [email protected] Yes
Orin McMonigle [email protected] Yes
Jeffrey Weis [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
john keefer [email protected] Yes
Kathy Strahm [email protected] Yes
Sam Isaacks [email protected] Yes
Angela Holmes [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Barbara Kewish [email protected] Yes
Summer Davis [email protected] Yes
ynpglobal ynpglobal [email protected] Yes
Carrieanne Mcconnell [email protected] Yes
Ric Queen [email protected] Yes
Sandra Eberts [email protected] Yes
Zachary Hamilton [email protected] Yes
Yismaw Desta [email protected] Yes
Clorissa Rose [email protected] Yes
Bill Chambers [email protected] Yes
Terry Dalrymple [email protected] Yes
Laurie Lipely [email protected] Yes
laura goldfarb [email protected] Yes
Jacqueline Bartek [email protected] Yes
Ann Schoolcraft [email protected] Yes
Stephanie Snedden [email protected] Yes
Gary Davis [email protected] Yes
Benjamin Stratton [email protected] Yes
Andrew Catanzarite [email protected] Yes
Bayo Akintola [email protected] Yes
Rick Schaffer [email protected] Yes
Gary Donat [email protected] Yes
Donald Moline [email protected] Yes
Madeline Fleisher [email protected] Yes
Barry Franz [email protected] Yes
Gary Adkins [email protected] Yes
Joni Willhite [email protected] Yes
Nate Wanner [email protected] Yes
Richard Dils [email protected] Yes
Daniel Havalo [email protected] Yes
Larry Hensley [email protected] Yes
Joseph Bates [email protected] Yes
Patrick Hastings [email protected] Yes
Marisa Logan [email protected] Yes
Desiree Loveless [email protected] Yes
Niki Lemin [email protected] Yes
Vaughn Klingler [email protected] Yes
Allen Aspacher [email protected] Yes
Linda Sanchez [email protected] Yes
George Elmaraghy [email protected] Yes
Judith George [email protected] Yes
Ross Smith [email protected] Yes
Steve Watzeck [email protected] Yes
Barry Grisez [email protected] Yes
Steven Austin [email protected] Yes
Alex Carlile [email protected] Yes
Karl Craven [email protected] Yes
Shawn Reinhart [email protected] Yes
Gary Carlin [email protected] Yes
Henry Boucherle [email protected] Yes
Tim Schnieber [email protected] Yes
Carolyn Rummell [email protected] Yes
Mark Faulhaber [email protected] Yes
Lindsey Polichuk [email protected] Yes
huyen nguyen [email protected] Yes
Skapof Mary [email protected] Yes
Philip Baker [email protected] Yes
Kelly Beavers [email protected] Yes
Linda Graham [email protected] Yes
Tammy Jett [email protected] Yes
Michael Mccormick [email protected] Yes
David Ramby [email protected] Yes
Thomas Wenger [email protected] Yes
gary zavatsky [email protected] Yes
John Bridenbaugh [email protected] Yes
Peter Keck [email protected] Yes
Amy Pursley [email protected] Yes
Rachel Konrad [email protected] Yes
David Canavan [email protected] Yes
Kathleen Smith [email protected] Yes
Jeff Yerian [email protected] Yes
patrick kelley [email protected] Yes
John Ellison [email protected] Yes
Robert Meeker [email protected] Yes
Kristine Schnoes [email protected] Yes
Joanna Bambeck [email protected] Yes
Steven Wolfe [email protected] Yes
Kelly Birkenhauer [email protected] Yes
Sheri Bussard [email protected] Yes
Patty Eaton [email protected] Yes
William J. Zawiski [email protected] Yes
Marion Smith [email protected] Yes
Hall brian [email protected] Yes
Dan Dudley [email protected] Yes
Mathew Repasky [email protected] Yes
Jeff Cox [email protected] Yes
Martin Hilovsky [email protected] Yes
Mike Gallaway [email protected] Yes
Heather Sexton [email protected] Yes
Blake Burchell [email protected] Yes
Brian Yates [email protected] Yes
Joe Jackson [email protected] Yes
GERMAN HEREDIA [email protected] Yes
Daniel Wing, Sr [email protected] Yes
Blake Traxler [email protected] Yes
Hugh Caperton [email protected] Yes
Jackie Stewart [email protected] Yes
Andrea Barnes [email protected] Yes
Ron Jackson [email protected] Yes
D'Agnese Daniel [email protected] Yes
Lincoln Scott [email protected] Yes
Justin Angel [email protected] Yes
ARINZE NWAMBA [email protected] Yes
Mark Loeb [email protected] Yes
Jason Fyffe [email protected] Yes
Joyce Lotspih [email protected] Yes
Jeri Elder [email protected] Yes
Elizabeth Wick [email protected] Yes
Monti Zimmerman [email protected] Yes
Mark Hutson [email protected] Yes
Rick Tibbitts [email protected] Yes
Tracy Freeman [email protected] Yes
Susan Brown [email protected] Yes
John Heer [email protected] Yes
Margaret Carrillo-Sheridan [email protected] Yes
Rodney Maier [email protected] Yes
Joseph Green [email protected] Yes
Jim Ridge [email protected] Yes
Andrew Patterson [email protected] Yes
Rex Green [email protected] Yes
Gregory Alsbach [email protected] Yes
Shannen Green [email protected] Yes
Geeta Goled [email protected] Yes
Bruce Koehler [email protected] Yes
Martha Camlin [email protected] Yes
Heather Kovach [email protected] Yes
Walter Bredel [email protected] Yes
Tamar Gontovnik [email protected] Yes
Lauren Drumm [email protected] Yes
Dave Boeckman [email protected] Yes
Dan Lark [email protected] Yes
Nathan Zink [email protected] Yes
Nicholas Howard [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Tinkler [email protected] Yes
Village of Barnesville [email protected] Yes
Tamara Domain [email protected] Yes
Phil Rhodes [email protected] Yes
Wayne R Ruckman [email protected] Yes
Gregory Stewart [email protected] Yes
Amy Louwers [email protected] Yes
Jessica Reece [email protected] Yes
Tim Guider [email protected] Yes
Robert Betz [email protected] Yes
Angela Tipton [email protected] Yes
Garr Uram [email protected] Yes
george cummings [email protected] Yes
Bo Harden [email protected] Yes
Joyce Marzano [email protected] Yes
Andrew Oliver [email protected] Yes
Jason Belcher [email protected] Yes
Jarod Cook [email protected] Yes
Barbara James-Puls [email protected] Yes
hope taft [email protected] Yes
Amy Wright [email protected] Yes
Amy Corsbie [email protected] Yes
Erik Sims [email protected] Yes
Heather Breitigam [email protected] Yes
Jeff Seal [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Zavoda [email protected] Yes
John Vergis [email protected] Yes
Joseph Hart [email protected] Yes
Keith Held [email protected] Yes
Kevin Walters [email protected] Yes
Michelle Liette [email protected] Yes
Mike Yoder [email protected] Yes
Paul Huwer [email protected] Yes
Randy Parker [email protected] Yes
Rick Caldwell [email protected] Yes
Ryan Reed [email protected] Yes
Stephanie Madden [email protected] Yes
Susan Mcvety [email protected] Yes
Victor Canter [email protected] Yes
Peter Precario [email protected] Yes
WARREN YAMBOR [email protected] Yes
Ryan Yackee [email protected] Yes
Christina Kuchle [email protected] Yes
ll oo [email protected] Yes
James Agin [email protected] Yes
James Weaver [email protected] Yes
marcus benson [email protected] Yes
Thomas Frey [email protected] Yes
David E. Crouch [email protected] Yes
Wayne Awald [email protected] Yes
Blair Everett [email protected] Yes
Kent Lewis [email protected] Yes
Gillian Kreager [email protected] Yes
Steven Webb [email protected] Yes
Tim Southards [email protected] Yes
Cheryl Hiatt [email protected] Yes
Jason Popiel [email protected] Yes
Patti Alderson [email protected] Yes
Becky Simpson [email protected] Yes
Winslow Christopher [email protected] Yes
Greg Smith [email protected] Yes
Roar Jenny [email protected] Yes
Jamie Kochensparger [email protected] Yes
Nabors Shannon [email protected] Yes
Charles Kessler [email protected] Yes
Mark Hunt [email protected] Yes
Hannah Kalk [email protected] Yes
Jessie Balmert [email protected] Yes
michael McGlothin [email protected] Yes
Richard O'Neal [email protected] Yes
Angelika Farina [email protected] Yes
Becky Stoller [email protected] Yes
Aaron Sommer [email protected] Yes
Bill Sanor [email protected] Yes
Ryan Conkel [email protected] Yes
Nancy Adkins [email protected] Yes
Christine Schirra [email protected] Yes
Fran Mentch [email protected] Yes
Joe Heilweck [email protected] Yes
Steve Shaltry [email protected] Yes
Theresa Lane [email protected] Yes
tyler distl [email protected] Yes
James Connon [email protected] Yes
Casey Elliott [email protected] Yes
Don Sherman [email protected] Yes
Suzanne Chubb [email protected] Yes
Jim Hall [email protected] Yes
Travis Capper [email protected] Yes
Brent Eysenbach [email protected] Yes
Katherine holmok [email protected] Yes
Phil Lewis [email protected] Yes
Samantha Miller [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Baker [email protected] Yes
Pete Mathews [email protected] Yes
Antonia Borek [email protected] Yes
Steven Johnson [email protected] Yes
David Bonistall [email protected] Yes
Stanley Roberts, Jr [email protected] Yes
Rao Chitikela [email protected] Yes
Shannon Pratt [email protected] Yes
Kayla Haman [email protected] Yes
Bob Allen [email protected] Yes
Colin Flaherty [email protected] Yes
Bradley Eisenhauer [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Pamela Farwick [email protected] Yes
Albertson Kathy [email protected] Yes
Eldridge Smith Jr. [email protected] Yes
James Wallick [email protected] Yes
Lee Beck [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Lake [email protected] Yes
Debbie Biszaha [email protected] Yes
anthony dattilo [email protected] Yes
Ying Hong [email protected] Yes
William Wallace [email protected] Yes
Todd Bort [email protected] Yes
Sara Wenger [email protected] Yes
Anand Yegnan [email protected] Yes
Eugene Toy [email protected] Yes
Anne Fruth [email protected] Yes
Troy Chapman [email protected] Yes
Larry Barker [email protected] Yes
Michelle Horner [email protected] Yes
anthony spencer [email protected] Yes
ELIZABETH MILLER [email protected] Yes
Jill Thornberry [email protected] Yes
Adam Lehmann [email protected] Yes
Ashley Bair [email protected] Yes
Warren Barnes [email protected] Yes
Scott King [email protected] Yes
Becky Humphreys [email protected] Yes
Carrie Millward [email protected] Yes
Amber Botkin [email protected] Yes
Julie Casey [email protected] Yes
Kevin Culligan [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Rock [email protected] Yes
Chris Knopp [email protected] Yes
Adam Ward [email protected] Yes
Francisco Ramos [email protected] Yes
Jeff Woolley [email protected] Yes
jennifer marriott [email protected] Yes
Kyle Kaminski [email protected] Yes
Megan Smith [email protected] Yes
Haishan Piao [email protected] Yes
Marc Reeves [email protected] Yes
Warren Schlatter [email protected] Yes
Eric Haddix [email protected] Yes
Damien Beebout [email protected] Yes
Nicholas Daunhauer [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Krista Boling [email protected] Yes
Brian Barnhart [email protected] Yes
Matthew Hrubey [email protected] Yes
Chad Riffle [email protected] Yes
Marjorie Mulcahy [email protected] Yes
Kasey Carlisle [email protected] Yes
Christina LaMonica [email protected] Yes
Patrick Marz [email protected] Yes
Scott Heath [email protected] Yes
Alex Garel-Frantzen [email protected] Yes
Matt Nemecek [email protected] Yes
Dawn Coughlin [email protected] Yes
Laurie Jodziewicz [email protected] Yes
Liza Brackman [email protected] Yes
Wanda Harney [email protected] Yes
Amy Dole [email protected] Yes
Stephanie Clemons [email protected] Yes
Tom Flynn [email protected] Yes
Leslie McDermott [email protected] Yes
Tim Weaver [email protected] Yes
Jason Work, MPH, R.S. [email protected] Yes
Grant Kimble [email protected] Yes
Ruth Briland [email protected] Yes
Kathryn Bauer [email protected] Yes
Angela Whitt [email protected] Yes
Nicole Roy [email protected] Yes
Francis Ramacciotti [email protected] Yes
Zach Frymier [email protected] Yes
Martha Horvitz [email protected] Yes
Pete Simcic [email protected] Yes
Mike Shapiro [email protected] Yes
Casey Galligan [email protected] Yes
Jacob Elder [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Alexandra Slawinski [email protected] Yes
Chris Dingess [email protected] Yes
Jonah Stepaniak [email protected] Yes
Bart Vince [email protected] Yes
Kevin Fowler [email protected] Yes
kedar army [email protected] Yes
Marianne Piekutowski [email protected] Yes
Meghan Hemken [email protected] Yes
Nathan Nawalaniec [email protected] Yes
Joseph Drozinski [email protected] Yes
Don Deaton [email protected] Yes
McClelland Tiffany [email protected] Yes
George Sendrey [email protected] Yes
rick carleski [email protected] Yes
James Troike [email protected] Yes
Marcus Ruscio [email protected] Yes
Robert Baker [email protected] Yes
Lenny Carlsen [email protected] Yes
Chris Castle [email protected] Yes
Karen Frederick [email protected] Yes
Lauren Lamping [email protected] Yes
Karen Okonta [email protected] Yes
Mary Sizemore [email protected] Yes
Justin Harris [email protected] Yes
Gretchen Addington [email protected] Yes
Bill Thompson [email protected] Yes
Brian Klink [email protected] Yes
Ali Woods [email protected] Yes
Edward Council [email protected] Yes
Katie Evans [email protected] Yes
Aaron Johnson [email protected] Yes
Laura King [email protected] Yes
Barry Schnorr [email protected] Yes
Shayne Helms [email protected] Yes
John Pickelhaupt [email protected] Yes
jacob bryant [email protected] Yes
Rebecca Egelhoff [email protected] Yes
Charlene Watkins [email protected] Yes
Gary Mears [email protected] Yes
Julie Howard [email protected] Yes
Brian Bohl [email protected] Yes
David Leff [email protected] Yes
Rachael Beeman [email protected] Yes
Leann Cline [email protected] Yes
m Smith [email protected] Yes
Rees Alexander [email protected] Yes
Robert Grunder [email protected] Yes
Richard Lee Wegman [email protected] Yes
Alison Allwes [email protected] Yes
Matthew Brake [email protected] Yes
John Magary [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
John Milliff [email protected] Yes
Kevin Chandler [email protected] Yes
Adam Lehmann [email protected] Yes
Cheryl White [email protected] Yes
Donald Head [email protected] Yes
Lorain County General Health District [email protected] Yes
Karen Fromme [email protected] Yes
Kristin Yorko [email protected] Yes
Harry Barker [email protected] Yes
Joe Franckhauser [email protected] Yes
Mark Hartman [email protected] Yes
David Edelstein [email protected] Yes
LARRY ROUSH [email protected] Yes
Owen Karickhoff [email protected] Yes
Jeffrey Bertacchi [email protected] Yes
Samira Deeb [email protected] Yes
Laura Claus [email protected] Yes
Sue Palmer [email protected] Yes
Annette Shine [email protected] Yes
Robert Pollitt [email protected] Yes
Brad Lambert [email protected] Yes
Marty Cristo [email protected] Yes
Jacob Flanary [email protected] Yes
Julia Lazar [email protected] Yes
Bikram Shrestha [email protected] Yes
Sandra Chapman [email protected] Yes
Peter Onyskiw [email protected] Yes
Sante Ghetti [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Hollis Collier [email protected] Yes
DEan Ritts [email protected] Yes
Trent Dilworth [email protected] Yes
William Speiser [email protected] Yes
David Rutter [email protected] Yes
Eileen Hack [email protected] Yes
Shin Fukuda [email protected] Yes
Jonathan Pachter [email protected] Yes
Diane Walsh [email protected] Yes
Don Tesin [email protected] Yes
John Drumm [email protected] Yes
Christine Bisesi [email protected] Yes
John Kwolek [email protected] Yes
Kamau Mbalia [email protected] Yes
Lauren Haller [email protected] Yes
Maia Hoffman [email protected] Yes
Sarah Van Frank-Affrunti [email protected] Yes
Ron Roy [email protected] Yes
Skipp Kropp [email protected] Yes
David Fries [email protected] Yes
Tom Niehaus [email protected] Yes
Caroline Cierchi [email protected] Yes
Christopher Henney [email protected] Yes
Matt Prickett [email protected] Yes
Mark Verzella [email protected] Yes
Christoper Mazur [email protected] Yes
Augustine Kadiri [email protected] Yes
Alicia Ramsdell [email protected] Yes
Todd Stock [email protected] Yes
Emma Clohessy [email protected] Yes
Marisa Twigg [email protected] Yes
Nicholas Deramo [email protected] Yes
Mikel Livingston [email protected] Yes
Katie Simon [email protected] Yes
Ken LeBlanc [email protected] Yes
Anthony Szilagye [email protected] Yes
Matt Johnston [email protected] Yes
Jeff Willen [email protected] Yes
Jody Nicholson [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Stella Morris [email protected] Yes
Kristen Dameron [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Sharon Teffenhardt [email protected] Yes
Douglas Darrah [email protected] Yes
Jared Gravatt [email protected] Yes
jeff paetz [email protected] Yes
Christene Jones [email protected] Yes
Alana Valle [email protected] Yes
John McGreevy [email protected] Yes
Sheena McCarthy [email protected] Yes
Judson Bandry [email protected] Yes
Danielle Maignan [email protected] Yes
Michael Onoja [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Nietz [email protected] Yes
Aaron Harter [email protected] Yes
Kay L. Haggard [email protected] Yes
EMILY DIPPOLD [email protected] Yes
Sarah Cornwell [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Helman [email protected] Yes
Nathan Doyle [email protected] Yes
Ann Gilmore [email protected] Yes
Kimberly Webber [email protected] Yes
Kristen Hoesch [email protected] Yes
Stephen Holcomb [email protected] Yes
Debbie Swickard [email protected] Yes
Kevin Hodnett [email protected] Yes
Josh Creech [email protected] Yes
Kathleen Wade-Dorman [email protected] Yes
Melissa Martin [email protected] Yes
Michael Derr [email protected] Yes
Jacqueline Harmon [email protected] Yes
Jon Mangles [email protected] Yes
Jeannine Donatelli [email protected] Yes
Kim Sayers [email protected] Yes
Sara Nuttall [email protected] Yes
Dan Rapp [email protected] Yes
Stephen Stutz [email protected] Yes
Gary Livecchi [email protected] Yes
Russ McDonald [email protected] Yes
Jess Black [email protected] Yes
Ralph Young [email protected] Yes
Greg Fears [email protected] Yes
Kevin Swartzell [email protected] Yes
Michelle Dresdow [email protected] Yes
David Guran [email protected] Yes
Matthew Chacey [email protected] Yes
Christina Sporer [email protected] Yes
Tyler Pavan [email protected] Yes
Xavier Ferrier [email protected] Yes
Gary Hendershot [email protected] Yes
Chris Denlinger [email protected] Yes
Tammi Gall [email protected] Yes
Robert Priest [email protected] Yes
Zac Wilson [email protected] Yes
Megan Curry [email protected] Yes
Chase Lyles [email protected] Yes
Lalit Gupta [email protected] Yes
Sarah JanTausch [email protected] Yes
Ic second class petty officer Vincent Ruble [email protected] Yes
Steven Wargo [email protected] Yes
JOE WOODLEY [email protected] Yes
Keri Cimarolli [email protected] Yes
Daniel Kekacs [email protected] Yes
Daniel Hackett [email protected] Yes
Kevin Laughlin [email protected] Yes
Levi Wilson [email protected] Yes
Vicki Goodenow [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Nathan Fela [email protected] Yes
Kirsten Barnhart [email protected] Yes
Cathy Becker [email protected] Yes
Michael Lowther [email protected] Yes
Matt Miller [email protected] Yes
Jeremy Pellek [email protected] Yes
Sky Schelle [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Conn [email protected] Yes
Kaitlin Hillier [email protected] Yes
Nicholas Colombo [email protected] Yes
Jeff Moody [email protected] Yes
Michael Betz [email protected] Yes
Kathryn Hamilton [email protected] Yes
Andrew Longenecker [email protected] Yes
David Fredle [email protected] Yes
Thomas Abraham [email protected] Yes
Kari Morehouse [email protected] Yes
Kristen Anthony [email protected] Yes
Debra Ponce [email protected] Yes
Thomas Haley [email protected] Yes
Steve Gruskiewicz [email protected] Yes
Jonathan Rupp [email protected] Yes
Gregory Heinrichs [email protected] Yes
Paul Wilson [email protected] Yes
Connie Fullen [email protected] Yes
Alison Fritz [email protected] Yes
Douglas Frye [email protected] Yes
Judy Shaw [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Witte [email protected] Yes
Mary Starbuck [email protected] Yes
Charles Horvath [email protected] Yes
James Colmer [email protected] Yes
Thomas Donovan [email protected] Yes
John Schmidt [email protected] Yes
David Westlund [email protected] Yes
Michael Wittman [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Aaron Hopkins [email protected] Yes
David Dobbins [email protected] Yes
Ryan Nicholson [email protected] Yes
tom simko [email protected] Yes
John Jacobs [email protected] Yes
Holly Florea [email protected] Yes
Laura Zornan [email protected] Yes
Shauna Betzel [email protected] Yes
Eric Lopez [email protected] Yes
Jeffrey Bard [email protected] Yes
Samuel Schumann [email protected] Yes
Colton Parsons [email protected] Yes
Jim DiPaola [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Emily DeLay [email protected] Yes
Gabriel timby [email protected] Yes
Leanard Hughes [email protected] Yes
Kristin Jenkins [email protected] Yes
Cheri Woody [email protected] Yes
Cindy Lang [email protected] Yes
Brandon Turner [email protected] Yes
Edward MacCanon [email protected] Yes
Michael Senft [email protected] Yes
A Hayward [email protected] Yes
Cara Hardesty [email protected] Yes
Edward Trenn [email protected] Yes
JEFF GIPSON [email protected] Yes
Jim Moyer [email protected] Yes
Robert Eshenbaugh [email protected] Yes
Chris Guilliams [email protected] Yes
Brandon Evans [email protected] Yes
lavitta murray [email protected] Yes
Robert Canan [email protected] Yes
Vincent McMichael [email protected] Yes
Bryon Neal [email protected] Yes
Paul Campbell [email protected] Yes
Dale Schillig [email protected] Yes
Michael Mraz [email protected] Yes
Nicholas Colombo [email protected] Yes
Natalie Shearer [email protected] Yes
Paul Daily [email protected] Yes
Tom Leigh [email protected] Yes
Erik Fargo [email protected] Yes
Ranganatha Raghavan [email protected] Yes
Natalia Cabrera [email protected] Yes
Chris Heckle [email protected] Yes
Andy McCorkle [email protected] Yes
Rick Wilson [email protected] Yes
Susan Harrier [email protected] Yes
Patrick Brosnan [email protected] Yes
Kelly Thiel [email protected] Yes
Michael Miller [email protected] Yes
Chris Smith [email protected] Yes
Bruce Schmucker [email protected] Yes
MCRUS Enbridge [email protected] Yes
Khalid Alnahdy [email protected] Yes
eric lookofsky [email protected] Yes
Melinda Keillor [email protected] Yes
Heather Adams [email protected] Yes
Christopher Carr [email protected] Yes
Patrick Karnes [email protected] Yes
Jeff Brown [email protected] Yes
Michael Daniels [email protected] Yes
Jammie Flores [email protected] Yes
Todd Jones [email protected] Yes
Floyd Cole [email protected] Yes
Kay Thomas [email protected] Yes
Colton Creal [email protected] Yes
Ed Fink [email protected] Yes
Elizabeth Buening [email protected] Yes
Matthew Kovach [email protected] Yes
Terry Webber [email protected] Yes
Darren Faye [email protected] Yes
Todd Clifford [email protected] Yes
Martha Thompson [email protected] Yes
Ababu Gelaye [email protected] Yes
Claire Linkhart [email protected] Yes
Kristopher Barnswell [email protected] Yes
Dylan DeZeeuw [email protected] Yes
George Ginnis [email protected] Yes
Tire Rack [email protected] Yes
Kristin DuFresne [email protected] Yes
Alex Ebert [email protected] Yes
Brien Croff [email protected] Yes
Mark Compton [email protected] Yes
Stephen Sung [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Alexandra Kerns [email protected] Yes
Debra Reining [email protected] Yes
Robert Keatley [email protected] Yes
Gretchen Krum [email protected] Yes
Beth Kern [email protected] Yes
Annabella Brogan [email protected] Yes
Muhammad Ramzan [email protected] Yes
Troy Chapman [email protected] Yes
Ron Metzger [email protected] Yes
Deborah Martin [email protected] Yes
Nathan Carter [email protected] Yes
Lara Syrocki [email protected] Yes
Tasha Miracle [email protected] Yes
Lauren Sindelar [email protected] Yes
Leslie Wong [email protected] Yes
Keely O'Bryan [email protected] Yes
patrick verwys [email protected] Yes
Brandon Williams [email protected] Yes
Brandon Williams [email protected] Yes
Andrew Morrow [email protected] Yes
Bruce Goff [email protected] Yes
Marc Morgan [email protected] Yes
Katherine Arnett [email protected] Yes
Scott Ellsworth [email protected] Yes
MItch Copman [email protected] Yes
Kimberly Laquatra [email protected] Yes
Adam Mullaney [email protected] Yes
Jack Meyers [email protected] Yes
William Rish [email protected] Yes
Laura Travers [email protected] Yes
Mike Lee [email protected] Yes
Rick Schaffer [email protected] Yes
Neuronsy Adams [email protected] Yes
Johnathon Jankowski [email protected] Yes
Anna Statkiewicz [email protected] Yes
Jeffrey Rathge [email protected] Yes
Jessica Wilson [email protected] Yes
Michele Smith [email protected] Yes
Elise Allen [email protected] Yes
Brad Falkinburg [email protected] Yes
Jerry Mitchell [email protected] Yes
Gillian Wener [email protected] Yes
Nicole Whitson [email protected] Yes
Mike Conant [email protected] Yes
Patrick Maple [email protected] Yes
Sean Wilson [email protected] Yes
Tye SCHWALL [email protected] Yes
Erik Sims [email protected] Yes
Dylan Shays [email protected] Yes
Sarah Becker [email protected] Yes
Payton Dupree [email protected] Yes
Jay Dorsey [email protected] Yes
Charles Porter [email protected] Yes
Paul Simpson [email protected] Yes
Jason Hanna [email protected] Yes
Mike Rorar [email protected] Yes
Liz McKercher [email protected] Yes
Jacob Fournier [email protected] Yes
Forrest Greenwood [email protected] Yes
Tammy Myers [email protected] Yes
Lisa Novosat-Gradert [email protected] Yes
Todd Harris [email protected] Yes
Kelli Hicks [email protected] Yes
Jerry Ussher [email protected] Yes
Cassandra Eblin [email protected] Yes
Robert Schlingman [email protected] Yes
Kristy Hawthorne [email protected] Yes
Brent Smith [email protected] Yes
gloria zenisek [email protected] Yes
Kirsten Kinder [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Geiger [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Sterin [email protected] Yes
Regina Large [email protected] Yes
Biljana Sverko [email protected] Yes
Jenn Delebreau [email protected] Yes
jahran nesbitt [email protected] Yes
Julia Charlton [email protected] Yes
Tony Vogel [email protected] Yes
Scott Rodgers [email protected] Yes
Amy Clemmons [email protected] Yes
Dana Schnabel [email protected] Yes
Donald Hartman [email protected] Yes
Ryan Ewing [email protected] Yes
BRUCE BAILEY [email protected] Yes
David Gardner [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Phillips [email protected] Yes
Corina Benjamin [email protected] Yes
Jared Kemper [email protected] Yes
Scott Strahley [email protected] Yes
Emilie Naccarato [email protected] Yes
Curt Zahn [email protected] Yes
Greg Burns [email protected] Yes
Dan Leavitt [email protected] Yes
Thomas Byrne [email protected] Yes
Sheela Agrawal [email protected] Yes
Jill Lukehart [email protected] Yes
John Rice [email protected] Yes
Skyler Dewey [email protected] Yes
Christopher Tavenor [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Eric Rapp [email protected] Yes
David Schmitt [email protected] Yes
Kathy Doyle [email protected] Yes
Todd Piros [email protected] Yes
Lee Slone [email protected] Yes
Jeremy Druhot [email protected] Yes
Joshua Westbrook [email protected] Yes
Steven Reed [email protected] Yes
Rose Wilson [email protected] Yes
Don Buczek [email protected] Yes
s moeller [email protected] Yes
Justin Lichter [email protected] Yes
Hollis Collier [email protected] Yes
ann jarboe [email protected] Yes
William Carlson [email protected] Yes
Michael Neary [email protected] Yes
Bereket Isaac [email protected] Yes
Jeff Maccarella [email protected] Yes
William Rumpke [email protected] Yes
Bradley Petru [email protected] Yes
julianne amenta [email protected] Yes
Jeff Luehrmann [email protected] Yes
Mark Stuart [email protected] Yes
christina landgraf [email protected] Yes
Todd Genovese [email protected] Yes
Mellissa Adams [email protected] Yes
Janet McQuaid [email protected] Yes
Abdullah Almuraikhi [email protected] Yes
Kyle Nay [email protected] Yes
Patrick King [email protected] Yes
Jerry McGraner [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Jack Schultz [email protected] Yes
Rachelle Suir [email protected] Yes
Elizabeth Krousel [email protected] Yes
Randy Keitz [email protected] Yes
Kathleen Mathews [email protected] Yes
Sandra Lytten [email protected] Yes
Bryan Williams [email protected] Yes
Mike Massoli [email protected] Yes
Elizabeth Ehret [email protected] Yes
Jim Gress [email protected] Yes
Steven Lipez [email protected] Yes
Margie Roulier [email protected] Yes
Laura Minnig [email protected] Yes
Sara Cooper [email protected] Yes
Deborah Seese [email protected] Yes
Scott Werkheiser [email protected] Yes
Christina Wieg [email protected] Yes
Sally Geraghty [email protected] Yes
G Fuerst [email protected] Yes
Morgan Rogers [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Noll [email protected] Yes
David Shanks [email protected] Yes
Kate Chapel [email protected] Yes
Eric Weisenbarger [email protected] Yes
Steven Wellstead [email protected] Yes
Matthew Ray [email protected] Yes
Hannah Solomon [email protected] Yes
jim walker [email protected] Yes
Heidi Friedman [email protected] Yes
Jason Tincu [email protected] Yes
Taylor Gilmore [email protected] Yes
michelle smith [email protected] Yes
matthew ostendorf [email protected] Yes
Hannah Lubbers [email protected] Yes
Lindsey Forhan [email protected] Yes
Michael Skiver [email protected] Yes
Bill DICKINSON [email protected] Yes
Joseph Pheil [email protected] Yes
Jimmy Stacchiotti [email protected] Yes
Kellie Rotunno [email protected] Yes
Lara Schramm [email protected] Yes
Cory Smith [email protected] Yes
Danielle Siepka [email protected] Yes
Deborah Warwick [email protected] Yes
Mark Bennett [email protected] Yes
Brad Gavin [email protected] Yes
Deanna Picklesimer [email protected] Yes
pl eiden [email protected] Yes
Anne Lustig [email protected] Yes
Timothy Flock [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Kevin Fodor [email protected] Yes
Karen Beason [email protected] Yes
Lara Welty [email protected] Yes
Kasey Bauer [email protected] Yes
Kelydra Welcker [email protected] Yes
Andrew Karas [email protected] Yes
Laura Marshall [email protected] Yes
James Boyes [email protected] Yes
Michael Folkman [email protected] Yes
Stephanie Duxbury-weir [email protected] Yes
monty norris [email protected] Yes
David Stahleker [email protected] Yes
James Book [email protected] Yes
Bruce Maxwell [email protected] Yes
Michele Holtom [email protected] Yes
Katie Norris [email protected] Yes
Robert Cawthern [email protected] Yes
Megan Scherer [email protected] Yes
Emil Liszniansky [email protected] Yes
Anthony Dugan [email protected] Yes
Nicole Diak [email protected] Yes
Scott Bobst [email protected] Yes
Teresa Roberts [email protected] Yes
Jarrod Hart [email protected] Yes
Ryan Yackee [email protected] Yes
Mac Taylor [email protected] Yes
Zachary Wrensch [email protected] Yes
Nicholas Lising [email protected] Yes
r5npdes dropbox [email protected] Yes
John Colletti [email protected] Yes
Eric Hoying [email protected] Yes
Sean Richburg [email protected] Yes
Dillon Webster [email protected] Yes
Jon Edwards [email protected] Yes
Brandon Heaney [email protected] Yes
Deb Reining [email protected] Yes
Melissa Vargo [email protected] Yes
Diane McConnell [email protected] Yes
Kelly Lease [email protected] Yes
Rick Passmore [email protected] Yes
Rocky King [email protected] Yes
Danielle Giannantonio [email protected] Yes
April Hendrickson [email protected] Yes
Betsy Sibila [email protected] Yes
Barbara Furman-Ashby [email protected] Yes
Nate Banks [email protected] Yes
Ron Gilbert [email protected] Yes
randall black [email protected] Yes
Jerry Ussher [email protected] Yes
Kristi Babcock [email protected] Yes
Chris DeJarlais [email protected] Yes
James Westerfield [email protected] Yes
Richard Quinn [email protected] Yes
Matt Caprarese [email protected] Yes
Mark Dodd [email protected] Yes
Andrea Barnes [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Gottschalk [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Michaelson, R.S. [email protected] Yes
Jere Marks [email protected] Yes
Sam Schumann [email protected] Yes
Adam Link [email protected] Yes
Kevin Curry [email protected] Yes
Garrett Koehler [email protected] Yes
Joshua Brockman [email protected] Yes
Bryce Smith [email protected] Yes
David Mcadams [email protected] Yes
Melissa Lindner [email protected] Yes
William Nobles [email protected] Yes
Stephanie Votaw [email protected] Yes
Dempsey Ballou [email protected] Yes
Brian Fackelman [email protected] Yes
Robert Gable [email protected] Yes
Michael Johnson [email protected] Yes
Jimmy Cooper [email protected] Yes
Matthew Thomayer [email protected] Yes
Hanbae Yang [email protected] Yes
Allison Ray [email protected] Yes
Heather McCollum [email protected] Yes
Ericka King-Betts [email protected] Yes
Steve Cavanaugh [email protected] Yes
Stefanie Hauck [email protected] Yes
Kim Riddell [email protected] Yes
Greg Fedner [email protected] Yes
Keith Grewell [email protected] Yes
Joshua Emanuelson [email protected] Yes
Candice Buzzelli [email protected] Yes
Charlotte Stallone [email protected] Yes
Canaan Christ [email protected] Yes
Karen Okonta [email protected] Yes
Kevin Cooper [email protected] Yes
Carl Ireland [email protected] Yes
Peter Bucher [email protected] Yes
Steven White [email protected] Yes
Kenneth Poland [email protected] Yes
matthew rhodes [email protected] Yes
Anthony Brown [email protected] Yes
Michael Jenkins [email protected] Yes
Adam Pace [email protected] Yes
Miles Dyer [email protected] Yes
Joseph Ewers [email protected] Yes
Lindsay Johnson [email protected] Yes
Deanna Bobak [email protected] Yes
Todd Chadwell [email protected] Yes
Jordan Geenen [email protected] Yes
Michael Scoville [email protected] Yes
Keri Cimarolli [email protected] Yes
Josh Myers [email protected] Yes
Lizzette Barrow [email protected] Yes
Jaime Zsiros [email protected] Yes
Alex Peters [email protected] Yes
Dave Bell [email protected] Yes
Amanda Sines [email protected] Yes
Kimberly Corman [email protected] Yes
Lanny Erdos [email protected] Yes
Elissa Yoder Mann [email protected] Yes
Laurie Haas [email protected] Yes
Patrick Jorgensen [email protected] Yes
Noel Rife [email protected] Yes
Heather Kovach [email protected] Yes
William Fleece [email protected] Yes
Sherri Wright [email protected] Yes
Theresa McGeady [email protected] Yes
Benjamin Franz [email protected] Yes
Andrew Fox [email protected] Yes
Sarah Lynn [email protected] Yes
Robert Large [email protected] Yes
Mike Gialousis [email protected] Yes
Josh Griffin [email protected] Yes
Brittany Dalton [email protected] Yes
Matthew Abbott [email protected] Yes
Sherri Livengood [email protected] Yes
Jaime Johnson [email protected] Yes
Susan Oliver [email protected] Yes
Jim Bennett [email protected] Yes
Danyelle Hotchkiss [email protected] Yes
Nick Kasper [email protected] Yes
John Shufflebarger [email protected] Yes
Jeff King [email protected] Yes
Sara Guiher [email protected] Yes
Zachary Dobey [email protected] Yes
Christine Holmes [email protected] Yes
Keshia Chambers [email protected] Yes
Clinton Giannetti [email protected] Yes
Jenny Avellana [email protected] Yes
Dan Thornton [email protected] Yes
alex vincent [email protected] Yes
Nate Eicher [email protected] Yes
Denise Molzahn [email protected] Yes
Robert Keatley [email protected] Yes
Brenda Culler [email protected] Yes
Kevin Aiken [email protected] Yes
Bill Albrecht [email protected] Yes
Brian Clark [email protected] Yes
Tina O'Grady [email protected] Yes
Sharon Wolfer [email protected] Yes
Zach Bollheimer [email protected] Yes
Gabriel Capan [email protected] Yes
Allie Meyerhoefer [email protected] Yes
Lara McAlister [email protected] Yes
Amanda Jefferson [email protected] Yes
Clare Averill [email protected] Yes
Mark Rhoades [email protected] Yes
Daniel Graeter [email protected] Yes
Julie Hall [email protected] Yes
Lauren Morris [email protected] Yes
Ben Howard [email protected] Yes
Chelsea Grossi [email protected] Yes
Dennis Landon [email protected] Yes
Tanner Weekley [email protected] Yes
charles valentino [email protected] Yes
Veena Raman [email protected] Yes
Howard Lunsford [email protected] Yes
Scott Smith [email protected] Yes
Sam Insalaco [email protected] Yes
Alexis Andrews [email protected] Yes
Elizabeth Hiser [email protected] Yes
Kevin Roff [email protected] Yes
Michael Hollingsworth [email protected] Yes
Dale Beal [email protected] Yes
Megan Shade [email protected] Yes
Beth Burger [email protected] Yes
Leah Kaldy [email protected] Yes
David Moore [email protected] Yes
Benjamin Clement [email protected] Yes
Allyson Zurawski [email protected] Yes
Cathy Alexander [email protected] Yes
Andre Humes [email protected] Yes
Brad Rodgers [email protected] Yes
Whitney Guvernator [email protected] Yes
Erin Frantz [email protected] Yes
Guy Marentette [email protected] Yes
Matthew Caprarese [email protected] Yes
Kirsten Williams [email protected] Yes
Debra Belmonte [email protected] Yes
Ricardo Chambers [email protected] Yes
David Drouhard [email protected] Yes
Andrea Salimbene [email protected] Yes
Suzanne Fisher-Edwards [email protected] Yes
Michael Stecyk [email protected] Yes
kip pahl [email protected] Yes
Richard Jackson [email protected] Yes
Phillip Laplante [email protected] Yes
db vanhorn [email protected] Yes
Jake Whited [email protected] Yes
Matiiapa Chindori-Chininga [email protected] Yes
Tim Brown [email protected] Yes
Doug Deardorff [email protected] Yes
Walter Spates [email protected] Yes
Sarah Walters [email protected] Yes
Kathleen Bennett [email protected] Yes
Reba Wicker [email protected] Yes
Patricia Tebbe [email protected] Yes
Steve Coleman [email protected] Yes
David Osborn, Ii [email protected] Yes
Dan Guth [email protected] Yes
Ben Swain [email protected] Yes
Timothy Wood [email protected] Yes
Joe Cerny [email protected] Yes
Dan Wood [email protected] Yes
Summer Plantz [email protected] Yes
Diana Liston [email protected] Yes
Elizabeth Pleta [email protected] Yes
Debby Basham [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Fisher [email protected] Yes
Erica Czaplicki [email protected] Yes
Melissa Jarvis [email protected] Yes
Jeffrey Harrington [email protected] Yes
Francis Saltalamacchia [email protected] Yes
Ryan Mastowski [email protected] Yes
Allison Jeffers [email protected] Yes
Leon E. Bursley Jr. [email protected] Yes
Greg Doherty [email protected] Yes
Patricia Barnes [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Steven Wagner [email protected] Yes
Matt Maloney [email protected] Yes
Zuzana Bohrerova [email protected] Yes
Stephanie Johnson [email protected] Yes
Patricia Kay [email protected] Yes
Valerie Locker [email protected] Yes
Pooja Chari [email protected] Yes
Julie Howard [email protected] Yes
Joseph Auge [email protected] Yes
Sara Krampe [email protected] Yes
Cj Davis [email protected] Yes
Randall Fair [email protected] Yes
Quentin Platt [email protected] Yes
Julie Lenz [email protected] Yes
David Heitz [email protected] Yes
Jason Sundurp [email protected] Yes
William Pierce [email protected] Yes
Jon Wheatley [email protected] Yes
Ryan Klear [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
David Osborn II [email protected] Yes
Jason Tincu [email protected] Yes
Jon Prier [email protected] Yes
Richard Hannan [email protected] Yes
Greta McGee [email protected] Yes
David Winter [email protected] Yes
Whitney Gilmer [email protected] Yes
Brian Klink [email protected] Yes
Russell Bales [email protected] Yes
Patricia Lovely [email protected] Yes
Nathan Smith [email protected] Yes
Dan Nihiser [email protected] Yes
Amy Smith [email protected] Yes
Juston Carpenter [email protected] Yes
Monika King [email protected] Yes
Sue Haidle [email protected] Yes
Jordan Jenkins [email protected] Yes
Robert Rini [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Harry King [email protected] Yes
Brad Bashore [email protected] Yes
Jonathan Wills [email protected] Yes
Mike Dillman [email protected] Yes
Jeff McMullen [email protected] Yes
Dana Scarberry [email protected] Yes
Eric Youngless [email protected] Yes
Brook Bertig-Coll [email protected] Yes
Allen Kinsler [email protected] Yes
Brooks Pattison [email protected] Yes
Russell Boes [email protected] Yes
Daniel Ward [email protected] Yes
Scott Bushbaum [email protected] Yes
Cassie Collier [email protected] Yes
Melissa Albright [email protected] Yes
Christina Znidarsic [email protected] Yes
Jon Jamison [email protected] Yes
Richard Reeder [email protected] Yes
Hannah Yuhl [email protected] Yes
Larry Broughton [email protected] Yes
Spencer Wiechers [email protected] Yes
Stephanie D [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Mike Stepic [email protected] Yes
Todd Chynoweth [email protected] Yes
Sarah Lewis [email protected] Yes
Rawley Ross [email protected] Yes
John Lee, Ii [email protected] Yes
Peggy Hall [email protected] Yes
Bryan Wedekind [email protected] Yes
John Rutecki [email protected] Yes
Sean Milne [email protected] Yes
Nicole Dutcher [email protected] Yes
Richard Hertzfeld [email protected] Yes
Justin Telep [email protected] Yes
Stephen Bailey [email protected] Yes
Chad Wenger [email protected] Yes
Ellsworth Holcomb [email protected] Yes
James Simms [email protected] Yes
Dwight Stamper [email protected] Yes
Ned Mast [email protected] Yes
Jeff Thomas [email protected] Yes
Justin Pitts [email protected] Yes
Michele Maxson [email protected] Yes
Chris Bryant [email protected] Yes
Marise Textor [email protected] Yes
Jason Westfall [email protected] Yes
Natalie Shearer [email protected] Yes
Erin Kouvousis [email protected] Yes
Nicholas Wetzel [email protected] Yes
Bill Randall [email protected] Yes
Kate Anderson [email protected] Yes
Joseph Tillison [email protected] Yes
Jason Root [email protected] Yes
Craig Smith [email protected] Yes
Henry Rodriguez [email protected] Yes
OEPA-DDAGW HABmailbox [email protected] Yes
Brian Webb [email protected] Yes
Ruth Briland [email protected] Yes
Nathan Pietras [email protected] Yes
Annabella Brogan [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Phillips-Vanderberg [email protected] Yes
Laura Weber [email protected] Yes
Robert Kastner [email protected] Yes
don brown [email protected] Yes
Sarena Reese [email protected] Yes
Cliff Gerbick [email protected] Yes
Ashleigh Lemon [email protected] Yes
Logan Randles [email protected] Yes
Alicia Rodrian [email protected] Yes
Mark Suchan [email protected] Yes
Marcus Miller [email protected] Yes
Terri Cummings [email protected] Yes
Clint White [email protected] Yes
Lauren Wasserstrom [email protected] Yes
Steven Morris [email protected] Yes
Laura DeYoung [email protected] Yes
Mark Anderson [email protected] Yes
Dawn McCarthy [email protected] Yes
Jody Byrne [email protected] Yes
Cory Christopher [email protected] Yes
Frank Barosky [email protected] Yes
Grant Crawford [email protected] Yes
Brandon Rose [email protected] Yes
Sherrie Suttles [email protected] Yes
Amy Eberhardt [email protected] Yes
Shawn McGee [email protected] Yes
Jonathon Van Gray [email protected] Yes
No Value No Value [email protected] Yes
Brandon Gelow [email protected] Yes
Carlette Chordas [email protected] Yes
Andreas Eddy [email protected] Yes
Andrew Phillips [email protected] Yes
Cari Oberfield [email protected] Yes
Deanna Calmes [email protected] Yes
Jarrod Hart [email protected] Yes
Sarah Clark [email protected] Yes
Donna Keclik [email protected] Yes
Robert Ricker [email protected] Yes
Jason Blocker [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Reeves [email protected] Yes
David Zeller [email protected] Yes
Paget Thomas [email protected] Yes
Timothy E Walshj [email protected] Yes
Seth Epley [email protected] Yes
Donna Oliver [email protected] Yes
Ronald Taylor [email protected] Yes
Matthew Hanley [email protected] Yes
Carmen Franks [email protected] Yes
Shirley Lehmann [email protected] Yes
Philip Epley [email protected] Yes
Christine Staschiak [email protected] Yes
Josiah Frey [email protected] Yes
Sally Locher [email protected] Yes
Kory Bakenhaster [email protected] Yes
Jesse Bethea [email protected] Yes
Aaron Fawcett [email protected] Yes
Thad Driscoll [email protected] Yes
Kristin Rothey [email protected] Yes
Sapna Isaacs [email protected] Yes
Matt Moyer [email protected] Yes
Jeremy Carter [email protected] Yes
Ben Dressman [email protected] Yes
KENNY SEAVER [email protected] Yes
Circleville Online [email protected] Yes
Marc Jones [email protected] Yes
Andy Ventura [email protected] Yes
Elizabeth Ball [email protected] Yes
Anthony Sloma [email protected] Yes
Sarah Hinchcliffe [email protected] Yes
Rhonda Thompson [email protected] Yes
Anna Draa [email protected] Yes
Tim McGraw [email protected] Yes
Chris Roshon [email protected] Yes
Ellie Murphy [email protected] Yes
Lisa Espinosa [email protected] Yes
Kate Bradley [email protected] Yes
Tiffany Phillips [email protected] Yes
Laura Schuch [email protected] Yes
Adeline Koerner [email protected] Yes
Jared Burson [email protected] Yes
Alicia Davis [email protected] Yes
Chelsea Bixel [email protected] Yes
Courtney Zimmer [email protected] Yes
Steven Blaine [email protected] Yes
Shawn Mendt [email protected] Yes
Jennie Brancho [email protected] Yes
Andrew Gall [email protected] Yes
Kevin Custer [email protected] Yes
Rob Smith [email protected] Yes
Gerard Henderson [email protected] Yes
Rem Confesor [email protected] Yes
Claire Weldon [email protected] Yes
Athena Voda [email protected] Yes
Matt Kuziensky [email protected] Yes
Laura Macpherson [email protected] Yes
Nathaniel O'Connor nathan.o'[email protected] Yes
LAURA SCHAFFNER [email protected] Yes
Michael Reese [email protected] Yes
Jessica Spears [email protected] Yes
Lisa Sullivan [email protected] Yes
Rebecca Clarridge [email protected] Yes
Cody Hacker [email protected] Yes
Sean Ireland [email protected] Yes
Jerri Thibaut [email protected] Yes
Sean McGuire [email protected] Yes
Kelly Kuhbander [email protected] Yes
Brandon Andresen [email protected] Yes
Holly Utrata-Halcomb [email protected] Yes
Heidi Vogel [email protected] Yes
Derrick Fairbanks [email protected] Yes
Molly Conley [email protected] Yes
Melissa Bukowski [email protected] Yes
Kevin Trepal [email protected] Yes
Erika Randolph [email protected] Yes
David Bradt [email protected] Yes
Tom Ryther [email protected] Yes
Ryan Weisenberger [email protected] Yes
Monica Williamson [email protected] Yes
Jamie VanDusen [email protected] Yes
Francine Scharver [email protected] Yes
Mark Smith [email protected] Yes
Jim Velliky [email protected] Yes
Isai Delarca [email protected] Yes
Meghan Monahan [email protected] Yes
Gabriel Gemperline [email protected] Yes
Mick Shvorob [email protected] Yes
Aaron Gilliland [email protected] Yes
Megan Wenzel [email protected] Yes
Nikki Weber [email protected] Yes
Jeff Brower [email protected] Yes
Cory Richard [email protected] Yes
Cody Weisbrodt [email protected] Yes
Michelle Moyer [email protected] Yes
Kaley Greenwood [email protected] Yes
Micah Bennett [email protected] Yes
Debra Faulkner [email protected] Yes
Michael Bodak [email protected] Yes
Taylor Gilmore [email protected] Yes
Joe Fornaro [email protected] Yes
Stefen Pargeon [email protected] Yes
blair barnhart-hinkle [email protected] Yes
Lorie Haslinger [email protected] Yes
Whitney Shuttleworth [email protected] Yes
John Kusnier [email protected] Yes
Kerri Rogers [email protected] Yes
Byron Causey [email protected] Yes
Chris Sharrock [email protected] Yes
Heidi Suhoski [email protected] Yes
Jennifer Newman [email protected] Yes
Kyle Hofseth [email protected] Yes
john kwolek [email protected] Yes
John Gillespie [email protected] Yes
Kevin Ernst [email protected] Yes
Beth Wilson [email protected] Yes
Kelly Luecke [email protected] Yes
Staff Consultant [email protected] Yes
Nancy Ellwood [email protected] Yes
Gerald Hoffman [email protected] Yes
Alexa Vogel [email protected] Yes
Kellie Pike [email protected] Yes
Ben Poole [email protected] Yes
Christy Butera [email protected] Yes
Lewis Alley [email protected] Yes
Brian Dell [email protected] Yes
Joycelyn Swamidoss [email protected] Yes
Frank Vennetti [email protected] Yes
Joe Tribble [email protected] Yes
Rachael LeGoubin [email protected] Yes
Heather Smith [email protected] Yes
 BEFORE THE
OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Public Notice
Proposed Rulemaking Governing
Water Quality Standards Program

Notice is hereby given that the Director of Environmental Protection, under the authority of
Sections 6111.041 of the Ohio Revised Code and in accordance with Chapter 119, proposes to
amend the following rules of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC):

Rule Number Rule Title

3745-1-32 Ohio river standards.
3745-1-33 Water quality criteria for water supply use designation.
3745-1-34 Water quality criteria for the protection of human health [fish
consumption].

The rulemaking includes the five-year review of three rules in OAC Chapter 3745-1, which contains
Ohio’s standards for water quality. This rulemaking includes the review and update of three rules
containing numeric water quality criteria to reflect the latest scientific information available from
U.S. EPA and the Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO). Major updates in this
rulemaking include the adoption of U.S. EPA’s updated 94 water quality chemical criteria for the
protection of human health, as well as updated from ORSANCO’s 2015 Pollution Control Standards,
and the statewide incorporation of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) which apply within 500
yards of a drinking water intake. These MCLs only previously applied in the Ohio River Basin.

The Agency invites all interested parties to comment on this rule. The public comment period will
run until December 4, 2019. A public hearing on this proposed rulemaking will be held to consider
public comments in accordance with Section 119.03 of the Ohio Revised Code. This hearing will be
held at Conference Room A at the Ohio EPA Central Office, 50 West Town Street, Suite 700,
Columbus, Ohio at 10:30 a.m. on December 4, 2019. All visitors to Ohio EPA must register at the
Security desk in the lobby upon arrival. Please bring photo identification (such as a valid driver's
license). For security reasons, visitors are required to wear their badge at all times while in the
building. Please arrive early to complete these procedures.

To facilitate the scheduling of oral presentations, persons intending to give testimony at the
hearing should notify the Ohio EPA Public Interest Center, P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43216-
1049, (614) 644-2160. Prior registration will ensure that registrants are heard ahead of those
individuals who register at the hearing. Oral testimony may be limited to five minutes, depending
on the number of persons testifying. All interested persons are entitled to attend or be
represented and to present oral and/or written comments concerning the proposed rulemaking.
Written testimony should be sent to the attention of Emily DeLay at the Division of Surface Water,
P.O. Box 1049, Columbus Ohio 43216-1049. Written comments may also be submitted to the
Hearing Officer at the public hearing. Written testimony will receive the same consideration as oral
testimony. All testimony received at the hearing or by close of business on December 4, 2019, will
be considered by Ohio EPA prior to final action on this rulemaking proposal. Written comments
submitted after this date may be considered as time and circumstances permit.

The proposed rule and a fact sheet explaining the rule revisions are posted on the Ohio EPA
website at www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/dswrules.aspx. The proposed rule is also available on the
Register of Ohio website at www.registerofohio.state.oh.us. Questions regarding this rule package
should be directed to Audrey Rush at the Division of Surface Water, at (614) 644-2035.
 ACTION: Original DATE: 10/30/2019 9:09 AM

3745-1-32 Ohio river standards.

[Comment: For dates of non-regulatory government publications, publications of

recognized organizations and associations, federal rules and federal statutory provisions
referenced in this rule, see rule 3745-1-03 of the Administrative Code.]

(A) The Ohio river is designated warmwater habitat, public water supply, agricultural
water supply, industrial water supply and bathing waters, and will meet the most
stringent criteria set forth in, or derived in accordance with, this rule, rules 3745-1-01
to 3745-1-07 and 3745-1-33 to 3745-1-40 of the Administrative Code.

Table 32-1. Water quality criteria for the Ohio river.

Chemical Form1 Units2 IMZM3 OMZM3 OMZA3

Bacteria (E. coli)a T cfu/100 126 126 126

mL

Bacteria (E. coli)b T cfu/100 410 410 410

mL

Bacteria (fecal coliform)c T cfu/ --2,000 a2,000 a2,000

100
mL

Cyanide free µg/l 44 22 5.2

Dissolved oxygen4 T mg/l -- 4.0bd 5.0

Radionuclides T -- ce ce

Temperature -- °F -- Table Table 32-3

32-3

1
T = total.
2
mg/l = milligrams per liter (parts per million); µg/l = micrograms per liter (parts per
billion); °F = degrees Fahrenheit; cfu/100 mL = colony forming units per one hundred
milliliters.
3
IMZM = inside mixing zone maximum; OMZM = outside mixing zone maximum; OMZA
= outside mixing zone average.

[ stylesheet: rule.xsl 2.14, authoring tool: i4i 2.0 ras3 Jul 30, 2019 11:16, (dv: 0, p: 185637, pa: 328754, ra: 564688, d: 741754)] print date: 10/30/2019 9:24 AM
3745-1-32 2

4
For dissolved oxygen, OMZM means outside mixing zone minimum at any time and
OMZA means outside mixing zone minimum daily average.
a
For the months of May to October, the maximum allowable level of fecal coliform bacteria
shall not exceed two hundred per one hundred ml as a monthly geometric mean based on
not less than five samples per month; nor exceed four hundred per one hundred ml in more
than ten per cent of all samples taken during the month. For the months of May to October,
measurements of Escherichia coli bacteria may be substituted for fecal coliform. Content
shall not exceed one hundred thirty per one hundred ml as a monthly geometric mean, based
on not less than five samples per month, nor exceed two hundred forty per one hundred ml
in any sample. For the months of November to April, the maximum allowable level of fecal
coliform bacteria shall not exceed two thousand per one hundred ml as a geometric mean
based on not less than five samples per month.Criterion applies for contact recreation during
the months of May through October and is expressed as a ninety-day geometric mean.
b
Criterion applies for contact recreation during the months of May through October and is
not to be exceeded in more than ten per cent of samples taken during any ninety-day period.
c
Criterion applies at all times and is expressed as a monthly geometric mean based on not
less than five samples per month. For the months of May through October, measurements
of E. coli bacteria may be substituted for fecal coliform.
bd
A minimum of 5.0 mg/l at any time shall be maintained during the April fifteen to June
fifteen spawning season.
ce
Gross total alpha particle activity (including radium-226, but excluding radon and
uranium) shall not exceed fifteen picocuries per liter (pci/l) and combined radium-226 and
radium-228 shall not exceed four pci/l. The concentration of total gross beta particle activity
shall not exceed fifty pci/l. The concentration of total strontium-90 shall not exceed eight
pci/l.

Table 32-2. Ohio river water quality criteria for the protection of human health.

OMZA3

Chemical Form1 Units2 Intakes Elsewhere

Acenaphthene T µg/l 1,20070 1,20070

Acrolein T µg/l 3203.0 3203.0

Acrylonitrile5 T µg/l 0.590.51 0.590.51

3745-1-32 3

Alachlor T µg/l 2.0a --

Aldicarb6 T µg/l 7.0a --

Aldicarb sulfone6 T µg/l 7.0a --

Aldicarb sulfoxide6 T µg/l 7.0a --

Aldrin5 T µg/l 0.00137.7*10-6 0.00137.7*10-6

Anthracene T µg/l 9,600300 9,600300

Antimony TR µg/l 6.0a5.6 145.6

Arsenic TR µg/l 10a 50

Asbestos T Mf/l 7.0a --

Atrazine T µg/l 3.0a --

Barium TR µg/l 2,000a1,000 --1,000

Benzene5 T µg/l 5.0a 12

Benzidine5 T µg/l 0.00120.00086 0.00120.00086

Benzo(a)anthracene5 T µg/l 0.0440.012 0.0440.012

Benzo(a)pyrene5 T µg/l 0.0440.0012 0.0440.0012

Benzo(b)fluoranthene5 T µg/l 0.0440.012 0.0440.012

Benzo(k)fluoranthene5 T µg/l 0.0440.038 0.0440.038

Beryllium TR µg/l 4.0a 16

Bromate T µg/l 10a --

Bromoform (Tribromomethane)5 T µg/l 43 43

Butylbenzyl phthalate5 T µg/l 3,0001.0 3,0001.0

Cadmium TR µg/l 5.0a --

3745-1-32 4

Carbofuran T µg/l 40a --

Carbon tetrachloride5 T µg/l 2.52.3 2.52.3

Chloramine T µg/l 4,000a --

Chlordane5 T µg/l 0.0210.0031 0.0210.0031

Chlorides T mg/l 250a 250

Chlorine T µg/l 4,000a --

Chlorine dioxide T µg/l 800a --

Chlorite T µg/l 1,000a --

Chloroacetic acid76 T µg/l 60a --

Chlorobenzene T µg/l 100a 680100

Chlorodibromomethane5 T µg/l 4.14.0 4.14.0

Bis(2-Chloro-1-methylethyl) ether T µg/l 200 200

Bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether5 T µg/l 0.310.30 0.310.30

Chloroform5 T µg/l 57 57

bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether T µg/l 1,400 1,400

bis(2-Chloromethyl) ether5 T µg/l 0.00130.0015 0.00130.0015

2-Chloronaphthalene T µg/l 1,700800 1,700800

2-Chlorophenol T µg/l 12030 12030

Chromium TR µg/l 100a --

Chrysene5 T µg/l 0.0440.038 0.0440.038

Copper TR µg/l -- --

Cyanide free µg/l 200a4.0 7004.0

3745-1-32 5

2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy-acetic T µg/l 70a 1001,300

acid)

Dalapon T µg/l 200a --

4,4'-DDD5 T µg/l 0.00830.0012 0.00830.0012

4,4'-DDE5 T µg/l 0.00590.00018 0.00590.00018

4,4'-DDT5 T µg/l 0.00590.0003 0.00590.0003

Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene5 T µg/l 0.0440.0012 0.0440.0012

Dibromochloropropane T µg/l 0.2a --

Di-n-butyl phthalate T µg/l 2,70020 2,70020

Dichloroacetic acid76 T µg/l 60a --

1,2-Dichlorobenzene T µg/l 600a420 2,700420

1,3-Dichlorobenzene T µg/l 4007.0 4007.0

1,4-Dichlorobenzene T µg/l 75a63 40063

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine5 T µg/l 0.400.21 0.400.21

Dichlorobromomethane5 T µg/l 5.65.5 5.65.5

1,2-Dichloroethane5 T µg/l 3.8 3.8

1,1-Dichloroethylene5 T µg/l 0.577.0a 0.57300

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene T µg/l 70a --

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene T µg/l 100a 700100

2,4-Dichlorophenol T µg/l 9310 9310

1,2-Dichloropropane5 T µg/l 5.0a 5.25.0

1,3-Dichloropropene5 T µg/l 102.7 102.7

3745-1-32 6

Dieldrin5 T µg/l 0.00141.2*10-5 0.00141.2*10-5

Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate T µg/l 400a --

Diethyl phthalate T µg/l 23,000600 23,000600

2,4-Dimethylphenol T µg/l 540100 540100

Dimethyl phthalate T µg/l 310,0002,000 310,0002,000

4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol (4,6- Dinitro-2- T µg/l 132.0 132.0

methylphenol)

Dinitrophenols4 T µg/l 7010 7010

2,4-Dinitrotoluene5 T µg/l 1.10.49 1.10.49

2,4-Dinitrophenol T µg/l 10 10

Dinoseb T µg/l 7.0a --

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine5 T µg/l 0.400.30 0.400.30

Diquat T µg/l 20a --

Dissolved solids T mg/l 750/500a,b --

alpha-Endosulfan87 T µg/l 11020 11020

beta-Endosulfan87 T µg/l 11020 11020

Endosulfan sulfate87 T µg/l 11020 11020

Endothall T µg/l 100a --

Endrin98 T µg/l 0.760.03 0.760.03

Endrin aldehyde98 T µg/l 0.760.29 0.760.29

Ethylbenzene T µg/l 700a68 3,10068

Ethylene dibromide (EDB) T µg/l 0.050a --

3745-1-32 7

bis (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate5 T µg/l 6.0a3.2 183.2

Fluoranthene T µg/l 30020 30020

Fluorene T µg/l 1,30050 1,30050

Fluoride T µg/l 1,000 1,000

Glyphosate T µg/l 700a --

Heptachlor5 T µg/l 0.00215.9*10-5 0.00215.9*10-5

Heptachlor epoxide5 T µg/l 0.00100.00032 0.00100.00032

Hexachlorobenzene5 T µg/l 0.00750.00079 0.00750.00079

Hexachlorobutadiene5 T µg/l 4.40.1 4.40.1

alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane5 T µg/l 0.0390.0036 0.0390.0036

beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane5 T µg/l 0.140.08 0.140.08

gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane T µg/l 0.190.20a 0.190.98

(Lindane)5

Hexachlorocyclohexane - technical T µg/l 0.120.066 0.120.066

grade5

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene T µg/l 50a4.0 2404.0

Hexachloroethane5 T µg/l 191.0 191.0

Indeno (1,2,3-c,d) pyrene5 T µg/l 0.0440.012 0.0440.012

Iron S µg/l 300a --

Isophorone5 T µg/l 360340 360340

Mercury TR µg/l 0.012 0.012

Methoxychlor T µg/l 40a0.02 1000.02

Methyl bromide T µg/l 4847 4847

3745-1-32 8

3-Methyl-4-chlorophenol T µg/l 500 500

Methylene chloride5 T µg/l 5.0a 4746

Nickel TR µg/l 610 610

Nitrate-N + Nitrite-N T µg/l 10,000a 10,000

Nitrite-N T µg/l 1,000a 1,000

Nitrobenzene T µg/l 1710 1710

Nitrosoamines5 T µg/l 0.0080 0.0080

N-Nitrosodibutylamine5 T µg/l 0.0640.063 0.0640.063

N-Nitrosodiethylamine5 T µg/l 0.0080 0.0080

N-Nitrosodimethylamine5 T µg/l 0.0069 0.0069

N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine5 T µg/l 0.050 0.050

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine5 T µg/l 5033 5033

N-Nitrosodipyrrolidine5 T µg/l 0.16 0.16

Oxamyl (Vydate) T µg/l 200a --

Pentachlorobenzene T µg/l 3.50.1 3.50.1

Pentachlorophenol5 T µg/ 1.0a0.3 820.3

lmg/l

Phenol T µg/l 21,0004,000 21,0004,000

Phenolics T µg/l 5.0 5.0--

Picloram T µg/l 500a --

Polychlorinated biphenyls5 T µg/l 0.00170.00064 0.00170.00064

Pyrene T µg/l 96020 96020

Selenium TR µg/l 50a 170

3745-1-32 9

Silver T µg/l 50 50

Silvex (2, 4, 5-TP, 2- [2, 4, 5- T µg/l 1050a 10100

Trichlorophenoxy] propionic acid

Simazine T µg/l 4.0a --

Styrene T µg/l 100a --

Sulfates T mg/l 250a 250--

1, 2, 4, 5-Tetrachlorobenzene T µg/l 2.30.03 2.30.03

2, 3, 7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p- T pg/ 0.135.0*10-8 0.135.0*10-8

dioxin5 lµg/l

1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane5 T µg/l 1.7 1.7

Tetrachloroethylene5 T µg/l 5.0a 8.06.9

Thallium TR µg/l 1.7 1.7

Toluene T µg/l 1,000a57 6,80057

Toxaphene5 T µg/l 0.00730.0028 0.00730.0028

Trichloroacetic acid76 T µg/l 60a --

1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene5 T µg/l 70a0.71 2600.71

1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane T µg/l 200a --10,000

1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane5 T µg/l 5.0a 6.05.5

Trichloroethylene5 T µg/l 5.0a 276.0

2, 4, 5-Trichlorophenol T µg/l 2,600300 2,600300

2, 4, 6-Trichlorophenol5 T µg/l 2114 2114

Vinyl chloride5 T µg/l 2.0a0.22 200.22

Xylenes T µg/l 10,000a --

3745-1-32 10

Zinc T µg/l 9,1007,400 9,1007,400

1
S = soluble; T = total; TR = total recoverable.
2
mg/l = milligrams per liter (parts per million); µg/l = micrograms per liter (parts per
billion); ng/l = nanograms per liter (parts per trillion); pg/l = picograms per liter (parts
per quadrillion); Mf/l = million fibers per liter.
3
OMZA = outside mixing zone average. Criteria in the "Intakes" column apply within
five hundred yards of drinking water intakes. Criteria in the "Elsewhere" column apply
at all other locations.
4
The criteria for this chemical apply to the sum of all dinitrophenols.
5
Criteria for this chemical are based on a carcinogenic endpoint.

6The criterion for this chemical applies to the sum of aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone and
aldicarb sulfoxide.
76
The criterion for this chemical applies to the sum of chloroacetic acid, dichloroacetic
acid and trichloroacetic acid.
87
The criteria for this chemical apply to the sum of alpha-endosulfan, beta-endosulfan
and endolsufan sulfate.
98
The criteria for this chemical apply to the sum of endrin and endrin aldehyde.
a
This criterion is the maximum contaminant level (MCL) developed under the "Safe
Drinking Water Act".
b
Equivalent 25°C specific conductance values are 1200 micromhos/cm as a maximum
and 800 micromhos/cm as a thirty-day average.

Table 32-3. Ohio river temperature criteria.

PA state line to PA state line to Greenup Lock Greenup Lock

Greenup Lock Greenup Lock and Dam (RM and Dam (RM
and Dam (RM and Dam (RM 341.1) to IN 341.1) to IN
341.1) 341.1) state line state line
3745-1-32 11

Month/date Period Average Instantaneous Period Average Instantaneous

(ºF) Maximum (ºF) (ºF) Maximum (ºF)

January 1 - 31 4545.7 47.0 46.8 5047.2

February 1 - 29 4543.9 46.3 47.9 5052.8

March 1 - 1531 5151.2 56.4 57.4 5662.4

March 16 - 31 54 59

April 1 -1530 5861.2 66.3 66.9 6471.1

April 16 - 30 64 69

May 1 -1531 6871.2 76.5 76.4 7381.4

May 16 -31 75 80

June 1 - 1514 8078.8 81.0 83.5 8585.7

June 1615 - 30 8387.0 87.0 87.0 8787.0

July 1 -31 8489.0 89.0 89.0 8989.0

August 1- 31 8489.0 89.0 89.0 8989.0

September 1 - 8487.0 87.0 87.0 8787.0

15

September 16 - 8281.0 83.1 84.7 8687.0

30

October 1 - 7774.1 78.3 76.7 8281.6

1531

October 16 - 31 72 77

November 1 - 6765.0 69.0 66.2 7270.8

30

December 1 -31 5255.8 60.0 55.6 5760.4

3745-1-32 12

Effective:

Five Year Review (FYR) Dates: 10/30/2019

Certification

Date

Promulgated Under: 119.03

Statutory Authority: 6111.041
Rule Amplifies: 6111.041
Prior Effective Dates: 04/04/1985, 08/19/1985, 05/01/1990, 10/31/1997,
12/30/2002, 02/06/2017
 ACTION: Refiled DATE: 08/04/2020 9:05 AM

Rule Summary and Fiscal Analysis

Part A - General Quesons

Rule Number: 3745-1-32

Rule Type: Amendment

Rule Title/Tagline: Ohio river standards.

Agency Name: Ohio Environmental Protecon Agency

Division: Division of Surface Water (DSW)

Address: 50 W. Town St. Columbus OH 43221

Contact: Jennie Pugliese Phone: 614-728-2396

Email: [email protected]

I. Rule Summary
1. Is this a five year rule review? Yes

A. What is the rule’s five year review date? 10/30/2019

2. Is this rule the result of recent legislaon? No

3. What statute is this rule being promulgated under? 119.03

4. What statute(s) grant rule wring authority? 6111.041

5. What statute(s) does the rule implement or amplify? 6111.041

6. What are the reasons for proposing the rule?

This rule is being reviewed in order to comply with Ohio Revised Code secon 106.03
and the five year rule review.

7. Summarize the rule’s content, and if this is an amended rule, also summarize the
rule’s changes.

Rule 3745-1-32 contains the numerical water quality criteria for the protecon of
human health in the Ohio River Mainstem, meaning Naonal Pollutant Discharge
Eliminaon System (NPDES) dischargers that discharge directly to the Ohio River or
a direct tributary to the Ohio River. This rule contains the numerical values for the

[ stylesheet: rsfaWithBusImpact.xsl 2.07, authoring tool: EZ1, (dv: 0, p: 185637, pa: 331657, ra: 574505, d: 759731)] print date: 09/21/2020 12:48 PM
Page 2 Rule Number: 3745-1-32

maximum concentraon of a pollutant in given body of water, and is fundamentally

different than a permit limit through the NPDES program.

This rule has two values for each chemical, tled "intake" and "elsewhere." The intake
values apply within 500 yards of a public water supply intake and is the more stringent
value of: U.S. EPA's naonal recommended criteria updated in 2015, Ohio River Valley
Sanitaon Commission's (ORSANCO's) 2015 polluon control standards, and U.S. EPA's
maximum contaminant level (MCL). The elsewhere values apply everywhere except
for where the intake value applies, and is the more stringent of U.S. EPA's naonal
recommended criteria and ORSANCO's polluon control standards. Four chemicals
were deleted from this rule and three new chemicals were added to this rule. The
Ohio River temperature criteria were also updated to ORSANCO's 2015 temperature
criteria.

8. Does the rule incorporate material by reference? Yes

9. If the rule incorporates material by reference and the agency claims the material is
exempt pursuant to R.C. 121.71 to 121.76, please explain the basis for the exempon
and how an individual can find the referenced material.

This rule contains references to rules in the Ohio Administrave Code and federal acts,
both of which are exempt under ORC 121.71 to 121.74.

The Ohio Revised Code exempts IBR requirements that are found in ORC 121.71
through 121.74, if the IBR comes from one of the following Ohio government
references:
ORC, an uncodified Ohio statute, an act of the state in the Laws of Ohio, a rule in the
OAC, a rule in the Monthly Record, a rule in the Register of Ohio.

The following federal government references are also exempt from ORC 121.71
through 121.74, but must specify a date of the text being incorporated: the United
States Code, an uncodified federal statute, a regulaon from the Federal Register,
internal agency management rules, a rule that maintains authorizaon of a federally
delegated program, a rule required to receive federal funds under a federally funded
program, digital applicaons which do not establish policies, references that describe
federal administrave of legislave data, references that describe generally accepted
building codes, and references that are copyrighted materials where permission has
been obtained to use.

10. If revising or re-filing the rule, please indicate the changes made in the revised or re-
filed version of the rule.

No changes have been made to the originally filed rule as the result of the re-filing.
Page 3 Rule Number: 3745-1-32

II. Fiscal Analysis

11. As a result of this proposed rule, please esmate the increase / decrease in revenues
or expenditures affecng this agency, or the state generally, in the current biennium
or future years. If the proposed rule is likely to have a different fiscal effect in future
years, please describe the expected difference and operaon.

This will have no impact on revenues or expenditures.

$0

This rule would neither increase nor decrease expenditures for the Agency or the
State.

12. What are the esmated costs of compliance for all persons and/or organizaons
directly affected by the rule?

Ohio EPA has idenfied two potenal sources of addional cost to regulated enes –
costs due to treatment upgrades, and costs for more advanced chemical tesng. The
Agency does not believe that any significant treatment upgrades will be needed to
meet limits based on the new criteria. Therefore, no new cost.

Ensuring compliance with these lower numbers will require some dischargers to do
addional, low-level tesng for a few parameters. Ohio EPA projects that these new
costs will run from $0 - $400 per year per facility; the specific cost will depend on the
sampling frequency required by the permit, the number of discharge points tested
at the facility, and whether or not the facility is already using one or more of these
advanced analycal techniques.

13. Does the rule increase local government costs? (If yes, you must complete an RSFA
Part B). Yes

14. Does the rule regulate environmental protecon? (If yes, you must complete an RSFA
Part C). Yes

III. Common Sense Iniave (CSI) Quesons

15. Was this rule filed with the Common Sense Iniave Office? Yes

16. Does this rule have an adverse impact on business? No

A. Does this rule require a license, permit, or any other prior authorizaon to
engage in or operate a line of business? No
Page 4 Rule Number: 3745-1-32

B. Does this rule impose a criminal penalty, a civil penalty, or another sancon,
or create a cause of acon, for failure to comply with its terms? No

C. Does this rule require specific expenditures or the report of informaon as

a condion of compliance? No
 ACTION: Refiled DATE: 08/04/2020 9:05 AM

Page B-1 Rule Number: 3745-1-32

Rule Summary and Fiscal Analysis

Part B - Local Governments Quesons
1. Does the rule increase costs for:

A. Public School Districts Yes

B. County Government Yes

C. Township Government Yes

D. City and Village Governments Yes

2. Please esmate the total cost, in dollars, of compliance with the rule for the
affected local government(s). If you cannot give a dollar cost, explain how the local
government is financially impacted.

Ohio EPA has idenfied two potenal sources of addional cost to regulated enes –
costs due to treatment upgrades, and costs for more advanced chemical tesng. The
Agency does not believe that any significant treatment upgrades will be needed to
meet limits based on the new criteria. Therefore, no new cost.

Ensuring compliance with these lower numbers will require some dischargers to do
addional, low-level tesng for a few parameters. Ohio EPA projects that these new
costs will run from $0 - $400 per year per facility; the specific cost will depend on the
sampling frequency required by the permit, the number of discharge points tested
at the facility, and whether or not the facility is already using one or more of these
advanced analycal techniques.

3. Is this rule the result of a federal government requirement? Yes

A. If yes, does this rule do more than the federal government requires? No

B. If yes, what are the costs, in dollars, to the local government for the
regulaon that exceeds the federal government requirement?

Not Applicable

4. Please provide an esmated cost of compliance for the proposed rule if it has an
impact on the following:

A. Personnel Costs

[ stylesheet: RuleFiscalDetail.xsl 2.15, authoring tool: ERF , (dv: 0, p: 185637, pa: 331657, ra: 574505, d: 732371)] print date: 09/21/2020 12:51 PM
Page B-2 Rule Number: 3745-1-32

Please see response 2 above.

B. New Equipment or Other Capital Costs

Please see response 2 above.

C. Operang Costs

Please see response 2 above.

D. Any Indirect Central Service Costs

Please see response 2 above.

E. Other Costs

Please see response 2 above.

5. Please explain how the local government(s) will be able to pay for the increased
costs associated with the rule.

The Agency does not ancipate that any facilies affected by these rule amendments
will need to change how they operate, maintain, and treat water in their facilies.
The only cost that has the potenal to be incurred by these enes is site specific
and depends on what pollutants the influent water contains. That being said, a cost of
$0 - $400 per facility per year is a relavely insignificant cost that a facility should be
able to absorb into their budget. The facilies should not have to raise rates or incur
a superfluous cost increase.

6. What will be the impact on economic development, if any, as the result of this rule?

There should be no impact on economic development.

 ACTION: Refiled DATE: 08/04/2020 9:05 AM

Page C-1 Rule Number: 3745-1-32

Rule Summary and Fiscal Analysis

Part C - Environmental Rule Quesons
Pursuant to Am. Sub. H.B. 106 of the 121st General Assembly, prior to adopng a rule or an amendment
to a rule dealing with environmental protecon, or containing a component dealing with environmental
protecon, a state agency shall:

(1) Consult with organizaons that represent polical subdivisions, environmental interests, business
interests, and other persons affected by the proposed rule or amendment.

(2) Consider documentaon relevant to the need for, the environmental benefits or consequences of,
other benefits of, and the technological feasibility of the proposed rule or rule amendment.

(3) Specifically idenfy whether the proposed rule or rule amendment is being adopted or amended to
enable the state to obtain or maintain approval to administer and enforce a federal environmental
law or to parcipate in a federal environmental program, whether the proposed rule or rule
amendment is more stringent than its federal counterpart, and, if the proposed rule or rule
amendment is more stringent, the raonale for not incorporang its federal counterpart.

(4) Include with the proposed rule or rule amendment and rule summary and fiscal analysis required to
be filed with the Joint Commiee on Agency Rule Review informaon relevant to the previously
listed requirements.

(A) Were organizaons that represent polical subdivisions, environmental interests,

business interests, and other persons affected by the proposed rule or amendment
consulted? Yes

Please list each contact.

Ohio EPA invited interested pares to comment on the rule amendments during the
period of April 2, 2019 to May 2, 2019. Noce of the comment period was emailed to
approximately 4,000 interested pares. Ohio EPA also mailed leers to 153 dischargers
that may be impacted by this rule. Both lists of interested pares is available upon
request.

(B) Was documentaon that is relevant to the need for, the environmental benefits or
consequences of, other benefits of, and the technological feasibility of the proposed
rule or amendment considered? Yes

Please list the informaon provided and aach a copy of each piece of documentaon
to this form. (A SUMMARY OR INDEX MAY BE ATTACHED IN LIEU OF THE ACTUAL
DOCUMENTATION.)

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitaon Commission, Polluon Control Standards for
Discharges to the Ohio River, 2015 Revision.

[ stylesheet: RuleEnvironmental.xsl 2.15, authoring tool: ERF , (dv: 0, p: 185637, pa: 331657, ra: 574505, d: 732372)] print date: 09/21/2020 12:52 PM
Page C-2 Rule Number: 3745-1-32

United States Environmental Protecon Agency, Naonal Recommended Water Quality

Criteria - Human Health, 2015. Found here: hps://www.epa.gov/wqc/naonal-
recommended-water-quality-criteria-human-health-criteria-table.

United States Environmental Protecon Agency, Naonal Primary Drinking Water

Regulaons, 2009.

40 CFR 131 Water Quality Standards

ORC 6111.041 Standards of Water Quality

(C) Is the proposed rule or rule amendment being adopted or amended to enable the state
to obtain or maintain approval to administer and enforce a federal environmental law
or to parcipate in a federal environmental program? Yes

Is the proposed rule or rule amendment more stringent than its federal counterpart?
No Not Applicable

(D) If this is a rule amendment that is being adopted under a state statute that establishes
standards with which the amendment is to comply, is the proposed rule amendment
more stringent than the rule that it is proposing to amend? No
 ACTION: Refiled DATE: 08/04/2020 9:05 AM

Business Impact Analysis

Agency Name: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Regulation/Package Title: Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health

Rule Number(s): OAC 3745-1-32, 1-33, 1-34

Date: April 2, 2019

Rule Type:
New X 5-Year Review
X Amended Rescinded

The Common Sense Initiative was established by Executive Order 2011-01K and placed
within the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. Under the CSI Initiative, agencies should
balance the critical objectives of all regulations with the costs of compliance by the
regulated parties. Agencies should promote transparency, consistency, predictability, and
flexibility in regulatory activities. Agencies should prioritize compliance over punishment,
and to that end, should utilize plain language in the development of regulations.

Regulatory Intent
1. Please briefly describe the draft regulation in plain language.
Please include the key provisions of the regulation as well as any proposed amendments.
This rulemaking concerns the numeric water quality criteria for the protection of human
health in the Ohio River Mainstem, Ohio River Basin, and Lake Erie Basin.

BIA p(185637) pa(331657) d: (746481) print date: 09/21/2020 12:54 PM

 Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) states are required to have water quality standards that
protect lakes, rivers, streams or other surface waters from pollution. Ohio’s water quality
standards are in OAC Chapter 3745-1. The required components of a water quality standard
include beneficial use designations; narrative and numeric criteria protective of the use
designations; and implementation procedures used to evaluate decisions that could result in
the lowering of water quality (referred to as the antidegradation or rule).
Water quality standards are then used in other CWA programs such as the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, Section 401 Water Quality Certifications
and the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Any impacts to the
business community are realized only through the implementation of water quality standards
in these other regulatory programs.

The NPDES program prohibits discharges of pollutants from any point source (a discrete
conveyance such as a pipe or ditch) into the nation’s waters unless authorized under an
NPDES permit. The program gives U.S. EPA the authority to regulate discharges into the
nation’s waters by setting limits on the effluent that can be discharged to a body of water.
The NPDES program is closely intertwined with this rulemaking and is how we will quantify
the effect of these new numerical criteria in this analysis.

These rules are being updated to reflect the most recent human health numbers from U.S.
EPA’s 2015 updated chemical criteria, ORSANCO’s 2015 Pollution Control Standards
(PCS), and maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) promulgated under the Safe Drinking
Water Act.

2. Please list the Ohio statute authorizing the Agency to adopt this regulation.
Ohio Revised Code 6111.041.

3. Does the regulation implement a federal requirement? Is the proposed regulation

being adopted or amended to enable the state to obtain or maintain approval to
administer and enforce a federal law or to participate in a federal program?
If yes, please briefly explain the source and substance of the federal requirement.
Yes, the regulations implement federal requirements in the CWA and Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 131 Water Quality Standards and 132 Water Quality
Guidance for the Great Lakes System. 40 CFR 131.20 further stipulates that the State shall
adopt new or revised criteria for parameters for which US EPA has published. If the state
does not adopt new or revised criteria, then the State shall provide an explanation of why the
criteria have not been adopted.

-2-
4. If the regulation includes provisions not specifically required by the federal
government, please explain the rationale for exceeding the federal requirement.
Rule 3745-1-34 will be amended to apply maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) statewide.
MCLs are National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) established by U.S.
EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). NPDWRs are legally enforceable primary
standards and treatment techniques that apply to public water systems. Primary standards and
treatment techniques protect public health by limiting the levels of contaminants in drinking
water.
Ohio EPA’s Division of Drinking and Ground Water has also promulgated these MCLs into
regulations to cover drinking water and ground water. Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water
currently applies these MCLs only to the Ohio River basin and with this rulemaking
extending this protection statewide (to the Lake Erie basin). The Division of Surface Water is
promulgating these standards as a way to protect the treatment technology at the intakes of
the drinking water plants in the Lake Erie basin as well. This is an extension of the
applicability of the MCL to surface water within five hundred yards of an intake in the Lake
Erie basin, as Ohio’s drinking water supply is a very important resource. The extension of
these MCLs is a common sense regulatory change.

5. What is the public purpose for this regulation (i.e., why does the Agency feel that there
needs to be any regulation in this area at all)?
The CWA section 303(c)(2)(A) requires that water quality standards protect “public health or
welfare, enhance the quality of the water and serve the purposes of [the Act].” The CWA
section 101(a)(2) establishes as a national goal “water quality which provides for protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water, wherever
attainable.” 40 C.F.R. Part 131.11 specifies that states must adopt those water quality criteria
that protect the designated use. Such criteria must be based on sound scientific rationale and
must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use.

The value of clean water as a public resource is a well-established fact. Ohio is an

economically important and diverse state with strong manufacturing and agricultural
industries that depend upon abundant and clean water. Ohio’s economy also depends upon
the tourism that its waters attract. The program ensures that Ohio’s streams, rivers and lakes
can be used for purposes such as industrial and agricultural production, recreation, and as a
source of drinking water. These regulations are necessary in order to adequately protect
public health and the environment.

-3-
6. How will the Agency measure the success of this regulation in terms of outputs and/or
outcomes?
Success can be measured in two ways: 1) tracking various administrative milestones in the
programs that implement the water quality standards; and 2) monitoring the conditions of
streams, rivers and lakes over time. The NPDES permit program routinely provides data and
annual reports that describe the compliance performance of the regulated community. The
Agency sets targets for achieving compliance with permit terms and conditions.

As described in the response to question # 11 the water quality standards regulations are
performance based expectations regarding the quality of Ohio’s surface water. Ohio EPA
measures the success of the State’s overall pollution control efforts through biological and
chemical monitoring that determines whether or not a water body is attaining its designated
uses. The status or health of Ohio’s streams, rivers and lakes is reported every two years in
the Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, which is available on Ohio
EPA’s website at: http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/OhioIntegratedReport.aspx.

Development of the Regulation

7. Please list the stakeholders included by the Agency in the development or initial review
of the draft regulation.
If applicable, please include the date and medium by which the stakeholders were initially
contacted.
Ohio EPA sent electronic notification of the beginning of the Triennial WQS Review to the
Division of Surface Water’s rulemaking interested party list and posted the Early Stakeholder
Outreach fact sheet on the Division’s website on September 14, 2016. The comment period
deadline was November 14, 2016. Ohio EPA also held a webinar and public hearing on this
matter on September 28, 2016 and November 9, 2016, respectively. Six comment letters
were received during the comment period from The Nature Conservancy, Ohio Department
of Transportation, Ohio Environmental Council, Midwest Biodiversity institute, City of
Columbus, and Ohio Utility Group.

8. What input was provided by the stakeholders, and how did that input affect the draft
regulation being proposed by the Agency?
The only feedback provided on these rules stated that Ohio EPA should adopt US EPA’s,
and/or ORSANCO’s updated criteria into rule.

-4-
9. What scientific data was used to develop the rule or the measurable outcomes of the
rule? How does this data support the regulation being proposed?
These numerical criteria were taken directly from U.S. EPA’s 2015 Updated Human Health
Criteria, U.S. EPA’s list of Maximum Contaminant Levels (also referred to as National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations), and ORSANCO’s 2015 Pollution Control Standards
update. Links to these documents are provided below.
https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-human-health-
criteria-table
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-
regulations
http://www.orsanco.org/programs/pollution-control-standards/

10. What alternative regulations (or specific provisions within the regulation) did the
Agency consider, and why did it determine that these alternatives were not
appropriate? If none, why didn’t the Agency consider regulatory alternatives?
The Agency reviewed revisions to the recommended federal water quality criteria and
ORSANCO’s pollution control standards (PCS) since the last review and determined that
revisions were necessary to bring consistency between state regulations, ORSANCO PCS,
and federal water quality criteria.

11. Did the Agency specifically consider a performance-based regulation? Please explain.
Performance-based regulations define the required outcome, but don’t dictate the process
the regulated stakeholders must use to achieve compliance.
Water quality standards function as a performance-based regulation because for each
beneficial use defined in the rules there are measurable water quality criteria for determining
if a water body meets its designated beneficial uses. Ohio’s water quality standards include
numeric criteria for many chemical substances to protect human health and aquatic life,
bacteria indicators to protect water based recreation and biological criteria used to gauge
attainment of certain aquatic life use designations.

The business community is affected by these standards when they are used to establish
conditions in permits that regulate how much pollution can be safely discharged into a
receiving stream. Any business that discharges pollutants to waters of the State must comply
with permits designed to ensure the standards are met. The Agency does not specify the
technology that must be used to comply with permits.

-5-
12. What measures did the Agency take to ensure that this regulation does not duplicate an
existing Ohio regulation?
Ohio EPA is the delegated state agency for the water quality standards program. Only a
review of existing Ohio EPA rules was necessary, and no duplication was found.

13. Please describe the Agency’s plan for implementation of the regulation, including any
measures to ensure that the regulation is applied consistently and predictably for the
regulated community.
The Agency will put the effective date of the adopted rules three months out from the date of
adoption, which provides for U.S. EPA’s review and approval and gives the Agency time to
update web pages.

Adverse Impact to Business

14. Provide a summary of the estimated cost of compliance with the rule. Specifically,
please do the following:
a. Identify the scope of the impacted business community;
b. Identify the nature of the adverse impact (e.g., license fees, fines, employer time
for compliance); and
c. Quantify the expected adverse impact from the regulation.
The adverse impact can be quantified in terms of dollars, hours to comply, or other
factors; and may be estimated for the entire regulated population or for a
“representative business.” Please include the source for your information/estimated
impact.
The water quality standards affect the business community indirectly through other
regulatory programs that are designed to assure compliance with requirements based
on meeting the water quality standards. These requirements take the form of effluent
limits imposed by Ohio EPA through the NPDES permit program or 401
certifications. Though there is no direct cost associated with this water quality
standards rulemaking, the Agency has evaluated potential costs or impacts the
business community might incur through other CWA programs.
The Agency has determined that 151 of the 3,250 permitted dischargers in Ohio could
potentially be negatively impacted by the adoption of these criteria. Of these 151
dischargers, 60 already have limits for one or more of these chemicals that could
impact them. The remaining 91 dischargers monitor for one or more of these
chemicals but do not currently have limits. Some dischargers could receive less
stringent limits from these numerical changes as well. Permit limits are dependent on

-6-
 a multitude of factors and may not always be directly correlated to this specific type
water quality criterion, therefore the impact on stakeholders is somewhat varied and
difficult to estimate.
a. The impacted business community primarily includes those regulated through the
NPDES program.
Existing NPDES permit dischargers with current effluent limits for the draft criteria
that could have the potential to be negatively affected by the adoption of these rules
were notified by mail that these rules are available for comment.
b. There is no cost directly associated with these amended rules. However, the cost
associated with implementing these water quality criteria through the NPDES
program will vary widely based on factors such as volume of wastewater treated,
complexity of treatment system, stringency of the effluent limitations, effluent
monitoring requirements, and treatment technology installed at the point source. Most
facilities should not be impacted by these updated water quality criteria, but if a
discharger receives a more stringent permit limit or a permit limit for a new chemical,
or additional monitoring requirements, the nature of the adverse impact may include
the treatment of the wastewater, any cost to maintain or operate the equipment,
sampling, and time for paperwork completion.
c. As previously stated, there is no cost directly associated with these rule updates,
however there may be cost associated with the implementation of these water quality
criteria. The cost of compliance with these rules for a facility is site specific and will
vary greatly based on the type of treatment, the amount of sludge generated, amount
of water discharged, the types of samples and the amount of sampling required, and
the amount of treatment that would be required to satisfy the limitations. Most
facilities should not be impacted by these updated water quality criteria, but if a
discharger receives a more stringent permit limit or a permit limit for a new criterion,
the nature of the adverse impact may include the treatment of the wastewater, any
cost to maintain or operate the equipment, sampling, and time for paperwork
completion.
If a revision to a permittee’s effluent limitations due to these water quality criteria is
necessary upon permit renewal, the Agency will include a schedule of compliance in
the permit to allow the permittee the time to plan and construct or modify any
necessary treatment to comply with the NPDES permit.

15. Why did the Agency determine that the regulatory intent justifies the adverse impact to
the regulated business community?

-7-
 The water quality standards program and these draft rule revisions are the primary means of
ensuring that the quality of water in Ohio’s streams, rivers and lakes is improved, maintained
and remains suitable for swimming, drinking and fishing. The basic goal of meeting all
numeric and narrative criteria established under the CWA is the normal requirement
mandated by federal regulations. Deviation from that expectation is allowed in only a
handful of extraordinary circumstances, one of which is imposition of widespread social and
economic impact. Thus, it is incumbent upon states to establish the proper balance between
the water quality goals and the costs to society of attaining those goals. The Agency believes
the draft rules are supported by the need to protect public health, safety, and the environment.

Regulatory Flexibility
16. Does the regulation provide any exemptions or alternative means of compliance for
small businesses? Please explain.
With regard to the implementation programs impacted by this rulemaking, the regulations do
not provide exemptions for small businesses. Corresponding federal regulations and the Ohio
Revised Code do not provide for exemptions or alternative means of compliance for any
permittees. The regulations are applied evenly regardless of the size of the treatment works.
Smaller facilities are typically required to sample less frequently, which will cost them less
money.

17. How will the agency apply Ohio Revised Code section 119.14 (waiver of fines and
penalties for paperwork violations and first-time offenders) into implementation of the
regulation?
The first time paperwork violation waiver is not applicable to this rule package. The rules in
OAC Chapter 3745-1 contain standards for CWA permitting programs to enforce. No
paperwork or permits are required by the standards themselves.

18. What resources are available to assist small businesses with compliance of the
regulation?
• Ohio EPA Division of Environmental and Financial Assistance’s Office of Compliance
Assistance and Pollution Prevention (OCAPP) is a non-regulatory program that provides
information and resources to help small businesses comply with environmental regulations.
OCAPP also helps customers identify and implement pollution prevention measures that can
save money, increase business performance and benefit the environment. Services of the
office include a toll-free hotline, on-site compliance and pollution prevention assessments,
workshops/training, plain-English publications library and assistance in completing permit

-8-
application forms. Additional information is available at:
http://epa.ohio.gov/ocapp/ComplianceAssistanceandPollutionPrevention.aspx
• Ohio EPA also has a Customer Support Center web page
(https://ohioepa.custhelp.com/app/home/session/L3RpbWUvMTQ0NTg2NTYzNi9zaWQvX
1hTRkZWem0%3D) that contains links to several items to help businesses navigate the
permit process, including the Permit Wizard, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), training
and subscription to various program listservs.
• Ohio EPA maintains the Compliance Assistance Hotline 800-329-7518, weekdays from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
• Ohio EPA, Division of Environmental and Financial Assistance’s Compliance Assistance
Unit provides technical support to small (less than 0.5 million gallons per day) wastewater
treatment plants. Additional information is available at:
http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/compl_assist/compasst.aspx
• U.S. EPA Small Business Gateway also has information on environmental regulations for
small businesses available at: http://www.epa.gov/smallbusiness/ and a Small Business
Ombudsman Hotline 800-368-5888.
• U.S. EPA’s Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition available at:
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/index.cfm.
• U.S. EPA’s Policy and Guidance: Reference Library contains an index of EPA documents
related to water quality standards, including those referenced in the WQS Handbook. You
can sort the index alphabetically, by publication date, or by topic. Available at:
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/library/index.cfm.
• The Division of Surface Water’s Water Quality Standards program web page contains
background information and direct links to sections of the regulations. Additional
information is available at: http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/wqs/index.aspx.

-9-
 ACTION: Original DATE: 10/30/2019 9:09 AM

3745-1-33 Water quality criteria for water supply use designations.

[Comment: For dates of non-regulatory government publications, publications of

recognized organizations and associations, federal rules and federal statutory provisions
referenced in this rule, see rule 3745-1-03 of the Administrative Code.]

(A) Human health water quality criteria [public water supply].

(1) The chemical specific criteria listed in table 33-1 of this rule, or site-specific
modifications thereof, apply as "Outside Mixing Zone Averages" and shall
apply to all water bodies located within five hundred yards of drinking water
intakes. For the purpose of setting water quality based effluent limits, these
criteria shall be met after the effluent and the receiving water are reasonably
well mixed as provided in rules 3745-1-06 and 3745-2-05 of the Administrative
Code.

(2) Water bodies located within the Ohio river drainage basin. Any methodologies and
procedures acceptable under 40 C.F.R. 131 may be used when developing or
revising human health water quality criteria or implementing narrative criteria
contained in rule 3745-1-04 of the Administrative Code. For any pollutant for
which it is demonstrated that a methodology or procedure cited in this rule is
not scientifically defensible, the director may apply an alternative methodology
or procedure acceptable under 40 C.F.R. 131 when developing water quality
criteria.

(3) Water bodies located within the lake Erie drainage basin. The methodologies
contained in rules 3745-1-41 and 3745-1-42 of the Administrative Code shall
be used when adopting or revising numeric human health criteria and when
implementing the narrative water quality criteria contained in rule 3745-1-04
of the Administrative Code. For pollutants listed in table 33-2 of this rule,
any methodologies and procedures acceptable under 40 C.F.R. 131 may be
used when developing water quality criteria or implementing narrative criteria.
For any pollutant other than those in table 33-2 of this rule, for which it
is demonstrated that a methodology or procedure cited in this rule is not
scientifically defensible, the director may apply an alternative methodology
or procedure acceptable under 40 C.F.R. 131 when developing water quality
criteria.
Table 33-1. Water quality criteria for the protection of human health [public water supply].

OMZA3

Chemical Form1 Units2 Drinking

[ stylesheet: rule.xsl 2.14, authoring tool: i4i 2.0 ras3 Jul 30, 2019 11:17, (dv: 0, p: 185637, pa: 328754, ra: 564689, d: 741755)] print date: 10/30/2019 9:24 AM
3745-1-33 2

Ohio Lake Erie

river

Acenaphthene T µg/l 1,20070

Acrolein T µg/l 3203.0

Acrylonitrile5 T µg/l 0.590.51

Alachlor T µg/l 2.0a 2.0a

Aldicarb6 T µg/l 7.0a

Aldicarb sulfone6 T µg/l 7.0a

Aldicarb sulfoxide6 T µg/l 7.0a

Aldrin5 T µg/l 0.00137.7*10-6

Anthracene T µg/l 9,600300

Antimony5 TR µg/l 6.0a5.6 6.0a

Arsenic TR µg/l 10a 10a

Asbestos T Mf/l 7.0a 7.0a

Atrazine T µg/l 3.0a 3.0a

Barium5 TR µg/l 2,000a1,000

2,000a

Benzene5 T µg/l 5.0a 125.0a

Benzidine5 T µg/l 0.00120.00086

Benzo(a)anthracene5 T µg/l 0.0440.0120.2a

Benzo(a)pyrene5 T µg/l 0.0440.0012

Benzo(b)fluoranthene5 T µg/l 0.0440.012

Benzo(k)fluoranthene5 T µg/l 0.0440.038

3745-1-33 3

Beryllium TR µg/l 4.0a 4.0a

Bromate T µg/l 10a 10a

Bromoform (Tribromomethane)5 T µg/l 43

Butylbenzyl phthalate T µg/l 3,0000.10

Cadmium TR µg/l 5.0a 5.0a

Carbofuran T µg/l 40a 40a

Carbon tetrachloride5 T µg/l 2.52.3 5.0a

Chloramine T µg/l 4,000a 4,000a

Chlordane5 T µg/l 0.0210.0031

0.00025

Chlorides T mg/l 250a 250a

Chlorine T µg/l 4,000a 4,000a

Chlorine dioxide T µg/l 800a 800a

Chlorite T µg/l 1,000a 1,000a

Chloroacetic acid76 T µg/l 60a 60a

Chlorobenzene T µg/l 100a 470100a

Chlorodibromomethane5 T µg/l 4.14.0

Bis(2-Chloro-1-methylethyl) ether T µg/l 200

Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether5 T µg/l 0.310.30

Chloroform5 T µg/l 57

bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether T µg/l 1,400

bis(2-Chloromethyl)ether5 T µg/l 0.00130.0015

2-Chloronaphthalene T µg/l 1,700800

3745-1-33 4

2-Chlorophenol T µg/l 12030

Chromium TR µg/l 100a 100a

Chrysene5 T µg/l 0.0440.038

Cyanide free µg/l 200a4.0 6004.0

2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy-acetic acid) T µg/l 70a 70a

Dalapon T µg/l 200a 200a

4,4'-DDD5 T µg/l 0.00830.0012

4,4'-DDE5 T µg/l 0.00590.00018

4,4'-DDT5 T µg/l 0.00590.0003

0.00015

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene5 T µg/l 0.0440.0012

Dibromochloropropane T µg/l 0.2a 0.2a

Di-n-butyl phthalate T µg/l 2,70020

Dichloroacetic acid76 T µg/l 60a 60a

1,2-Dichlorobenzene T µg/l 600a420 600a

1,3-Dichlorobenzene T µg/l 4007.0

1,4-Dichlorobenzene T µg/l 75a63 75a

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine5 T µg/l 0.400.21

Dichlorobromomethane5 T µg/l 5.65.5

1,2-Dichloroethane5 T µg/l 3.8 5.0a

1,1-Dichloroethylene5 T µg/l 0.57 7.0a

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene T µg/l 70a 70a

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene T µg/l 100a 100a

3745-1-33 5

2,4-Dichlorophenol T µg/l 9310

1,2-Dichloropropane5 T µg/l 5.0a 5.0a

1,3-Dichloropropene T µg/l 102.7

Dieldrin5 T µg/l 0.0000065

0.00141.2*10 -5

Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate T µg/l 400a 400a

Diethyl phthalate T µg/l 23,000600

2,4-Dimethylphenol T µg/l 540100 450100

Dimethyl phthalate T µg/l 310,0002,000

4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol (4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol) T µg/l 132.0

Dinitrophenols4 T µg/l 7010

2,4-Dinitrophenol T µg/l --10 5510

2,4-Dinitrotoluene5 T µg/l 1.10.49

Dinoseb T µg/l 7.0a 7.0a

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine5 T µg/l 0.400.30

Diquat T µg/l 20a 20a

Dissolved solids T mg/l 750/500a,b 750/500a,b

alpha-Endosulfan87 T µg/l 11020

beta-Endosulfan87 T µg/l 11020

Endosulfan sulfate87 T µg/l 11020

Endothall T µg/l 100a 100a

Endrin98 T µg/l 0.760.03 2.0a

Endrin aldehyde98 T µg/l 0.760.29

3745-1-33 6

Ethylbenzene T µg/l 700a68 700a

Ethylene dibromide (EDB) T µg/l 0.050a 0.050a

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate5 T µg/l 6.0a3.2 6.0a

Fluoranthene T µg/l 30020

Fluorene T µg/l 1,30050

Fluoride T µg/l 4,000a1,000

4,000a

Glyphosate T µg/l 700a 700a

Heptachlor5 T µg/l 0.4-5a

0.00215.9*10

Heptachlor epoxide5 T µg/l 0.00100.00032

0.2a

Hexachlorobenzene5 T µg/l 0.00750.00079

0.00045

Hexachlorobutadiene5 T µg/l 4.40.10

alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane5 T µg/l 0.0390.0036

beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane5 T µg/l 0.140.08

gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane)5 T µg/l 0.190.20 0.470.20a

Hexachlorocyclohexane - technical grade5 T µg/l 0.120.066

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene T µg/l 50a4.0 50a

Hexachloroethane5 T µg/l 191.0 5.31.0

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene5 T µg/l 0.0440.012

Iron S µg/l 300a 300a

Isophorone5 T µg/l 360340

Mercury TR µg/l 0.012 0.0031

Methoxychlor T µg/l 40a0.02 40a

3745-1-33 7

Methyl bromide T µg/l 4847

3-Methyl-4-chlorophenol T µg/l 500

Methylene chloride5 T µg/l 5.0a 475.0a

Nickel TR µg/l 610

Nitrate-N + Nitrite-N T µg/l 10,000a 10,000a

Nitrite-N T µg/l 1,000a 1,000a

Nitrobenzene T µg/l 1710

Nitrosoamines5 T µg/l 0.0080

N-Nitrosodibutylamine5 T µg/l 0.0640.063

N-Nitrosodiethylamine5 T µg/l 0.0080

N-Nitrosodimethylamine5 T µg/l 0.0069

N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine5 T µg/l 0.050

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine5 T µg/l 5033

N-Nitrosodipyrrolidine5 T µg/l 0.16

Oxamyl (Vydate) T µg/l 200a 200a

Pentachlorobenzene T µg/l 3.50.1

Pentachlorophenol5 T mg/l 1.0a0.3 0.001a

Phenol T µg/l 21,0004,000

Picloram T µg/l 500a 500a

Polychlorinated biphenyls5 T µg/l 0.00170.00064

0.000026

Pyrene T µg/l 96020

Selenium TR µg/l 50a 50a

3745-1-33 8

Silvex (2,4,5-TP, 2-[2,4,5- T µg/l 10 50a

Trichlorophenoxy]propionic acid

Simazine T µg/l 4.0a 4.0a

Styrene T µg/l 100a 100a

Sulfates T mg/l 250a 250a

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene T µg/l 2.30.03

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin5 T pg/ -8
0.135.0*100.00865.0*10 -8

lµg/l

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane5 T µg/l 1.7

Tetrachloroethylene5 T µg/l 5.0a 5.0a

Thallium TR µg/l 1.7

Toluene T µg/l 1,000a57 5,60057

Toxaphene5 T µg/l 0.00730.0028

0.000068

Trichloroacetic acid76 T µg/l 60a 60a

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene5 T µg/l 70a0.71 70a

1,1,1-Trichloroethane T µg/l 200a 200a

1,1,2-Trichloroethane5 T µg/l 5.0a 5.0a

Trichloroethylene5 T µg/l 5.0a 295.0a

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol T µg/l 2,600300

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol5 T µg/l 2114

Vinyl chloride5 T µg/l 2.0a0.22 2.0a

Xylenes T µg/l 10,000a 10,000a

Zinc T µg/l 9,1007,400

3745-1-33 9

1
S = soluble; T = total; TR = total recoverable.
2
mg/l = milligrams per liter (parts per million); µg/l = micrograms per
liter (parts per billion); ng/l = nanograms per liter (parts per trillion); pg/l =
picograms per liter (parts per quadrillion); Mf/l = million fibers per liter.
3
OMZA = outside mixing zone average.
4
The criteria for this chemical apply to the sum of all dinitrophenols.
5
Criteria for this chemical are based on a carcinogenic endpoint.
6
The criterion for this chemical applies to the sum of aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone
and aldicarb sulfoxide.
76
The criterion for this chemical applies to the sum of chloroacetic acid,
dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid.
87
The criteria for this chemical apply to the sum of alpha-endosulfan, beta-
endosulfan and endosulfan sulfate.
98
The criteria for this chemical apply to the sum of endrin and endrin aldehyde.
a
This criterion is the maximum contaminant level (MCL) developed under the
"Safe Drinking Water Act".
b
Equivalent 25ºC specific conductance values are 1200 micromhos/cm as a
maximum and 800 micromhos/cm as a thirty day average.
Table 33-2. Pollutants subject to any methodologies and procedures acceptable under 40
C.F.R. 131 for water bodies located in the lake Erie drainage basin.

Alkalinity

Ammonia

Bacteria

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)

Chlorine

Color
3745-1-33 10

Dissolved oxygen

Dissolved solids

pH

Phosphorus

Salinity

Temperature

Total and suspended solids

Turbidity

(B) Agricultural water supply criteria.

(1) The chemical-specific criteria listed in table 33-3 of this rule apply as "Outside
Mixing Zone Averages." For the purpose of setting water quality based effluent
limits, the criteria shall be met after the effluent and the receiving water are
reasonably well mixed as provided in rules 3745-1-06 and 3745-2-05 of the
Administrative Code.

(2) The water quality criteria for the protection of agricultural uses, or site-specific
modifications thereof, adopted in, or developed pursuant to, this rule shall apply
outside the mixing zone to all water bodies assigned the agricultural water
supply use designation.

(3) For any pollutant in table 33-3 of this rule for which it is demonstrated that a
methodology or procedure cited in this chapter is not scientifically defensible,
the director may apply an alternative methodology or procedure acceptable
under 40 C.F.R. 131 when developing water quality criteria.
Table 33-3. Statewide water quality criteria for the protection of agricultural uses.

Chemical Form1 Units2 OMZA3

Arsenic TR µg/l 100

Beryllium TR µg/l 100

Cadmium TR µg/l 50
3745-1-33 11

Total chromium TR µg/l 100

Copper TR µg/l 500

Fluoride T µg/l 2,000

Iron TR µg/l 5,000

Lead TR µg/l 100

Mercury TR µg/l 10

Nickel TR µg/l 200

Nitrates+nitrites T mg/l 100

Selenium TR µg/l 50

Zinc TR µg/l 25,000

1
T = total; TR = total recoverable.
2
mg/l = milligrams per liter (parts per million); µg/l = micrograms per liter
(parts per billion).
3
OMZA = outside mixing zone average.
3745-1-33 12

Effective:

Five Year Review (FYR) Dates: 10/30/2019

Certification

Date

Promulgated Under: 119.03

Statutory Authority: 6111.041
Rule Amplifies: 6111.041
Prior Effective Dates: 02/14/1978, 04/04/1985, 08/19/1985, 04/30/1987,
05/01/1990, 04/26/1997, 10/31/1997, 07/31/1998,
07/31/1999, 02/22/2002, 12/30/2002, 10/01/2014,
08/10/2016, 02/06/2017
 ACTION: Refiled DATE: 08/04/2020 9:05 AM

Rule Summary and Fiscal Analysis

Part A - General Quesons

Rule Number: 3745-1-33

Rule Type: Amendment

Rule Title/Tagline: Water quality criteria for water supply use designaons.

Agency Name: Ohio Environmental Protecon Agency

Division: Division of Surface Water (DSW)

Address: 50 W. Town St. Columbus OH 43221

Contact: Jennie Pugliese Phone: 614-728-2396

Email: [email protected]

I. Rule Summary
1. Is this a five year rule review? Yes

A. What is the rule’s five year review date? 10/30/2019

2. Is this rule the result of recent legislaon? No

3. What statute is this rule being promulgated under? 119.03

4. What statute(s) grant rule wring authority? 6111.041

5. What statute(s) does the rule implement or amplify? 6111.041

6. What are the reasons for proposing the rule?

To comply with ORC 106.03 and the Five Year Rule Review.

7. Summarize the rule’s content, and if this is an amended rule, also summarize the
rule’s changes.

This rule contains the numerical water quality criteria for the protecon of human
health within 500 yards of a public water supply intake in both the Ohio River basin and
the Lake Erie basin, meaning NPDES dischargers that discharge in the Ohio River basin
or the Lake Erie basin, not directly to the Ohio River. This rule contains the numerical

[ stylesheet: rsfaWithBusImpact.xsl 2.07, authoring tool: EZ1, (dv: 0, p: 185637, pa: 331657, ra: 574506, d: 759732)] print date: 09/21/2020 12:58 PM
Page 2 Rule Number: 3745-1-33

values for the maximum concentraon of a pollutant in given body of water, and is
fundamentally different than a permit limit through the NPDES program.

This rule has two values for each chemical, tled "Ohio River" and "Lake Erie." Again,
all of the numerical values in this rule are public water supply (drinking water) values,
which apply within 500 yards of a public water supply intake. The value in the Ohio
River basin column is the more stringent value of: U.S. EPA's naonal recommended
criteria updated in 2015, Ohio River Valley Sanitaon Commission's (ORSANCO's) 2015
polluon control standards, and U.S. EPA's maximum contaminant level (MCL) which
are protecve of the treatment system at the intake. The few values in the Lake Erie
column is the more stringent of U.S. EPA's MCL, and U.S. EPA's naonal recommended
criteria value, but only if that value is more stringent than the number that Ohio EPA
was specifically required to adopt by with Great Lake Iniave (40 C.F.R. Part 132).
Three chemicals were deleted from this rule and two new chemicals were added to
this rule.

8. Does the rule incorporate material by reference? Yes

9. If the rule incorporates material by reference and the agency claims the material is
exempt pursuant to R.C. 121.71 to 121.76, please explain the basis for the exempon
and how an individual can find the referenced material.

This rule contains references to rules in the Ohio Administrave Code, the Code of
Federal Regulaons, and federal acts, all of which are exempt under ORC 121.71 to
121.74.

The Ohio Revised Code exempts IBR requirements that are found in ORC 121.71
through 121.74, if the IBR comes from one of the following Ohio government
references:
ORC, an uncodified Ohio statute, an act of the state in the Laws of Ohio, a rule in the
OAC, a rule in the Monthly Record, a rule in the Register of Ohio.

The following federal government references are also exempt from ORC 121.71
through 121.74, but must specify a date of the text being incorporated: the United
States Code, an uncodified federal statute, a regulaon from the Federal Register,
internal agency management rules, a rule that maintains authorizaon of a federally
delegated program, a rule required to receive federal funds under a federally funded
program, digital applicaons which do not establish policies, references that describe
federal administrave of legislave data, references that describe generally accepted
building codes, and references that are copyrighted materials where permission has
been obtained to use.
Page 3 Rule Number: 3745-1-33

10. If revising or re-filing the rule, please indicate the changes made in the revised or re-
filed version of the rule.

No changes have been made to the originally filed rule as the result of the re-filing.

11/19/2019 Changed the units for the pentachlorophenol criteria from "mg/l" to "ug/
l" and changes the Lake Erie criteria from 0.001 to 1.0.

II. Fiscal Analysis

11. As a result of this proposed rule, please esmate the increase / decrease in revenues
or expenditures affecng this agency, or the state generally, in the current biennium
or future years. If the proposed rule is likely to have a different fiscal effect in future
years, please describe the expected difference and operaon.

This will have no impact on revenues or expenditures.

$0

This rule would neither increase nor decrease expenditures for the Agency or the
State.

12. What are the esmated costs of compliance for all persons and/or organizaons
directly affected by the rule?

Ohio EPA has idenfied two potenal sources of addional cost to regulated enes –
costs due to treatment upgrades, and costs for more advanced chemical tesng. The
Agency does not believe that any significant treatment upgrades will be needed to
meet limits based on the new criteria. Therefore, no new cost.

Ensuring compliance with these lower numbers will require some dischargers to do
addional, low-level tesng for a few parameters. Ohio EPA projects that these new
costs will run from $0 - $400 per year per facility; the specific cost will depend on the
sampling frequency required by the permit, the number of discharge points tested
at the facility, and whether or not the facility is already using one or more of these
advanced analycal techniques.

13. Does the rule increase local government costs? (If yes, you must complete an RSFA
Part B). Yes

14. Does the rule regulate environmental protecon? (If yes, you must complete an RSFA
Part C). Yes
Page 4 Rule Number: 3745-1-33

III. Common Sense Iniave (CSI) Quesons

15. Was this rule filed with the Common Sense Iniave Office? Yes

16. Does this rule have an adverse impact on business? No

A. Does this rule require a license, permit, or any other prior authorizaon to
engage in or operate a line of business? No

B. Does this rule impose a criminal penalty, a civil penalty, or another sancon,
or create a cause of acon, for failure to comply with its terms? No

C. Does this rule require specific expenditures or the report of informaon as

a condion of compliance? No
 ACTION: Refiled DATE: 08/04/2020 9:05 AM

Page B-1 Rule Number: 3745-1-33

Rule Summary and Fiscal Analysis

Part B - Local Governments Quesons
1. Does the rule increase costs for:

A. Public School Districts Yes

B. County Government Yes

C. Township Government Yes

D. City and Village Governments Yes

2. Please esmate the total cost, in dollars, of compliance with the rule for the
affected local government(s). If you cannot give a dollar cost, explain how the local
government is financially impacted.

Ohio EPA has idenfied two potenal sources of addional cost to regulated enes –
costs due to treatment upgrades, and costs for more advanced chemical tesng. The
Agency does not believe that any significant treatment upgrades will be needed to
meet limits based on the new criteria. Therefore, no new cost.

Ensuring compliance with these lower numbers will require some dischargers to do
addional, low-level tesng for a few parameters. Ohio EPA projects that these new
costs will run from $0 - $400 per year per facility; the specific cost will depend on the
sampling frequency required by the permit, the number of discharge points tested
at the facility, and whether or not the facility is already using one or more of these
advanced analycal techniques.

3. Is this rule the result of a federal government requirement? Yes

A. If yes, does this rule do more than the federal government requires? No

B. If yes, what are the costs, in dollars, to the local government for the
regulaon that exceeds the federal government requirement?

Not Applicable

4. Please provide an esmated cost of compliance for the proposed rule if it has an
impact on the following:

A. Personnel Costs

[ stylesheet: RuleFiscalDetail.xsl 2.15, authoring tool: ERF , (dv: 0, p: 185637, pa: 331657, ra: 574506, d: 742433)] print date: 09/21/2020 12:58 PM
Page B-2 Rule Number: 3745-1-33

Please see response 2 above.

B. New Equipment or Other Capital Costs

Please see response 2 above.

C. Operang Costs

Please see response 2 above.

D. Any Indirect Central Service Costs

Please see response 2 above.

E. Other Costs

Please see response 2 above.

5. Please explain how the local government(s) will be able to pay for the increased
costs associated with the rule.

The Agency does not ancipate that any facilies affected by these rule amendments
will need to change how they operate, maintain, and treat water in their facilies.
The only cost that has the potenal to be incurred by these enes is site specific
and depends on what pollutants the influent water contains. That being said, a cost of
$0 - $400 per facility per year is a relavely insignificant cost that a facility should be
able to absorb into their budget. The facilies should not have to raise rates or incur
a superfluous cost increase.

6. What will be the impact on economic development, if any, as the result of this rule?

There should be no impact on economic development.

 ACTION: Refiled DATE: 08/04/2020 9:05 AM

Page C-1 Rule Number: 3745-1-33

Rule Summary and Fiscal Analysis

Part C - Environmental Rule Quesons
Pursuant to Am. Sub. H.B. 106 of the 121st General Assembly, prior to adopng a rule or an amendment
to a rule dealing with environmental protecon, or containing a component dealing with environmental
protecon, a state agency shall:

(1) Consult with organizaons that represent polical subdivisions, environmental interests, business
interests, and other persons affected by the proposed rule or amendment.

(2) Consider documentaon relevant to the need for, the environmental benefits or consequences of,
other benefits of, and the technological feasibility of the proposed rule or rule amendment.

(3) Specifically idenfy whether the proposed rule or rule amendment is being adopted or amended to
enable the state to obtain or maintain approval to administer and enforce a federal environmental
law or to parcipate in a federal environmental program, whether the proposed rule or rule
amendment is more stringent than its federal counterpart, and, if the proposed rule or rule
amendment is more stringent, the raonale for not incorporang its federal counterpart.

(4) Include with the proposed rule or rule amendment and rule summary and fiscal analysis required to
be filed with the Joint Commiee on Agency Rule Review informaon relevant to the previously
listed requirements.

(A) Were organizaons that represent polical subdivisions, environmental interests,

business interests, and other persons affected by the proposed rule or amendment
consulted? Yes

Please list each contact.

Ohio EPA invited interested pares to comment on the rule amendments during the
period of April 2, 2019 to May 2, 2019. Noce of the comment period was emailed to
approximately 4,000 interested pares. Ohio EPA also mailed leers to 153 dischargers
that may be impacted by this rule. Both lists of interested pares is available upon
request.

(B) Was documentaon that is relevant to the need for, the environmental benefits or
consequences of, other benefits of, and the technological feasibility of the proposed
rule or amendment considered? Yes

Please list the informaon provided and aach a copy of each piece of documentaon
to this form. (A SUMMARY OR INDEX MAY BE ATTACHED IN LIEU OF THE ACTUAL
DOCUMENTATION.)

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitaon Commission, Polluon Control Standards for
Discharges to the Ohio River, 2015 Revision.

[ stylesheet: RuleEnvironmental.xsl 2.15, authoring tool: ERF , (dv: 0, p: 185637, pa: 331657, ra: 574506, d: 742435)] print date: 09/21/2020 12:59 PM
Page C-2 Rule Number: 3745-1-33

United States Environmental Protecon Agency, Naonal Recommended Water

Quality Criteria - Human Health, 2015. Found here: hps://www.epa.gov/wqc/
naonalrecommended-water-quality-criteria-human-health-criteria-table.

United States Environmental Protecon Agency, Naonal Primary Drinking Water

Regulaons, 2009.

40 CFR 131 Water Quality Standards

40 CFR 132 Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System

ORC 6111.041 Standards of Water Quality

(C) Is the proposed rule or rule amendment being adopted or amended to enable the state
to obtain or maintain approval to administer and enforce a federal environmental law
or to parcipate in a federal environmental program? Yes

Is the proposed rule or rule amendment more stringent than its federal counterpart?
No Not Applicable

(D) If this is a rule amendment that is being adopted under a state statute that establishes
standards with which the amendment is to comply, is the proposed rule amendment
more stringent than the rule that it is proposing to amend? No
 ACTION: Refiled DATE: 08/04/2020 9:05 AM

Business Impact Analysis

Agency Name: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Regulation/Package Title: Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health

Rule Number(s): OAC 3745-1-32, 1-33, 1-34

Date: April 2, 2019

Rule Type:
New X 5-Year Review
X Amended Rescinded

The Common Sense Initiative was established by Executive Order 2011-01K and placed
within the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. Under the CSI Initiative, agencies should
balance the critical objectives of all regulations with the costs of compliance by the
regulated parties. Agencies should promote transparency, consistency, predictability, and
flexibility in regulatory activities. Agencies should prioritize compliance over punishment,
and to that end, should utilize plain language in the development of regulations.

Regulatory Intent
1. Please briefly describe the draft regulation in plain language.
Please include the key provisions of the regulation as well as any proposed amendments.
This rulemaking concerns the numeric water quality criteria for the protection of human
health in the Ohio River Mainstem, Ohio River Basin, and Lake Erie Basin.

BIA p(185637) pa(331657) d: (746481) print date: 09/21/2020 1:02 PM

 Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) states are required to have water quality standards that
protect lakes, rivers, streams or other surface waters from pollution. Ohio’s water quality
standards are in OAC Chapter 3745-1. The required components of a water quality standard
include beneficial use designations; narrative and numeric criteria protective of the use
designations; and implementation procedures used to evaluate decisions that could result in
the lowering of water quality (referred to as the antidegradation or rule).
Water quality standards are then used in other CWA programs such as the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, Section 401 Water Quality Certifications
and the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Any impacts to the
business community are realized only through the implementation of water quality standards
in these other regulatory programs.

The NPDES program prohibits discharges of pollutants from any point source (a discrete
conveyance such as a pipe or ditch) into the nation’s waters unless authorized under an
NPDES permit. The program gives U.S. EPA the authority to regulate discharges into the
nation’s waters by setting limits on the effluent that can be discharged to a body of water.
The NPDES program is closely intertwined with this rulemaking and is how we will quantify
the effect of these new numerical criteria in this analysis.

These rules are being updated to reflect the most recent human health numbers from U.S.
EPA’s 2015 updated chemical criteria, ORSANCO’s 2015 Pollution Control Standards
(PCS), and maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) promulgated under the Safe Drinking
Water Act.

2. Please list the Ohio statute authorizing the Agency to adopt this regulation.
Ohio Revised Code 6111.041.

3. Does the regulation implement a federal requirement? Is the proposed regulation

being adopted or amended to enable the state to obtain or maintain approval to
administer and enforce a federal law or to participate in a federal program?
If yes, please briefly explain the source and substance of the federal requirement.
Yes, the regulations implement federal requirements in the CWA and Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 131 Water Quality Standards and 132 Water Quality
Guidance for the Great Lakes System. 40 CFR 131.20 further stipulates that the State shall
adopt new or revised criteria for parameters for which US EPA has published. If the state
does not adopt new or revised criteria, then the State shall provide an explanation of why the
criteria have not been adopted.

-2-
4. If the regulation includes provisions not specifically required by the federal
government, please explain the rationale for exceeding the federal requirement.
Rule 3745-1-34 will be amended to apply maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) statewide.
MCLs are National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) established by U.S.
EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). NPDWRs are legally enforceable primary
standards and treatment techniques that apply to public water systems. Primary standards and
treatment techniques protect public health by limiting the levels of contaminants in drinking
water.
Ohio EPA’s Division of Drinking and Ground Water has also promulgated these MCLs into
regulations to cover drinking water and ground water. Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water
currently applies these MCLs only to the Ohio River basin and with this rulemaking
extending this protection statewide (to the Lake Erie basin). The Division of Surface Water is
promulgating these standards as a way to protect the treatment technology at the intakes of
the drinking water plants in the Lake Erie basin as well. This is an extension of the
applicability of the MCL to surface water within five hundred yards of an intake in the Lake
Erie basin, as Ohio’s drinking water supply is a very important resource. The extension of
these MCLs is a common sense regulatory change.

5. What is the public purpose for this regulation (i.e., why does the Agency feel that there
needs to be any regulation in this area at all)?
The CWA section 303(c)(2)(A) requires that water quality standards protect “public health or
welfare, enhance the quality of the water and serve the purposes of [the Act].” The CWA
section 101(a)(2) establishes as a national goal “water quality which provides for protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water, wherever
attainable.” 40 C.F.R. Part 131.11 specifies that states must adopt those water quality criteria
that protect the designated use. Such criteria must be based on sound scientific rationale and
must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use.

The value of clean water as a public resource is a well-established fact. Ohio is an

economically important and diverse state with strong manufacturing and agricultural
industries that depend upon abundant and clean water. Ohio’s economy also depends upon
the tourism that its waters attract. The program ensures that Ohio’s streams, rivers and lakes
can be used for purposes such as industrial and agricultural production, recreation, and as a
source of drinking water. These regulations are necessary in order to adequately protect
public health and the environment.

-3-
6. How will the Agency measure the success of this regulation in terms of outputs and/or
outcomes?
Success can be measured in two ways: 1) tracking various administrative milestones in the
programs that implement the water quality standards; and 2) monitoring the conditions of
streams, rivers and lakes over time. The NPDES permit program routinely provides data and
annual reports that describe the compliance performance of the regulated community. The
Agency sets targets for achieving compliance with permit terms and conditions.

As described in the response to question # 11 the water quality standards regulations are
performance based expectations regarding the quality of Ohio’s surface water. Ohio EPA
measures the success of the State’s overall pollution control efforts through biological and
chemical monitoring that determines whether or not a water body is attaining its designated
uses. The status or health of Ohio’s streams, rivers and lakes is reported every two years in
the Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, which is available on Ohio
EPA’s website at: http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/OhioIntegratedReport.aspx.

Development of the Regulation

7. Please list the stakeholders included by the Agency in the development or initial review
of the draft regulation.
If applicable, please include the date and medium by which the stakeholders were initially
contacted.
Ohio EPA sent electronic notification of the beginning of the Triennial WQS Review to the
Division of Surface Water’s rulemaking interested party list and posted the Early Stakeholder
Outreach fact sheet on the Division’s website on September 14, 2016. The comment period
deadline was November 14, 2016. Ohio EPA also held a webinar and public hearing on this
matter on September 28, 2016 and November 9, 2016, respectively. Six comment letters
were received during the comment period from The Nature Conservancy, Ohio Department
of Transportation, Ohio Environmental Council, Midwest Biodiversity institute, City of
Columbus, and Ohio Utility Group.

8. What input was provided by the stakeholders, and how did that input affect the draft
regulation being proposed by the Agency?
The only feedback provided on these rules stated that Ohio EPA should adopt US EPA’s,
and/or ORSANCO’s updated criteria into rule.

-4-
9. What scientific data was used to develop the rule or the measurable outcomes of the
rule? How does this data support the regulation being proposed?
These numerical criteria were taken directly from U.S. EPA’s 2015 Updated Human Health
Criteria, U.S. EPA’s list of Maximum Contaminant Levels (also referred to as National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations), and ORSANCO’s 2015 Pollution Control Standards
update. Links to these documents are provided below.
https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-human-health-
criteria-table
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-
regulations
http://www.orsanco.org/programs/pollution-control-standards/

10. What alternative regulations (or specific provisions within the regulation) did the
Agency consider, and why did it determine that these alternatives were not
appropriate? If none, why didn’t the Agency consider regulatory alternatives?
The Agency reviewed revisions to the recommended federal water quality criteria and
ORSANCO’s pollution control standards (PCS) since the last review and determined that
revisions were necessary to bring consistency between state regulations, ORSANCO PCS,
and federal water quality criteria.

11. Did the Agency specifically consider a performance-based regulation? Please explain.
Performance-based regulations define the required outcome, but don’t dictate the process
the regulated stakeholders must use to achieve compliance.
Water quality standards function as a performance-based regulation because for each
beneficial use defined in the rules there are measurable water quality criteria for determining
if a water body meets its designated beneficial uses. Ohio’s water quality standards include
numeric criteria for many chemical substances to protect human health and aquatic life,
bacteria indicators to protect water based recreation and biological criteria used to gauge
attainment of certain aquatic life use designations.

The business community is affected by these standards when they are used to establish
conditions in permits that regulate how much pollution can be safely discharged into a
receiving stream. Any business that discharges pollutants to waters of the State must comply
with permits designed to ensure the standards are met. The Agency does not specify the
technology that must be used to comply with permits.

-5-
12. What measures did the Agency take to ensure that this regulation does not duplicate an
existing Ohio regulation?
Ohio EPA is the delegated state agency for the water quality standards program. Only a
review of existing Ohio EPA rules was necessary, and no duplication was found.

13. Please describe the Agency’s plan for implementation of the regulation, including any
measures to ensure that the regulation is applied consistently and predictably for the
regulated community.
The Agency will put the effective date of the adopted rules three months out from the date of
adoption, which provides for U.S. EPA’s review and approval and gives the Agency time to
update web pages.

Adverse Impact to Business

14. Provide a summary of the estimated cost of compliance with the rule. Specifically,
please do the following:
a. Identify the scope of the impacted business community;
b. Identify the nature of the adverse impact (e.g., license fees, fines, employer time
for compliance); and
c. Quantify the expected adverse impact from the regulation.
The adverse impact can be quantified in terms of dollars, hours to comply, or other
factors; and may be estimated for the entire regulated population or for a
“representative business.” Please include the source for your information/estimated
impact.
The water quality standards affect the business community indirectly through other
regulatory programs that are designed to assure compliance with requirements based
on meeting the water quality standards. These requirements take the form of effluent
limits imposed by Ohio EPA through the NPDES permit program or 401
certifications. Though there is no direct cost associated with this water quality
standards rulemaking, the Agency has evaluated potential costs or impacts the
business community might incur through other CWA programs.
The Agency has determined that 151 of the 3,250 permitted dischargers in Ohio could
potentially be negatively impacted by the adoption of these criteria. Of these 151
dischargers, 60 already have limits for one or more of these chemicals that could
impact them. The remaining 91 dischargers monitor for one or more of these
chemicals but do not currently have limits. Some dischargers could receive less
stringent limits from these numerical changes as well. Permit limits are dependent on

-6-
 a multitude of factors and may not always be directly correlated to this specific type
water quality criterion, therefore the impact on stakeholders is somewhat varied and
difficult to estimate.
a. The impacted business community primarily includes those regulated through the
NPDES program.
Existing NPDES permit dischargers with current effluent limits for the draft criteria
that could have the potential to be negatively affected by the adoption of these rules
were notified by mail that these rules are available for comment.
b. There is no cost directly associated with these amended rules. However, the cost
associated with implementing these water quality criteria through the NPDES
program will vary widely based on factors such as volume of wastewater treated,
complexity of treatment system, stringency of the effluent limitations, effluent
monitoring requirements, and treatment technology installed at the point source. Most
facilities should not be impacted by these updated water quality criteria, but if a
discharger receives a more stringent permit limit or a permit limit for a new chemical,
or additional monitoring requirements, the nature of the adverse impact may include
the treatment of the wastewater, any cost to maintain or operate the equipment,
sampling, and time for paperwork completion.
c. As previously stated, there is no cost directly associated with these rule updates,
however there may be cost associated with the implementation of these water quality
criteria. The cost of compliance with these rules for a facility is site specific and will
vary greatly based on the type of treatment, the amount of sludge generated, amount
of water discharged, the types of samples and the amount of sampling required, and
the amount of treatment that would be required to satisfy the limitations. Most
facilities should not be impacted by these updated water quality criteria, but if a
discharger receives a more stringent permit limit or a permit limit for a new criterion,
the nature of the adverse impact may include the treatment of the wastewater, any
cost to maintain or operate the equipment, sampling, and time for paperwork
completion.
If a revision to a permittee’s effluent limitations due to these water quality criteria is
necessary upon permit renewal, the Agency will include a schedule of compliance in
the permit to allow the permittee the time to plan and construct or modify any
necessary treatment to comply with the NPDES permit.

15. Why did the Agency determine that the regulatory intent justifies the adverse impact to
the regulated business community?

-7-
 The water quality standards program and these draft rule revisions are the primary means of
ensuring that the quality of water in Ohio’s streams, rivers and lakes is improved, maintained
and remains suitable for swimming, drinking and fishing. The basic goal of meeting all
numeric and narrative criteria established under the CWA is the normal requirement
mandated by federal regulations. Deviation from that expectation is allowed in only a
handful of extraordinary circumstances, one of which is imposition of widespread social and
economic impact. Thus, it is incumbent upon states to establish the proper balance between
the water quality goals and the costs to society of attaining those goals. The Agency believes
the draft rules are supported by the need to protect public health, safety, and the environment.

Regulatory Flexibility
16. Does the regulation provide any exemptions or alternative means of compliance for
small businesses? Please explain.
With regard to the implementation programs impacted by this rulemaking, the regulations do
not provide exemptions for small businesses. Corresponding federal regulations and the Ohio
Revised Code do not provide for exemptions or alternative means of compliance for any
permittees. The regulations are applied evenly regardless of the size of the treatment works.
Smaller facilities are typically required to sample less frequently, which will cost them less
money.

17. How will the agency apply Ohio Revised Code section 119.14 (waiver of fines and
penalties for paperwork violations and first-time offenders) into implementation of the
regulation?
The first time paperwork violation waiver is not applicable to this rule package. The rules in
OAC Chapter 3745-1 contain standards for CWA permitting programs to enforce. No
paperwork or permits are required by the standards themselves.

18. What resources are available to assist small businesses with compliance of the
regulation?
• Ohio EPA Division of Environmental and Financial Assistance’s Office of Compliance
Assistance and Pollution Prevention (OCAPP) is a non-regulatory program that provides
information and resources to help small businesses comply with environmental regulations.
OCAPP also helps customers identify and implement pollution prevention measures that can
save money, increase business performance and benefit the environment. Services of the
office include a toll-free hotline, on-site compliance and pollution prevention assessments,
workshops/training, plain-English publications library and assistance in completing permit

-8-
application forms. Additional information is available at:
http://epa.ohio.gov/ocapp/ComplianceAssistanceandPollutionPrevention.aspx
• Ohio EPA also has a Customer Support Center web page
(https://ohioepa.custhelp.com/app/home/session/L3RpbWUvMTQ0NTg2NTYzNi9zaWQvX
1hTRkZWem0%3D) that contains links to several items to help businesses navigate the
permit process, including the Permit Wizard, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), training
and subscription to various program listservs.
• Ohio EPA maintains the Compliance Assistance Hotline 800-329-7518, weekdays from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
• Ohio EPA, Division of Environmental and Financial Assistance’s Compliance Assistance
Unit provides technical support to small (less than 0.5 million gallons per day) wastewater
treatment plants. Additional information is available at:
http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/compl_assist/compasst.aspx
• U.S. EPA Small Business Gateway also has information on environmental regulations for
small businesses available at: http://www.epa.gov/smallbusiness/ and a Small Business
Ombudsman Hotline 800-368-5888.
• U.S. EPA’s Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition available at:
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/index.cfm.
• U.S. EPA’s Policy and Guidance: Reference Library contains an index of EPA documents
related to water quality standards, including those referenced in the WQS Handbook. You
can sort the index alphabetically, by publication date, or by topic. Available at:
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/library/index.cfm.
• The Division of Surface Water’s Water Quality Standards program web page contains
background information and direct links to sections of the regulations. Additional
information is available at: http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/wqs/index.aspx.

-9-
 ACTION: Original DATE: 10/30/2019 9:09 AM

3745-1-34 Water quality criteria for the protection of human health [fish
consumption].

[Comment: For dates of non-regulatory government publications, publications of

recognized organizations and associations, federal rules and federal statutory provisions
referenced in this rule, see rule 3745-1-03 of the Administrative Code.]

(A) The chemical specific criteria listed in table 34-1 of this rule, or site-specific
modifications thereof, apply as "Outside Mixing Zone Averages" and shall apply to
all water bodies. For the purpose of setting water quality based effluent limits, these
criteria shall be met after the effluent and the receiving water are reasonably well
mixed as provided in rules 3745-1-06 and 3745-2-05 of the Administrative Code.

(B) Water bodies located within the Ohio river drainage basin. Any methodologies
and procedures acceptable under 40 C.F.R. 131 may be used when developing
or revising human health water quality criteria or implementing narrative criteria
contained in rule 3745-1-04 of the Administrative Code. For any pollutant for
which it is demonstrated that a methodology or procedure cited in this rule is
not scientifically defensible, the director may apply an alternative methodology or
procedure acceptable under 40 C.F.R. 131 when developing water quality criteria.

(C) Water bodies located within the lake Erie drainage basin. The methodologies contained
in rules 3745-1-41 and 3745-1-42 of the Administrative Code shall be used when
adopting or revising numeric human health criteria and when implementing the
narrative water quality criteria contained in rule 3745-1-04 of the Administrative
Code. For pollutants listed in table 34-2 of this rule, any methodologies and
procedures acceptable under 40 C.F.R. 131 may be used when developing water
quality criteria or implementing narrative criteria. For any pollutant other than those
in table 33-2 of this rule, for which it is demonstrated that a methodology or procedure
cited in this rule is not scientifically defensible, the director may apply an alternative
methodology or procedure acceptable under 40 C.F.R. 131 when developing water
quality criteria.
Table 34-1. Water quality criteria for the protection of human health [fish consumption].

OMZA3

Chemical Form1 Units2 Ohio river Lake Erie

Acenaphthene T µg/l 2,70090 --

Acrolein T µg/l 780400 --

Acrylonitrile5 T µg/l 6.670 --

[ stylesheet: rule.xsl 2.14, authoring tool: i4i 2.0 ras3 Jul 30, 2019 11:19, (dv: 0, p: 185637, pa: 328754, ra: 564690, d: 741756)] print date: 10/30/2019 9:24 AM
3745-1-34 2

Aldrin5 T µg/l 0.00147.7*10-6 --

Anthracene T µg/l 110,000400 --

Antimony TR µg/l 4,300640 --

Benzene5 T µg/l 710160 310160

Benzidine5 T µg/l 0.00540.11 --

Benzo(a)anthracene5 T µg/l 0.490.013 --

Benzo(a)pyrene5 T µg/l 0.490.0013 --

Benzo(b)fluoranthene5 T µg/l 0.490.013 --

Benzo(k)fluoranthene5 T µg/l 0.490.13 --

Beryllium TR µg/l 280 --

Bromoform5 T µg/l 3,6001,200 --

Butylbenzyl phthalate T µg/l 5,2001.0 --

Carbon tetrachloride5 T µg/l 4450 --

Chlordane5 T µg/l 0.0220.0032 0.00025

Chlorobenzene T µg/l 21,000800 3200800

Chlorodibromomethane5 T µg/l 340210 --

Bis(2-Chloro-1-methylethyl)ether T µg/l 4,000

Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether5 T µg/l 1422 --

Chloroform5 T µg/l 4,70020,000 --

bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether T µg/l 170,000 --

bis(2-Chloromethyl)ether5 T µg/l 0.00780.17 --

2-Chloronaphthalene T µg/l 4,3001,000 --

3745-1-34 3

2-Chlorophenol T µg/l 400800 --

Chrysene5 T µg/l 0.491.3 --

Copper TR µg/l 1,300 --

Cyanide free µg/l 220,000400 48,000(T)400

2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy-acetic T µg/l 12,000

acid)

4,4'-DDD5 T µg/l 0.00840.0012 --

4,4'-DDE5 T µg/l 0.00590.00018 --

4,4'-DDT5 T µg/l 0.00590.0003 0.00015

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene5 T µg/l 0.490.0013 --

Di-n-butyl phthalate T µg/l 12,00030 --

1,2-Dichlorobenzene T µg/l 17,0003,000 --

1,3-Dichlorobenzene T µg/l 2,60010 --

1,4-Dichlorobenzene T µg/l 2,600900 --

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine5 T µg/l 0.771.5 --

Dichlorobromomethane5 T µg/l 460270 --

1,2-Dichloroethane5 T µg/l 9906,500 --

1,1-Dichloroethylene5 T µg/l 3220,000 --

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene T µg/l 140,0004,000 --

2,4-Dichlorophenol T µg/l 79060 --

1,2-Dichloropropane5 T µg/l 390310 --

1,3-Dichloropropene5 T µg/l 1,700120 --

Dieldrin5 T µg/l 0.00141.2*10-5 0.0000065

3745-1-34 4

Diethyl phthalate T µg/l 120,000600 --

2,4-Dimethylphenol T µg/l 2,3003,000 8,7003,000

Dimethyl phthalate T µg/l 2,900,0002,000 --

4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol (4,6-Dinitro-2- T µg/l 77030 --

methylphenol)

Dinitrophenols4 T µg/l 14,0001,000

2,4-Dinitrophenol T µg/l --300 2,800300

2,4-Dinitrotoluene5 T µg/l 9117 --

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine5 T µg/l 5.42.0 --

alpha-Endosulfan6 T µg/l 24030 --

beta-Endosulfan6 T µg/l 24040 --

Endosulfan sulfate6 T µg/l 24040 --

Endrin6 T µg/l 0.810.03 --

Endrin aldehyde6 T µg/l 0.811.0 --

Ethylbenzene T µg/l 29,000130 --

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate5 T µg/l 593.7 --

Fluoranthene T µg/l 37020 --

Fluorene T µg/l 14,00070 --

Heptachlor5 T µg/l 0.00215.9*10-5 --

Heptachlor epoxide5 T µg/l 0.00110.00032 --

Hexachlorobenzene5 T µg/l 0.00770.00079 0.00045

Hexachlorobutadiene5 T µg/l 5000.1 --

alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane5 T µg/l 0.130.0039 --

3745-1-34 5

beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane5 T µg/l 0.460.14 --

gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane T µg/l 0.6344 0.50

(Lindane)5

Hexachlorocyclohexane - technical T µg/l 0.410.1 --

grade5

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene T µg/l 17,0004.0 --

Hexachloroethane5 T µg/l 891.0 6.71.0

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene5 T µg/l 0.490.013 --

Isophorone5 T µg/l 26,00018,000 --

Methoxychlor T µg/l 0.02

Mercury TR µg/l 0.012 0.0031

3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol TR µg/l 2,000

Methyl bromide T µg/l 4,00010,000 --

Methylene chloride5 T µg/l 16,00010,000 2,600

Nickel TR µg/l 4,600 --

Nitrobenzene T µg/l 1,900600 --

Nitrosoamines5 T µg/l 1212.4 --

N-Nitrosodibutylamine5 T µg/l 5.92.2 --

N-Nitrosodiethylamine5 T µg/l 1212.4 --

N-Nitrosodimethylamine5 T µg/l 8130 --

N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine5 T µg/l 145.1 --

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine5 T µg/l 16060 --

N-Nitrosodipyrrolidine5 T µg/l 920340 --

3745-1-34 6

Pentachlorobenzene T µg/l 4.10.1 --

Pentachlorophenol5 T mg/l 820.4 --

Phenol T µg/l 4,600,000300,000 --

Polychlorinated biphenyls5 T µg/l 0.00170.00064 0.000026

Pyrene T µg/l 11,00030 --

Selenium TR µg/l 11,0004,200 --

Silvex (2,4,5- T µg/l 400

Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid)

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene T µg/l 2.90.03 --

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin5 T pg/l 0.140.051 0.0086

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane5 T µg/l 11030 --

Tetrachloroethylene5 T µg/l 89290 --

Toluene T µg/l 200,000520 51,000520

Toxaphene5 T µg/l 0.00750.0071 0.000068

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene5 T µg/l 9400.76 --

1,1,1-Trichloroethane T µg/l 200,000

1,1,2-Trichloroethane5 T µg/l 42089 --

Trichloroethylene5 T µg/l 81070 37070

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol T µg/l 9,800600 --

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol5 T µg/l 6528 --

Vinyl chloride5 T µg/l 5,30016 --

Zinc T µg/l 69,00026,000 --

1
S = soluble; T = total; TR = total recoverable.
3745-1-34 7

2
mg/l = milligrams per liter (parts per million); µg/l = micrograms per liter (parts per
billion); pg/l = picograms per liter (parts per quadrillion).
3
OMZA = outside mixing zone average.
4
The criteria for this chemical apply to the sum of all dinitrophenols.
5
Criteria for this chemical are based on a carcinogenic endpoint.
6
The criteria for this chemical apply to the sum of alpha-endosulfan, beta-endosulfan
and endosulfan sulfate.
7
The criteria for this chemical apply to the sum of endrin and endrin aldehyde.
Table 34-2. Pollutants subject to any methodologies and procedures acceptable under 40
C.F.R. 131 for water bodies located in the lake Erie drainage basin.

Alkalinity

Ammonia

Bacteria

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)

Chlorine

Color

Dissolved oxygen

Dissolved solids

pH

Phosphorus

Salinity

Temperature

Total and suspended solids

Turbidity
3745-1-34 8

Effective:

Five Year Review (FYR) Dates: 10/30/2019

Certification

Date

Promulgated Under: 119.03

Statutory Authority: 6111.041
Rule Amplifies: 6111.041
Prior Effective Dates: 02/14/1978, 04/04/1985, 08/19/1985, 04/30/1987,
05/01/1990, 04/26/1997, 10/31/1997, 07/31/1998,
07/31/1999, 02/22/2002, 12/30/2002, 10/01/2014,
08/10/2016, 02/06/2017
 ACTION: Refiled DATE: 08/04/2020 9:05 AM

Rule Summary and Fiscal Analysis

Part A - General Quesons

Rule Number: 3745-1-34

Rule Type: Amendment

Rule Title/Tagline: Water quality criteria for the protecon of human health [fish
consumpon].

Agency Name: Ohio Environmental Protecon Agency

Division: Division of Surface Water (DSW)

Address: 50 W. Town St. Columbus OH 43221

Contact: Jennie Pugliese Phone: 614-728-2396

Email: [email protected]

I. Rule Summary
1. Is this a five year rule review? Yes

A. What is the rule’s five year review date? 10/30/2019

2. Is this rule the result of recent legislaon? No

3. What statute is this rule being promulgated under? 119.03

4. What statute(s) grant rule wring authority? 6111.041

5. What statute(s) does the rule implement or amplify? 6111.041

6. What are the reasons for proposing the rule?

This rule is being reviewed in order to comply with Ohio Revised Code secon 106.03
and the five year rule review.

7. Summarize the rule’s content, and if this is an amended rule, also summarize the
rule’s changes.

This rule contains the one route exposure (fish consumpon only) numerical water
quality criteria for the protecon of human health in the Ohio River basin and the Lake
Erie basin.

[ stylesheet: rsfaWithBusImpact.xsl 2.07, authoring tool: EZ1, (dv: 0, p: 185637, pa: 331657, ra: 574507, d: 759733)] print date: 09/21/2020 12:59 PM
Page 2 Rule Number: 3745-1-34

This rule contains the numerical values for the maximum concentraon of a pollutant
in given body of water, and is fundamentally different than a permit limit through the
NPDES program.

This rule has two values for each chemical, tled "Ohio River" and "Lake Erie." All of the
numerical values in this rule are fish consumpon only values (one route exposure),
meaning that the amount of water humans drink is not factored into these values at
all, and is solely based on the consumpon of fish. The values in the Ohio River basin
column are directly from U.S. EPA's 2015 Human Health update. The few values in the
Lake Erie column are numbers that Ohio EPA was specifically required to adopt by the
Great Lakes Iniave (40 CFR Part 132), however if a value has been struck through and
replaced in this column, it is again from U.S. EPA's 2015 update. These GLI values were
only replaced if they were less stringent than U.S. EPA's new human health criteria.

8. Does the rule incorporate material by reference? Yes

9. If the rule incorporates material by reference and the agency claims the material is
exempt pursuant to R.C. 121.71 to 121.76, please explain the basis for the exempon
and how an individual can find the referenced material.

This rule contains references to rules in the Ohio Administrave Code, and the Code
of Federal Regulaons, all of which are exempt under ORC 121.71 to 121.74.

The Ohio Revised Code exempts IBR requirements that are found in ORC 121.71
through 121.74, if the IBR comes from one of the following Ohio government
references: ORC, an uncodified Ohio statute, an act of the state in the Laws of Ohio, a
rule in the OAC, a rule in the Monthly Record, a rule in the Register of Ohio.

The following federal government references are also exempt from ORC 121.71
through 121.74, but must specify a date of the text being incorporated: the United
States Code, an uncodified federal statute, a regulaon from the Federal Register,
internal agency management rules, a rule that maintains authorizaon of a federally
delegated program, a rule required to receive federal funds under a federally funded
program, digital applicaons which do not establish policies, references that describe
federal administrave of legislave data, references that describe generally accepted
building codes, and references that are copyrighted materials where permission has
been obtained to use.

10. If revising or re-filing the rule, please indicate the changes made in the revised or re-
filed version of the rule.

No changes have been made to the originally filed rule as the result of the re-filing.
Page 3 Rule Number: 3745-1-34

11/19/2019 Deleted copper criteria and changed pentachlorophenol units from "mg/
l" to "ug/l".

II. Fiscal Analysis

11. As a result of this proposed rule, please esmate the increase / decrease in revenues
or expenditures affecng this agency, or the state generally, in the current biennium
or future years. If the proposed rule is likely to have a different fiscal effect in future
years, please describe the expected difference and operaon.

This will have no impact on revenues or expenditures.

$0

This rule would neither increase nor decrease expenditures for the Agency or the
State.

12. What are the esmated costs of compliance for all persons and/or organizaons
directly affected by the rule?

Ohio EPA has idenfied two potenal sources of addional cost to regulated enes –
costs due to treatment upgrades, and costs for more advanced chemical tesng. The
Agency does not believe that any significant treatment upgrades will be needed to
meet limits based on the new criteria. Therefore, no new cost.

Ensuring compliance with these lower numbers will require some dischargers to do
addional, low-level tesng for a few parameters. Ohio EPA projects that these new
costs will run from $0 - $400 per year per facility; the specific cost will depend on the
sampling frequency required by the permit, the number of discharge points tested
at the facility, and whether or not the facility is already using one or more of these
advanced analycal techniques.

13. Does the rule increase local government costs? (If yes, you must complete an RSFA
Part B). Yes

14. Does the rule regulate environmental protecon? (If yes, you must complete an RSFA
Part C). Yes

III. Common Sense Iniave (CSI) Quesons

15. Was this rule filed with the Common Sense Iniave Office? Yes
Page 4 Rule Number: 3745-1-34

16. Does this rule have an adverse impact on business? No

A. Does this rule require a license, permit, or any other prior authorizaon to
engage in or operate a line of business? No

B. Does this rule impose a criminal penalty, a civil penalty, or another sancon,
or create a cause of acon, for failure to comply with its terms? No

C. Does this rule require specific expenditures or the report of informaon as

a condion of compliance? No
 ACTION: Refiled DATE: 08/04/2020 9:05 AM

Page B-1 Rule Number: 3745-1-34

Rule Summary and Fiscal Analysis

Part B - Local Governments Quesons
1. Does the rule increase costs for:

A. Public School Districts Yes

B. County Government Yes

C. Township Government Yes

D. City and Village Governments Yes

2. Please esmate the total cost, in dollars, of compliance with the rule for the
affected local government(s). If you cannot give a dollar cost, explain how the local
government is financially impacted.

Ohio EPA has idenfied two potenal sources of addional cost to regulated enes –
costs due to treatment upgrades, and costs for more advanced chemical tesng. The
Agency does not believe that any significant treatment upgrades will be needed to
meet limits based on the new criteria. Therefore, no new cost.

Ensuring compliance with these lower numbers will require some dischargers to do
addional, low-level tesng for a few parameters. Ohio EPA projects that these new
costs will run from $0 - $400 per year per facility; the specific cost will depend on the
sampling frequency required by the permit, the number of discharge points tested
at the facility, and whether or not the facility is already using one or more of these
advanced analycal techniques.

3. Is this rule the result of a federal government requirement? Yes

A. If yes, does this rule do more than the federal government requires? No

B. If yes, what are the costs, in dollars, to the local government for the
regulaon that exceeds the federal government requirement?

Not Applicable

4. Please provide an esmated cost of compliance for the proposed rule if it has an
impact on the following:

A. Personnel Costs

[ stylesheet: RuleFiscalDetail.xsl 2.15, authoring tool: ERF , (dv: 0, p: 185637, pa: 331657, ra: 574507, d: 742466)] print date: 09/21/2020 1:00 PM
Page B-2 Rule Number: 3745-1-34

Please see response 2 above.

B. New Equipment or Other Capital Costs

Please see response 2 above.

C. Operang Costs

Please see response 2 above.

D. Any Indirect Central Service Costs

Please see response 2 above.

E. Other Costs

Please see response 2 above.

5. Please explain how the local government(s) will be able to pay for the increased
costs associated with the rule.

The Agency does not ancipate that any facilies affected by these rule amendments
will need to change how they operate, maintain, and treat water in their facilies.
The only cost that has the potenal to be incurred by these enes is site specific
and depends on what pollutants the influent water contains. That being said, a cost of
$0 - $400 per facility per year is a relavely insignificant cost that a facility should be
able to absorb into their budget. The facilies should not have to raise rates or incur
a superfluous cost increase.

6. What will be the impact on economic development, if any, as the result of this rule?

This rule should not impact economic development.

 ACTION: Refiled DATE: 08/04/2020 9:05 AM

Page C-1 Rule Number: 3745-1-34

Rule Summary and Fiscal Analysis

Part C - Environmental Rule Quesons
Pursuant to Am. Sub. H.B. 106 of the 121st General Assembly, prior to adopng a rule or an amendment
to a rule dealing with environmental protecon, or containing a component dealing with environmental
protecon, a state agency shall:

(1) Consult with organizaons that represent polical subdivisions, environmental interests, business
interests, and other persons affected by the proposed rule or amendment.

(2) Consider documentaon relevant to the need for, the environmental benefits or consequences of,
other benefits of, and the technological feasibility of the proposed rule or rule amendment.

(3) Specifically idenfy whether the proposed rule or rule amendment is being adopted or amended to
enable the state to obtain or maintain approval to administer and enforce a federal environmental
law or to parcipate in a federal environmental program, whether the proposed rule or rule
amendment is more stringent than its federal counterpart, and, if the proposed rule or rule
amendment is more stringent, the raonale for not incorporang its federal counterpart.

(4) Include with the proposed rule or rule amendment and rule summary and fiscal analysis required to
be filed with the Joint Commiee on Agency Rule Review informaon relevant to the previously
listed requirements.

(A) Were organizaons that represent polical subdivisions, environmental interests,

business interests, and other persons affected by the proposed rule or amendment
consulted? Yes

Please list each contact.

Ohio EPA invited interested pares to comment on the rule amendments during the
period of April 2, 2019 to May 2, 2019. Noce of the comment period was emailed to
approximately 4,000 interested pares. Ohio EPA also mailed leers to 153 dischargers
that may be impacted by this rule. Both lists of interested pares is available upon
request.

(B) Was documentaon that is relevant to the need for, the environmental benefits or
consequences of, other benefits of, and the technological feasibility of the proposed
rule or amendment considered? Yes

Please list the informaon provided and aach a copy of each piece of documentaon
to this form. (A SUMMARY OR INDEX MAY BE ATTACHED IN LIEU OF THE ACTUAL
DOCUMENTATION.)

40 CFR 131 Water Quality Standards

40 CFR 132 Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System

[ stylesheet: RuleEnvironmental.xsl 2.15, authoring tool: ERF , (dv: 0, p: 185637, pa: 331657, ra: 574507, d: 742467)] print date: 09/21/2020 1:00 PM
Page C-2 Rule Number: 3745-1-34

ORC 6111.041 Standards of Water Quality

United States Environmental Protecon Agency, Naonal Recommended Water

Quality Criteria - Human Health, 2015. Found here: hps://www.epa.gov/wqc/
naonalrecommended-water-quality-criteria-human-health-criteria-table.

(C) Is the proposed rule or rule amendment being adopted or amended to enable the state
to obtain or maintain approval to administer and enforce a federal environmental law
or to parcipate in a federal environmental program? Yes

Is the proposed rule or rule amendment more stringent than its federal counterpart?
No Not Applicable

(D) If this is a rule amendment that is being adopted under a state statute that establishes
standards with which the amendment is to comply, is the proposed rule amendment
more stringent than the rule that it is proposing to amend? No
 ACTION: Refiled DATE: 08/04/2020 9:05 AM

Business Impact Analysis

Agency Name: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Regulation/Package Title: Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health

Rule Number(s): OAC 3745-1-32, 1-33, 1-34

Date: April 2, 2019

Rule Type:
New X 5-Year Review
X Amended Rescinded

The Common Sense Initiative was established by Executive Order 2011-01K and placed
within the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. Under the CSI Initiative, agencies should
balance the critical objectives of all regulations with the costs of compliance by the
regulated parties. Agencies should promote transparency, consistency, predictability, and
flexibility in regulatory activities. Agencies should prioritize compliance over punishment,
and to that end, should utilize plain language in the development of regulations.

Regulatory Intent
1. Please briefly describe the draft regulation in plain language.
Please include the key provisions of the regulation as well as any proposed amendments.
This rulemaking concerns the numeric water quality criteria for the protection of human
health in the Ohio River Mainstem, Ohio River Basin, and Lake Erie Basin.

BIA p(185637) pa(331657) d: (746481) print date: 09/21/2020 1:00 PM

 Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) states are required to have water quality standards that
protect lakes, rivers, streams or other surface waters from pollution. Ohio’s water quality
standards are in OAC Chapter 3745-1. The required components of a water quality standard
include beneficial use designations; narrative and numeric criteria protective of the use
designations; and implementation procedures used to evaluate decisions that could result in
the lowering of water quality (referred to as the antidegradation or rule).
Water quality standards are then used in other CWA programs such as the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, Section 401 Water Quality Certifications
and the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Any impacts to the
business community are realized only through the implementation of water quality standards
in these other regulatory programs.

The NPDES program prohibits discharges of pollutants from any point source (a discrete
conveyance such as a pipe or ditch) into the nation’s waters unless authorized under an
NPDES permit. The program gives U.S. EPA the authority to regulate discharges into the
nation’s waters by setting limits on the effluent that can be discharged to a body of water.
The NPDES program is closely intertwined with this rulemaking and is how we will quantify
the effect of these new numerical criteria in this analysis.

These rules are being updated to reflect the most recent human health numbers from U.S.
EPA’s 2015 updated chemical criteria, ORSANCO’s 2015 Pollution Control Standards
(PCS), and maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) promulgated under the Safe Drinking
Water Act.

2. Please list the Ohio statute authorizing the Agency to adopt this regulation.
Ohio Revised Code 6111.041.

3. Does the regulation implement a federal requirement? Is the proposed regulation

being adopted or amended to enable the state to obtain or maintain approval to
administer and enforce a federal law or to participate in a federal program?
If yes, please briefly explain the source and substance of the federal requirement.
Yes, the regulations implement federal requirements in the CWA and Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 131 Water Quality Standards and 132 Water Quality
Guidance for the Great Lakes System. 40 CFR 131.20 further stipulates that the State shall
adopt new or revised criteria for parameters for which US EPA has published. If the state
does not adopt new or revised criteria, then the State shall provide an explanation of why the
criteria have not been adopted.

-2-
4. If the regulation includes provisions not specifically required by the federal
government, please explain the rationale for exceeding the federal requirement.
Rule 3745-1-34 will be amended to apply maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) statewide.
MCLs are National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) established by U.S.
EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). NPDWRs are legally enforceable primary
standards and treatment techniques that apply to public water systems. Primary standards and
treatment techniques protect public health by limiting the levels of contaminants in drinking
water.
Ohio EPA’s Division of Drinking and Ground Water has also promulgated these MCLs into
regulations to cover drinking water and ground water. Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water
currently applies these MCLs only to the Ohio River basin and with this rulemaking
extending this protection statewide (to the Lake Erie basin). The Division of Surface Water is
promulgating these standards as a way to protect the treatment technology at the intakes of
the drinking water plants in the Lake Erie basin as well. This is an extension of the
applicability of the MCL to surface water within five hundred yards of an intake in the Lake
Erie basin, as Ohio’s drinking water supply is a very important resource. The extension of
these MCLs is a common sense regulatory change.

5. What is the public purpose for this regulation (i.e., why does the Agency feel that there
needs to be any regulation in this area at all)?
The CWA section 303(c)(2)(A) requires that water quality standards protect “public health or
welfare, enhance the quality of the water and serve the purposes of [the Act].” The CWA
section 101(a)(2) establishes as a national goal “water quality which provides for protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water, wherever
attainable.” 40 C.F.R. Part 131.11 specifies that states must adopt those water quality criteria
that protect the designated use. Such criteria must be based on sound scientific rationale and
must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use.

The value of clean water as a public resource is a well-established fact. Ohio is an

economically important and diverse state with strong manufacturing and agricultural
industries that depend upon abundant and clean water. Ohio’s economy also depends upon
the tourism that its waters attract. The program ensures that Ohio’s streams, rivers and lakes
can be used for purposes such as industrial and agricultural production, recreation, and as a
source of drinking water. These regulations are necessary in order to adequately protect
public health and the environment.

-3-
6. How will the Agency measure the success of this regulation in terms of outputs and/or
outcomes?
Success can be measured in two ways: 1) tracking various administrative milestones in the
programs that implement the water quality standards; and 2) monitoring the conditions of
streams, rivers and lakes over time. The NPDES permit program routinely provides data and
annual reports that describe the compliance performance of the regulated community. The
Agency sets targets for achieving compliance with permit terms and conditions.

As described in the response to question # 11 the water quality standards regulations are
performance based expectations regarding the quality of Ohio’s surface water. Ohio EPA
measures the success of the State’s overall pollution control efforts through biological and
chemical monitoring that determines whether or not a water body is attaining its designated
uses. The status or health of Ohio’s streams, rivers and lakes is reported every two years in
the Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, which is available on Ohio
EPA’s website at: http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/OhioIntegratedReport.aspx.

Development of the Regulation

7. Please list the stakeholders included by the Agency in the development or initial review
of the draft regulation.
If applicable, please include the date and medium by which the stakeholders were initially
contacted.
Ohio EPA sent electronic notification of the beginning of the Triennial WQS Review to the
Division of Surface Water’s rulemaking interested party list and posted the Early Stakeholder
Outreach fact sheet on the Division’s website on September 14, 2016. The comment period
deadline was November 14, 2016. Ohio EPA also held a webinar and public hearing on this
matter on September 28, 2016 and November 9, 2016, respectively. Six comment letters
were received during the comment period from The Nature Conservancy, Ohio Department
of Transportation, Ohio Environmental Council, Midwest Biodiversity institute, City of
Columbus, and Ohio Utility Group.

8. What input was provided by the stakeholders, and how did that input affect the draft
regulation being proposed by the Agency?
The only feedback provided on these rules stated that Ohio EPA should adopt US EPA’s,
and/or ORSANCO’s updated criteria into rule.

-4-
9. What scientific data was used to develop the rule or the measurable outcomes of the
rule? How does this data support the regulation being proposed?
These numerical criteria were taken directly from U.S. EPA’s 2015 Updated Human Health
Criteria, U.S. EPA’s list of Maximum Contaminant Levels (also referred to as National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations), and ORSANCO’s 2015 Pollution Control Standards
update. Links to these documents are provided below.
https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-human-health-
criteria-table
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-
regulations
http://www.orsanco.org/programs/pollution-control-standards/

10. What alternative regulations (or specific provisions within the regulation) did the
Agency consider, and why did it determine that these alternatives were not
appropriate? If none, why didn’t the Agency consider regulatory alternatives?
The Agency reviewed revisions to the recommended federal water quality criteria and
ORSANCO’s pollution control standards (PCS) since the last review and determined that
revisions were necessary to bring consistency between state regulations, ORSANCO PCS,
and federal water quality criteria.

11. Did the Agency specifically consider a performance-based regulation? Please explain.
Performance-based regulations define the required outcome, but don’t dictate the process
the regulated stakeholders must use to achieve compliance.
Water quality standards function as a performance-based regulation because for each
beneficial use defined in the rules there are measurable water quality criteria for determining
if a water body meets its designated beneficial uses. Ohio’s water quality standards include
numeric criteria for many chemical substances to protect human health and aquatic life,
bacteria indicators to protect water based recreation and biological criteria used to gauge
attainment of certain aquatic life use designations.

The business community is affected by these standards when they are used to establish
conditions in permits that regulate how much pollution can be safely discharged into a
receiving stream. Any business that discharges pollutants to waters of the State must comply
with permits designed to ensure the standards are met. The Agency does not specify the
technology that must be used to comply with permits.

-5-
12. What measures did the Agency take to ensure that this regulation does not duplicate an
existing Ohio regulation?
Ohio EPA is the delegated state agency for the water quality standards program. Only a
review of existing Ohio EPA rules was necessary, and no duplication was found.

13. Please describe the Agency’s plan for implementation of the regulation, including any
measures to ensure that the regulation is applied consistently and predictably for the
regulated community.
The Agency will put the effective date of the adopted rules three months out from the date of
adoption, which provides for U.S. EPA’s review and approval and gives the Agency time to
update web pages.

Adverse Impact to Business

14. Provide a summary of the estimated cost of compliance with the rule. Specifically,
please do the following:
a. Identify the scope of the impacted business community;
b. Identify the nature of the adverse impact (e.g., license fees, fines, employer time
for compliance); and
c. Quantify the expected adverse impact from the regulation.
The adverse impact can be quantified in terms of dollars, hours to comply, or other
factors; and may be estimated for the entire regulated population or for a
“representative business.” Please include the source for your information/estimated
impact.
The water quality standards affect the business community indirectly through other
regulatory programs that are designed to assure compliance with requirements based
on meeting the water quality standards. These requirements take the form of effluent
limits imposed by Ohio EPA through the NPDES permit program or 401
certifications. Though there is no direct cost associated with this water quality
standards rulemaking, the Agency has evaluated potential costs or impacts the
business community might incur through other CWA programs.
The Agency has determined that 151 of the 3,250 permitted dischargers in Ohio could
potentially be negatively impacted by the adoption of these criteria. Of these 151
dischargers, 60 already have limits for one or more of these chemicals that could
impact them. The remaining 91 dischargers monitor for one or more of these
chemicals but do not currently have limits. Some dischargers could receive less
stringent limits from these numerical changes as well. Permit limits are dependent on

-6-
 a multitude of factors and may not always be directly correlated to this specific type
water quality criterion, therefore the impact on stakeholders is somewhat varied and
difficult to estimate.
a. The impacted business community primarily includes those regulated through the
NPDES program.
Existing NPDES permit dischargers with current effluent limits for the draft criteria
that could have the potential to be negatively affected by the adoption of these rules
were notified by mail that these rules are available for comment.
b. There is no cost directly associated with these amended rules. However, the cost
associated with implementing these water quality criteria through the NPDES
program will vary widely based on factors such as volume of wastewater treated,
complexity of treatment system, stringency of the effluent limitations, effluent
monitoring requirements, and treatment technology installed at the point source. Most
facilities should not be impacted by these updated water quality criteria, but if a
discharger receives a more stringent permit limit or a permit limit for a new chemical,
or additional monitoring requirements, the nature of the adverse impact may include
the treatment of the wastewater, any cost to maintain or operate the equipment,
sampling, and time for paperwork completion.
c. As previously stated, there is no cost directly associated with these rule updates,
however there may be cost associated with the implementation of these water quality
criteria. The cost of compliance with these rules for a facility is site specific and will
vary greatly based on the type of treatment, the amount of sludge generated, amount
of water discharged, the types of samples and the amount of sampling required, and
the amount of treatment that would be required to satisfy the limitations. Most
facilities should not be impacted by these updated water quality criteria, but if a
discharger receives a more stringent permit limit or a permit limit for a new criterion,
the nature of the adverse impact may include the treatment of the wastewater, any
cost to maintain or operate the equipment, sampling, and time for paperwork
completion.
If a revision to a permittee’s effluent limitations due to these water quality criteria is
necessary upon permit renewal, the Agency will include a schedule of compliance in
the permit to allow the permittee the time to plan and construct or modify any
necessary treatment to comply with the NPDES permit.

15. Why did the Agency determine that the regulatory intent justifies the adverse impact to
the regulated business community?

-7-
 The water quality standards program and these draft rule revisions are the primary means of
ensuring that the quality of water in Ohio’s streams, rivers and lakes is improved, maintained
and remains suitable for swimming, drinking and fishing. The basic goal of meeting all
numeric and narrative criteria established under the CWA is the normal requirement
mandated by federal regulations. Deviation from that expectation is allowed in only a
handful of extraordinary circumstances, one of which is imposition of widespread social and
economic impact. Thus, it is incumbent upon states to establish the proper balance between
the water quality goals and the costs to society of attaining those goals. The Agency believes
the draft rules are supported by the need to protect public health, safety, and the environment.

Regulatory Flexibility
16. Does the regulation provide any exemptions or alternative means of compliance for
small businesses? Please explain.
With regard to the implementation programs impacted by this rulemaking, the regulations do
not provide exemptions for small businesses. Corresponding federal regulations and the Ohio
Revised Code do not provide for exemptions or alternative means of compliance for any
permittees. The regulations are applied evenly regardless of the size of the treatment works.
Smaller facilities are typically required to sample less frequently, which will cost them less
money.

17. How will the agency apply Ohio Revised Code section 119.14 (waiver of fines and
penalties for paperwork violations and first-time offenders) into implementation of the
regulation?
The first time paperwork violation waiver is not applicable to this rule package. The rules in
OAC Chapter 3745-1 contain standards for CWA permitting programs to enforce. No
paperwork or permits are required by the standards themselves.

18. What resources are available to assist small businesses with compliance of the
regulation?
• Ohio EPA Division of Environmental and Financial Assistance’s Office of Compliance
Assistance and Pollution Prevention (OCAPP) is a non-regulatory program that provides
information and resources to help small businesses comply with environmental regulations.
OCAPP also helps customers identify and implement pollution prevention measures that can
save money, increase business performance and benefit the environment. Services of the
office include a toll-free hotline, on-site compliance and pollution prevention assessments,
workshops/training, plain-English publications library and assistance in completing permit

-8-
application forms. Additional information is available at:
http://epa.ohio.gov/ocapp/ComplianceAssistanceandPollutionPrevention.aspx
• Ohio EPA also has a Customer Support Center web page
(https://ohioepa.custhelp.com/app/home/session/L3RpbWUvMTQ0NTg2NTYzNi9zaWQvX
1hTRkZWem0%3D) that contains links to several items to help businesses navigate the
permit process, including the Permit Wizard, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), training
and subscription to various program listservs.
• Ohio EPA maintains the Compliance Assistance Hotline 800-329-7518, weekdays from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
• Ohio EPA, Division of Environmental and Financial Assistance’s Compliance Assistance
Unit provides technical support to small (less than 0.5 million gallons per day) wastewater
treatment plants. Additional information is available at:
http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/compl_assist/compasst.aspx
• U.S. EPA Small Business Gateway also has information on environmental regulations for
small businesses available at: http://www.epa.gov/smallbusiness/ and a Small Business
Ombudsman Hotline 800-368-5888.
• U.S. EPA’s Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition available at:
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/index.cfm.
• U.S. EPA’s Policy and Guidance: Reference Library contains an index of EPA documents
related to water quality standards, including those referenced in the WQS Handbook. You
can sort the index alphabetically, by publication date, or by topic. Available at:
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/library/index.cfm.
• The Division of Surface Water’s Water Quality Standards program web page contains
background information and direct links to sections of the regulations. Additional
information is available at: http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/wqs/index.aspx.

-9-
 ACTION: Refiled DATE: 08/04/2020 9:05 AM

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission

POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS

for Discharges to the Ohio River
2015 Revision

Notice of Requirements
You are hereby notified that, having consid- Under the terms and provisions of the Ohio
ered all the evidence presented at public River Valley Water Sanitation Compact, all
hearings, the Ohio River Valley Water sewage from municipalities or other political
Sanitation Commission, at its regularly held subdivisions, public or private institutions,
meeting on October 8, 2015, acting in corporations or watercraft and all industrial
accordance with and pursuant to the wastes discharged or permitted to flow into
authority contained in Article VI of the Ohio the Ohio River will be required to be
River Valley Water Sanitation Compact, modified or treated to the extent specified in
adopted and promulgated, subject to revision the standards established as above set forth.
as changing conditions require, Pollution
Control Standards 2015 Revision for the To the extent that Pollution Control
modification or treatment of all sewage from Standards 2013 Revision, which were
municipalities or other political subdivi- established by Commission action October
sions, public or private institutions, 10, 2013, have been amended or restated by
corporations or watercraft, and for the modi- virtue of Pollution Control Standards 2015,
fication or treatment of all industrial wastes the Pollution Control Standards 2013
discharged or permitted to flow into the Revision, including any definitions and
Ohio River from the point of confluence of application procedures appended to or
the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers at incorporated therein, are rescinded.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, designated as Ohio
River mile point 0.0 to Cairo Point, Illinois,
located at the confluence of the Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers, and being 981.0 miles
downstream from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Richard Harrison, P.E.
Executive Director and Chief Engineer

ATTACH p(185637) pa(331657) d: (742380) ra(574505) print date: 09/21/2020 12:53 PM

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS ...........................................................................1

1.1 AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE .................................................................................1

1.2 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................2
1.3 GENERAL CONDITIONS.........................................................................................5
1.4. LIMITATIONS ...........................................................................................................6
1.5 SEVERABILITY CLAUSE........................................................................................6
1.6 VARIANCES..............................................................................................................6
1.7 SITE SPECIFIC CRITERIA .......................................................................................7

II. CHAPTER 2: DESIGNATED USES ..................................................................................7

2.1 USES AS ESTABLISHED BY THE OHIO RIVER VALLEY WATER

SANITATION COMPACT ........................................................................................7
2.2 DEFINITION / CLARIFICATION OF USES ............................................................7

III. CHAPTER 3: WATER QUALITY CRITERIA ..................................................................8

3.1 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA SUMMARY...........................................................8

3.2 AQUATIC LIFE PROTECTION..............................................................................12
3.3 HUMAN HEALTH PROTECTION.........................................................................16

IV. CHAPTER 4: MIXING ZONE DESIGNATION ..............................................................17

V. CHAPTER 5: WASTEWATER DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS.................................19

5.1 GENERAL................................................................................................................19
5.2 CRITICAL FLOW ....................................................................................................20
5.3 WASTEWATER DISCHARGES FOR CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS ...............20
5.4 SEWAGE..................................................................................................................20
5.5 INDUSTRIAL WASTES, INCLUDING TOXIC WASTES....................................24
5.6 RESIDUES FROM POTABLE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS........................25
5.7 COOLING WATER .................................................................................................25
5.8 OTHER WASTES ....................................................................................................25
5.9 ANALYTICAL METHODS.....................................................................................25

i
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Acute and Chronic Criteria Concentrations for Total

Ammonia-Nitrogen (in mg/L) for Varying Combinations
of pH and Temperature...................................................................................26

TABLE A1: Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the Acute Criteria for
Total Ammonia-Nitrogen; Unionid Mussels Present ....................................27

TABLE A2: Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the Acute Criteria for
Total Ammonia-Nitrogen; Unionid Mussels Absent ....................................28

TABLE A3: Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the Chronic Criteria

for Total Ammonia-Nitrogen; Unionid Mussels Present ..............................29

TABLE A4: Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the Chronic Criteria

for Total Ammonia-Nitrogen; Unionid Mussels Absent and Fish
Early Life Stages Present (March 1-October 31)............................................30

TABLE A5: Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the Chronic Criteria

for Total Ammonia-Nitrogen; Unionid Mussels Absent and Fish
Early Life Stages Absent (November 1-February 29) ....................................31

APPENDIX B: Dissolved Metals Criteria...............................................................................32

TABLE B1: Numeric Values of Dissolved Metals Criteria at Specified

Hardness Levels..............................................................................................32

APPENDIX C: Critical Flow Values.......................................................................................33

APPENDIX D: Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Methodologies for

Development of Aquatic Life Criteria and Values ........................................34

APPENDIX E: Alternate Approaches for Calculating Acute Mixing Zones ..........................62

ii
 Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission

POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS

for Discharges to the Ohio River
2015 Revision

CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS

1.1 AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE

The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Compact (the Compact) was signed in 1948 by
the Governors of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, following the consent of the United States
Congress and enactment of the Compact into law by the legislatures of the eight states.
The Compact created the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (the
Commission) as a body corporate with powers and duties set forth in it for the purpose of
abating water pollution within the Compact District. Article I of the Compact mandates
that all waters in the District be placed and maintained in a satisfactory, sanitary
condition, available for certain beneficial uses. It is the mission of the Commission to
ensure protection of these uses and to preserve the waters for other legitimate purposes.

The Compact grants the Commission authority to carry out its mission. Article VI states
that “the guiding principle of this Compact shall be that pollution by sewage or industrial
wastes originating within a signatory State shall not injuriously affect the various uses of
the interstate waters.” Minimum requirements for the treatment of sewage and industrial
waste then are established in Article VI, as well as the authority of the Commission to
require higher degrees of treatment where they are determined to be necessary after
investigation, due notice, and hearing. Article VI concludes by authorizing the
Commission to “adopt, prescribe, and promulgate rules, regulations and standards for
administering and enforcing the provisions of this article.”

Article IX of the Compact grants the Commission authority to issue orders, after
investigation and hearing, for the purpose of achieving compliance with its standards.
Any court of general jurisdiction or any United States District Court in the signatory
states may be used by the Commission in order to enforce such orders.

It is the policy of the Commission to rely on the member states for the primary
enforcement of its standards. Each of the member states is authorized to do so under the
legislation that enabled its membership in the Compact. Each of the member states is
authorized to administer the federal/state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) as established in Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Sections
301(b)(1)(C) and 510 of the Federal Act require that permits issued under that system
incorporate applicable standards promulgated by an interstate agency wherever they are
1
more stringent than comparable state or federal standards. The NPDES permits are
therefore the primary means by which the Commission’s Standards are implemented and
enforced.

These standards set forth the uses to be protected in the Ohio River (Chapter 2) as
established in the Compact, establish water quality criteria to assure that those uses will
be achieved (Chapter 3), and set wastewater discharge requirements (Chapter 5) needed
to attain the water quality criteria. The standards also recognize the rights of individual
states to adopt and apply more stringent regulations.

Specific wastewater discharge requirements are established in these regulations and must
be incorporated into discharge permits issued under the authority of the NPDES or state
discharge permitting programs when they are more stringent than:

1) applicable U.S. EPA technology-based effluent guidelines required under

Sections 301, 304, 306, and 307 of the Federal Clean Water Act, or

2) any state treatment requirements, effluent standards, or water quality-based

effluent limits.

In the absence of promulgated Federal effluent guidelines pursuant to Sections 301, 304,
306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act, the Compact signatory states have the responsibility
to establish effluent limitations to be included in any discharge permit, consistent with the
standards contained herein using best professional judgment on a case-by-case basis.

1.2 DEFINITIONS

A. “Acute Criteria” means the highest concentrations of toxic substances to which

organisms can be exposed for a brief period of time (as measured by approved
short-term exposure tests) without causing mortality or other unacceptable effects.

B. “Biological Integrity” means the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and

maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a
species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to those
best attainable given eco-regional attributes and the modified habitat types of the
river.

C. “Chronic Criteria” means the highest concentrations of toxic substances to which

organisms can be exposed indefinitely without causing long-term harmful effects
on growth and/or reproduction or other unacceptable effects (as measured by
approved long-term exposure tests).

D. “Combined Sewer Overflow” means a discharge from a sewer system designed to

convey sanitary wastewaters and storm water through a single-pipe system to a
treatment facility, at a point in the system prior to the treatment facility.

2
E. “Compact,” as used in these regulations, means the Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Compact and is an agreement entered into by and between the states of
Indiana, West Virginia, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia, which pledges each to the other of the signatory states faithful
cooperation in the control of existing and future pollution of the waters in the
Ohio River Basin. This Compact created the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission.

F. “Cooling Water” means water used as a heat transfer medium for once-through
cooling or cooling tower blow down to which no industrial wastes, toxic wastes,
residues from potable water treatment plants, untreated sewage, or other wastes,
exclusive of antifouling agents approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies,
are added prior to discharge.

G. “Contact Recreation” means recreational activities where the human body may
come in direct contact with water of the Ohio River.

H. “Dry Weather Flow Conditions” means flow conditions within a combined sewer
system resulting from one or more of the following: flows of domestic sewage,
ground water infiltration, commercial and industrial wastewater, and any non-
precipitation event related flows. Other non-precipitation event related flows that
are included in dry weather flow conditions will be decided by the permitting
agency based on site specific conditions.

I. “Early Life Stages” of fish means the pre-hatch embryonic period, the post-hatch
free embryo or yolk-sac fry, and the larval period, during which the organism
feeds. Juvenile fish, which are anatomically rather similar to adults, are not
considered an early life stage.

J. “Industrial Wastes” means any liquid, gaseous, or solid materials, waste

substances or combination thereof other than cooling water as herein defined,
resulting from any process or operation including storage and transportation,
manufacturing, commercial, agricultural, and government operations.

K. “Mixing Zone” means that portion of the water body receiving a discharge where
effluent and receiving waters are not totally mixed and uniform with the result that
the zone is not representative of the receiving waters and may not meet all
ambient water quality standards or other requirements of any signatory state
applicable to the particular receiving waters. All applicable water quality criteria
must be met at the edge of the mixing zone.

L. “Net Discharge” is determined by excluding the amount of a pollutant in the

intake water when determining the quality of a discharge if both the intake and
discharge are from and to the same body of water.

M. “96 hour LC50” as used in these regulations, means the concentration of a

substance that kills 50 percent of the test organisms within 96 hours. The test

3
 organisms shall be representative important species indigenous to the Ohio River
or standard test organisms.

N. The “Ohio River,” as used in these regulations, extends from the point of
confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
designated as Ohio River mile point 0.0 to Cairo Point, Illinois, located at the
confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, 981.0 miles downstream from
Pittsburgh.

O. “Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission” (the Commission) means a

body corporate created by authority of the Compact and is the operating agency
established to implement the Compact. It consists of three representatives of each
signatory state and three representatives of the federal government.

P. “Other Wastes” means any waste other than sewage, cooling water, residues from
potable water treatment plants, industrial wastes or toxic wastes which, if
discharged to the Ohio River, could cause or contribute to any violations of these
regulations, or of any water quality standards of any signatory state, or which may
be deleterious to the designated uses. Other wastes include, but are not limited to:
garbage, refuse, decayed wood, sawdust, shavings, bark and other wood debris
and residues resulting from secondary processing, sand, lime cinders, ashes, offal,
night soil, silt, oil, tar, dyestuffs, acids, chemicals, heat or other materials and
substances not sewage or industrial wastes which may cause or might reasonably
be expected to cause or contribute to the pollution of the Ohio River.

Q. “Persistent Substances” means those substances that have a half-life for

degradation under natural environmental conditions of more than four days. All
other substances are non-persistent.

R. “Pollution” means the human-made or human-induced alteration of the chemical,

physical, biological and radiological integrity of the waters of the Ohio River.

S. “Public Water System” means a system for the provision to the public of water for
human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such
system has at least 15 service connections or regularly serves an average of at least
25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. As this relates to Chapter
3.3.C (Total Ammonia-Nitrogen), the source water of the public water system is
the Ohio River or ground water under the direct influence of the Ohio River.

T. “Reasonable Treatment” means, for the purposes of these standards, the

conventional drinking water treatment processes of mixing, flocculation,
sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection.

U. “Representative Aquatic Species” means those species of aquatic life whose

protection and propagation will assure the sustained presence of a balanced
indigenous community. Such species are representative in the sense that

4
 maintenance of suitable water quality conditions will assure the overall protection
and sustain propagation of the balanced, indigenous community.

V. “Residues from Potable Water Treatment Plants” means those wastes emanating
from processes used in water purification. Such processes may include
sedimentation, chemical coagulation, filtration, iron and manganese removal,
softening, and disinfection.

W. “Sewage” means water-carried human or animal wastes from such sources as

residences; industrial, commercial, or government establishments; public or
private institutions; or other places. For the purposes of these standards, the
mixture of sewage with industrial wastes, toxic wastes, or other wastes, shall be
subject to treatment requirements for those types of wastes, but shall also be
regarded as sewage.

X. “Substantially Complete Removal” means removal to the lowest practicable level

attainable with current technology.

Y. “Toxic Wastes” means wastes containing substances or combinations of

substances in concentrations which might reasonably be expected to cause death,
disease, behavioral abnormalities, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions,
including those in reproduction, or physical deformations in fish, other aquatic
life, wildlife, livestock, or humans.

Z. “Wastewater” means sewage and/or industrial wastes as herein defined.

1.3 GENERAL CONDITIONS

A. General
The minimum conditions which these standards are intended to achieve in the
receiving waters are as follows:

1. Freedom from anything that will settle to form objectionable sludge

deposits which interfere with designated water uses.

2. Freedom from floating debris, scum, oil, and other floating material in
amounts sufficient to be unsightly or deleterious.

3. Freedom from materials producing color or odors to such a degree as to

create unaesthetic conditions or a nuisance.

4. Freedom from substances in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to

humans, animals, or fish and other aquatic life; which would in any
manner adversely affect the flavor, color, odor, or edibility of fish and
other aquatic life, wildlife, or livestock; or which are otherwise detrimental
to the designated uses specified in Chapter 2.

5
1.4 LIMITATIONS

Nothing contained in these regulations shall be construed to limit the powers of any state
signatory to the Compact to promulgate more stringent criteria, conditions, and
restrictions to further lessen or prevent the pollution of waters within its jurisdiction.

1.5 SEVERABILITY CLAUSE

Should any one or more of the Pollution Control Standards hereby established or should
any one or more provisions of the regulations herein contained be held or determined to
be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, for any reason whatsoever, all other standards and
other provisions shall remain effective.

1.6 VARIANCES

A. The Commission may grant a variance from the provisions of Chapter 5 or

Chapter 4.F of these standards, provided that the uses set forth in Chapter 2 are
maintained and that the water quality criteria set forth in Chapter 3 are met. The
permittee shall submit an application which includes, but is not limited to, the
following:

1. The specific reasons for the variance.

2. Information on alternatives considered, including elimination of the

discharge.

3. The effluent limitations that the discharger believes can be met by the
highest level of treatment achievable.

4. A demonstration that the uses set forth in Chapter 2 and the water quality
criteria set forth in Chapter 3 will be maintained.

5. Variances granted pursuant to this section will be included in Appendix F

of these standards.

B. The Commission may require additional information that it deems relevant to its
decision-making process, including, but not limited to, the NPDES permitting
state regulation that would allow the requested variance absent the ORSANCO
standard.

C. The Commission will provide opportunity for public comment in its consideration
of any variance request.

D. A variance may be granted for a period not to exceed five years; the applicant may
apply for a variance renewal prior to the expiration of the permit.

6
1.7 SITE SPECIFIC CRITERIA

Alternative site-specific criteria for the constituents listed herein may be approved if they
are demonstrated to be appropriate to the satisfaction of the Commission. Such
demonstrations shall utilize methods contained in the Water Quality Standards Handbook
(U.S. EPA publication EPA823-B94005A, August 1994), or other methods approved by
the U.S. EPA.

CHAPTER 2: DESIGNATED USES

2.1 USES AS ESTABLISHED BY THE OHIO RIVER VALLEY WATER

SANITATION COMPACT

The Ohio River, as hereinbefore defined, has been designated by the Compact as
available for safe and satisfactory use as public and industrial water supplies after
reasonable treatment, suitable for recreational usage, capable of maintaining fish and
other aquatic life, and adaptable to such other uses as may be legitimate. It is the purpose
of these Pollution Control Standards to safeguard the waters of the Ohio River for these
designated uses. No degradation of the water quality of the Ohio River that would
interfere with or become injurious to these uses shall be permitted.

2.2 DEFINITION / CLARIFICATION OF USES

For the purposes of these Standards, water quality criteria to protect the uses stated above
shall be developed, adopted and presented as follows:

A. Aquatic life protection criteria shall assure water quality conditions capable of
maintaining fish and other aquatic life.

B. Human health protection criteria shall assure water quality conditions that allow
safe and satisfactory use as public and industrial water supplies after reasonable
treatment as defined in Chapter 1.2.T; are suitable for contact recreation as
defined in Chapter 1.2.G during those months when the river is otherwise suitable
for such activities; and allow safe consumption of fish.

C. Taste and odor protection criteria shall assure water quality conditions that allow
safe and satisfactory use as public and industrial water supplies after reasonable
treatment as defined in Chapter 1.2.T without unaesthetic conditions such as taste
or odor.

7
 CHAPTER 3: WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

3.1 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA SUMMARY

The frequency and duration values for the acute, chronic, human health (carcinogen and
non-carcinogen) and fish consumption criteria contained in the existing Pollution Control
Standards, where not specified, shall be consistent with the design assumptions utilized in
development of the criteria.

The following table is a summary of all applicable criteria:

Human Health Aquatic Life All Other
Non- Uses (e.g.
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Chronic Taste &
Pollutant (ug/L) (ug/L) Acute (ug/L) (ug/L) Odor)
Acenaphthene 670A,B
Acrolein 190
A,C
Acrylonitrile 0.051
Aldrin 0.000049A,C
alpha-BHC 0.0026A,C
alpha-Endosulfan 62A
Ammonia 1.0 mg/LD 7.3E 1.0E
Anthracene 8300A
Antimony 5.6A
Arsenic 0.010 mg/L 340F 150F
7,000,000
Asbestos fibers/LG
Barium 1.0 mg/L
A,C
Benzene 2.2
Benzidine 0.000086 A,C
Benzo(a) Anthracene 0.0038 A,C
Benzo(a) Pyrene 0.0038 A,C
Benzo(b) Fluoranthene 0.0038 A,C
Benzo(k) Fluoranthene 0.0038 A,C
beta-BHC 0.0091 A,C
beta-Endosulfan 62A
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether 0.03A,C
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether 1400A
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 1.2A,C
Bromoform 4.3A,C
Butylbenzyl Phthalate 1500A
Cadmium 2.01H 0.25H
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.23A,C
Chlordane 0.0008A,C
Chloride 250 mg/L
B,I
Chlorobenzene 130

8
 Human Health Aquatic Life All Other
Non- Uses (e.g.
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Chronic Taste &
Pollutant (ug/L) (ug/L) Acute (ug/L) (ug/L) Odor)
Chlorodibromomethane 0.4A,C
Chloroform 5.7C,J
Chromium III 570H 74.1H
Chromium VI 15.712F 10.582F
Chrysene 0.0038A,C
Copper 1300B 13.4H 8.96H
Cyanide 140K
Cyanide (free) 22L 5.2L
A,C
Dibenzo(a,h) Anthracene 0.0038
Dichlorobromomethane 0.55A,C
Dieldrin 0.000052A,C
Diethyl Phthalate 17000A
Dimethyl Phthalate 270000
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate 2000A
Dissolved Oxygen > 4.0 mg/LM > 5.0 mg/LM
130
CFU/100mL
(GM) R,
240
E. Coli CFU/100mL S
Endosulfan Sulfate 62A
Endrin 0.059
Endrin Aldehyde 0.29A
Ethylbenzene 530
2,000
Fecal Coliform CFU/100mLN
Fluoride 1.0 mg/L
Fluoranthene 130A
Fluorene 1100A
gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.98
A,C
Heptachlor 0.000079
Heptachlor Epoxide 0.000039A,C
Hexachlorobenzene 0.00028A,C
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.44A,C
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 40B
Hexachloroethane 1.4A,C
Ideno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene 0.0038A,C
Isophorone 35A,C
Lead 64.6H 2.52H
Mercury 0.000012mg/L 1.45F 0.774F
Methyl Bromide 47A
9
 Human Health Aquatic Life All Other
Non- Uses (e.g.
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Chronic Taste &
Pollutant (ug/L) (ug/L) Acute (ug/L) (ug/L) Odor)
Methylene Chloride 4.6A,C
Methylmercury 0.3 mg/kgO
Nickel 610A 469H 52H
Nitrite Nitrate Nitrogen 10 mg/L
Nitrite Nitrogen 1 mg/L
Nitrobenzene 17A
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 0.00069A,C
N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine 0.005 A,C
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 3.3 A,C
Pentachlorophenol 0.27 A,C
pH >6.0 and <9.0
A,B
Phenol 21000
Phenolics 0.005 mg/L
A,C,P
Polychlorinated Biphenyls 0.000064
Pyrene 830A
combined radium-226 and
radium 228 4 pCi/L
gross total alpha 15 pCi/L
total gross beta 50 pCi/L
total gross strontium-90 8 pCI/L
Selenium 170I 5L
Silver 0.05 mg/L 3.22H
Sulfate 250 mg/L
Temperature 110 Deg F See table Chapter 3.2.C.
C
Tetrachloroethylene 0.69
Thallium 0.24
Toluene 1300I
Total dissolved solids 500 mg/LD
Toxaphene 0.00028A,C
Trichloroethylene 2.5C
Vinyl Chloride 0.025C,Q
Zinc 7400B 117H 118H
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.17A,C
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.59A,C
1,1-Dichloroethylene 330
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 35
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 420
A,C
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.38
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.5A,C
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 0.036A,C
10
 Human Health Aquatic Life All Other
Non- Uses (e.g.
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Chronic Taste &
Pollutant (ug/L) (ug/L) Acute (ug/L) (ug/L) Odor)
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene 140I
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 320
C
1,3-Dichloropropene 0.34
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 63
C
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) 0.000000005
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 1.4A,C
2,4-Dichlorophenol 77A,B
2,4-Dimethylphenol 380A
2,4-Dinitrophenol 69A
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.11C
2-Chloronaphthalene 1000A
2-Chlorophenol 81A,B
2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol 13
A,C
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 0.021
4,4'-DDD 0.00031A,C
4,4'-DDE 0.00022 A,C
4,4'-DDT 0.00022A,C
A
This criterion has been revised to reflect The U.S. EPA’s q1* or RfD, as contained in the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) as of May 17, 2002. The fish tissue bioconcentration factor (BCF) from the 1980
Ambient Water Quality Criteria document was retained in each case.
B
The organoleptic effect criterion is more stringent than the value for priority toxic pollutants.
C -6
This criterion is based on carcinogenicity of 10 risk. Alternate risk levels may be obtained by moving the
-5
decimal point (e.g., for a risk level of 10 , move the decimal point in the recommended criterion one place
to the right).
D
Criteria applies at drinking water intakes.
E
Criteria dependant on pH and temp, see formulas Sec. 3.2.E and 4-day avg. rule, Appendix A1-A5. Criteria
shown at pH 7.0, most restrictive temperature, and unionid mussels present.
F
Presented in the dissolved form.
G
This criterion for asbestos is the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) developed under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA).
H
Presented in the dissolved form and shown at Hardness 100, specific formulas in Sec. 3.2. F.
I
U.S. EPA has issued a more stringent MCL. Refer to drinking water regulations (40 CFR 141) or Safe
Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791) for values.
J
Although a new RfD is available in IRIS, the surface water criteria will not be revised until the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2
DBPR) is completed, since public comment on the relative source contribution (RSC) for chloroform is
anticipated.
K
This recommended water quality criterion is expressed as total cyanide, even though the IRIS RFD we
used to derive the criterion is based on free cyanide. The multiple forms of cyanide that are present in
ambient water have significant differences in toxicity due to their differing abilities to liberate the CN-
moiety. Some complex cyanides require even more extreme conditions than refluxing with sulfuric acid to
liberate the CN-moiety. Thus, these complex cyanides are expected to have little or no ‘bioavailability’ to
humans. If a substantial fraction of the cyanide present in a water body is present in a complexed form
(e.g., Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3), this criterion may be over conservative.
L
Criteria shown to be applied in total recoverable form.
11
 M
Dissolved oxygen minimum 5.0 mg/L April 15 – June 15.
N
Criteria based on 5-sample per month geometric mean.
O
This fish tissue residue criterion for methylmercury is based on a total fish consumption rate of 0.0175
kg/day.
P
This criterion applies to total PCBs, (e.g., the sum of all congener or all isomer or homolog or Aroclor
analyses).
Q
This recommended water quality criterion was derived using the cancer slope factor of 1.4 (LMS
exposure from birth).
R
Criteria based on 90 day geometric mean.
S
Not to be exceeded in greater than 25% of the samples during 90 day period.

3.2 AQUATIC LIFE PROTECTION

To protect aquatic life, the following criteria shall be met outside the mixing zone:

A. BIOLOGICAL: The biological integrity of the Ohio River shall be safeguarded,

protected, and preserved.

B. DISSOLVED OXYGEN: The average concentration shall be at least 5.0 mg/L for
each calendar day; the minimum concentration shall not be less than 4.0 mg/L.
During the April 15-June 15 spawning season, a minimum concentration of 5.0
mg/L shall be maintained at all times.

C. TEMPERATURE: Allowable daily maximum stream temperatures are based on

the following table (in degrees Fahrenheit), where MP is mile point below
Pittsburgh, and Julian Day is the number day of the year (1 - 366):

Julian Day MP 0 to MP 341 MP 341.1 to MP 606.8 MP 606.9 to MP 981

1 - 49 47.1 – 0.086 * Julian Day 47.2 – 0.024 * Julian Day 50.1 – 0.047 * Julian Day
50 - 166 26.6 + 0.328 * Julian Day 34.1 + 0.311 * Julian Day 34.8 + 0.269 * Julian Day
167 - 181 87 87 87
182 - 243 89 89 89
244 - 258 87 87 87
259 - 366 160.8 – 0.300 * Julian Day 176.7 – 0.346 * Julian Day 164.5 – 0.308 * Julian Day

Monthly averages of the daily maximum allowable stream temperatures

(calculated using above criteria) may be used as permitting endpoints in place of
daily criteria and are shown in the following table:

12
 Month MP 0 to MP 341 MP 341.1 to MP 606.8 MP 606.9 to MP 981
°F °C °F °C °F °C
January 45.7 7.6 46.8 8.2 49.3 9.6
February 43.9 6.6 47.9 8.8 48.6 9.2
March 51.2 10.7 57.4 14.1 55.0 12.8
April 61.2 16.2 66.9 19.4 63.2 17.3
May 71.2 21.8 76.4 24.7 71.4 21.9
June 1-15 78.8 26.0 83.5 28.6 77.6 25.3
June 16-30 87.0 30.6 87.0 30.6 87.0 30.6
July 89.0 31.7 89.0 31.7 89.0 31.7
August 89.0 31.7 89.0 31.7 89.0 31.7
September 1-15 87.0 30.6 87.0 30.6 87.0 30.6
September 16-30 81.0 27.2 84.7 29.3 82.6 28.1
October 74.1 23.4 76.7 24.8 75.5 24.2
November 65.0 18.3 66.2 19.0 66.1 19.0
December 55.8 13.2 55.6 13.1 56.7 13.7

D. pH: No value below 6.0 standard units nor above 9.0 standard units.

E. AMMONIA:

1. Acute Criterion Concentration: The one-hour average concentration of

total ammonia nitrogen (mg/L) shall not exceed, more than once every
three years on the average, the ACC (acute criterion) calculated using the
following equations:

i. If unionid mussels are present:

0.0114 1.6181
𝐴𝐶𝐶 = 0.7249 ∗ 7.204−𝑝𝐻
+ ∗ 𝑀𝐼𝑁(51.93 𝑜𝑟 23.12 ∗ 100.036∗ 20−𝑇
)
1 + 10 1 + 10𝑝𝐻 −7.204

Where: T = Temperature, C.

ii. If unionid mussels are absent**:

0.0114 1.6181
𝐴𝐶𝐶 = 0.7249 ∗ 7.204−𝑝𝐻
+ ∗ 𝑀𝐼𝑁(51.93 𝑜𝑟 62.15 ∗ 100.036∗ 20−𝑇 )
1 + 10 1 + 10𝑝𝐻 −7.204

Where: T = Temperature, C.

2. Chronic Criterion Concentration: The 30-day rolling average

concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (mg/L) shall not exceed, more
than once every three years on the average, the CCC (chronic criterion)
13
 calculated using the following equations:

i. If unionid mussels are present:

0.0278 1.1994
𝐶𝐶𝐶 = 0.8876 ∗ 7.688−𝑝𝐻
+ ∗ (2.126 ∗ 100.028∗ 20−𝑀𝑎𝑥 (𝑇 𝑜𝑟 7)
)
1 + 10 1 + 10𝑝𝐻 −7.688

Where: T = Temperature, C.

ii. If unionid mussels are absent** and when fish early life stages are
present (from March 1 to October 31):

0.0278 1.1994
𝐶𝐶𝐶 = 0.9405 ∗ 7.688−𝑝𝐻
+ ∗ 𝑀𝐼𝑁(6.920 𝑜𝑟 7.547 ∗ 100.028∗ 20−𝑇
)
1 + 10 1 + 10𝑝𝐻 −7.688

Where: T = Temperature, C.

iii. If unionid mussels are absent** and when fish early life stages are
absent (from November 1 to the last day of February):
0.0278 1.1994
𝐶𝐶𝐶 = 0.9405 ∗ 7.688−𝑝𝐻
+ ∗ (7.547 ∗ 100.028∗ 20−𝑀𝑎𝑥 (𝑇 𝑜𝑟 7) )
1 + 10 1 + 10𝑝𝐻 −7.688

Where: T = Temperature, C.

iv. In addition, the highest four-day average within the 30-day period
should not exceed 2.5 times the chronic criterion.

Note: Acute and chronic criteria concentrations for total ammonia-nitrogen (in
mg/L) for different combinations of pH and temperature are shown in Appendix
A.

** For purposes of determining the applicable water quality-based limitations on

ammonia-nitrogen, unionid mussels shall be presumed to be present at all times in
the Ohio River unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
permitting authority and ORSANCO that mussels are absent.

F. CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS:

1. The following constituents are presented in the total recoverable form.

However, Ohio River criteria for these constituents are to be applied in the
dissolved form (except for cyanide and selenium) which are calculated by
multiplying the criteria in this table by the corresponding conversion
factors from the table in Chapter 3.2.F.2, unless it can be demonstrated to
the satisfaction of the Commission and its member states that a more
appropriate analytical technique is available which provides a
measurement of that portion of the metal present which causes toxicity to
aquatic life.
14
 Acute Criterion Chronic Criterion
Total Recoverable
Concentration Concentration
Constituent
(g/L) (g/L)
Arsenic 340 150
Cadmium e(1.0166(ln Hard)-3.924) e(0.7409(ln Hard)-4.719)
Chromium III e(0.819(ln Hard)+3.7256) e(0.819(ln Hard)+0.6848)
Chromium VI 16 11
Copper e(0.9422(ln Hard)-1.700) e(0.8545(ln Hard)-1.702)
Cyanide (free) * 22 5.2
(1.273(ln Hard)-1.460) (1.273(ln Hard)-4.705)
Lead e e
Mercury 1.7 0.91
(0.846(ln Hard)+2.255) (0.846(ln Hard)+0.0584)
Nickel e e
Selenium * 5
Silver e(1.72(ln Hard)-6.59) ---
Zinc e(0.8473(ln Hard)+0.884) e(0.8473(ln Hard)+0.884)
* Ohio River criteria for cyanide (free) and selenium are to be applied in the total
recoverable form as expressed in this table. Hardness is expressed as mg/L of
CaCO3.

2. Conversion factors presented in this table are to be applied to calculate

Ohio River criteria in the dissolved form when multiplied by the criteria
set forth in the table in Chapter 3.2.F.1 (with the exception of cyanide and
selenium). Numeric values for hardness-dependent criteria at specified
hardness values are listed in Appendix B.

Acute Dissolved Criterion Chronic Dissolved Criterion

Constituent
Conversion Factor Conversion Factor
Arsenic 1.0 1.0
Cadmium 1.136672-[ln(Hard)*(0.041838)] 1.101672-[ln(Hard)*0.041838]
Chromium
0.316 0.86
(III)
Chromium
0.982 0.962
(VI)
Copper 0.960 0.960
Lead 1.46203-[ln(Hard)*(0.145712)] 1.46203-[ln(Hard)*0.145712]
Mercury 0.85 0.85
Nickel 0.998 0.997
Silver 0.85 ---
Zinc 0.978 0.986

15
G. OTHER TOXIC SUBSTANCES:

Water quality criteria for substances not otherwise specified in this section shall be
derived based on the following:

1. For the protection of aquatic life, methodologies set forth in U.S. EPA's
final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System, adopted in the
Federal Register, March 23, 1995, shall be used (see Appendix D).

2. Limiting concentrations other than those derived from the above may be
used for the protection of aquatic life when justified on the basis of
scientifically defensible evidence.

3.3 HUMAN HEALTH PROTECTION

To protect human health, the following criteria shall be met outside the mixing zone:

A. BACTERIA:

1. Protection of public water supply use -- public water supply use shall be
protected at all times. Fecal coliform bacteria content shall not exceed
2,000/100 mL as a monthly geometric mean based on not less than five
samples per month.

2. Maximum allowable level of E. coli bacteria for contact recreation -- for

the months of April through October, measurements of E. coli bacteria
shall not exceed 130/100 mL as a 90-day geometric mean, based on not
less than five samples per month, nor exceed 240/100 mL in more than 25
percent of samples.

B. CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS:

Not to exceed the following concentrations:

Constituent Concentration (mg/L)

Arsenic (total) 0.010
Barium (total) 1.0
Chloride 250.0
Fluoride 1.0
Mercury (total) 0.000012
Nitrite + Nitrate Nitrogen 10.0
Nitrite Nitrogen 1.0
Phenolics 0.005
Silver (total) 0.05
Sulfate 250.0

16
C. TOTAL AMMONIA-NITROGEN: Total ammonia-nitrogen shall not exceed 1.0
mg/L at any surface water intake for a public water system providing at least
reasonable treatment.

D. RADIONUCLIDES: Gross total alpha activity (including radium-226, but

excluding radon and uranium) shall not exceed 15 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) and
combined radium-226 and radium-228 shall not exceed 4 pCi/L. Concentration of
total gross beta particle activity shall not exceed 50 pCi/L; the concentration of
total strontium-90 shall not exceed 8 pCi/L.

E. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS: To protect drinking water supplies from adverse

taste and odor, concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS) shall not exceed 500
mg/L at Ohio River drinking water intakes.

F. TEMPERATURE: The maximum temperature at any location where public

access is possible, whether inside or outside a mixing zone, shall not exceed 110
degrees F to protect human health caused by exposure resulting from water
contact.

CHAPTER 4: MIXING ZONE DESIGNATION

A. Where mixing zones are allowed by the permitting authority, the specific
numerical limits for any mixing zone shall be determined on a case-by-case basis,
and shall include considerations for existing uses, linear distance (i.e., length and
width) from the point of discharge, surface area involved, and volume of receiving
water within the defined zone.

B. Conditions within the mixing zone shall not be injurious to human health, in the
event of a temporary exposure.

C. Acute water quality criteria, as specified in Chapter 3.2.F, will apply at all points
within the mixing zone; except that, states may at their discretion allow a smaller
zone in the immediate vicinity of the point of discharge sometimes referred to as a
zone of initial dilution in which acute criteria are exceeded, provided the zone
does not impact the water of another state, but the acute criteria must be met at the
edge of the acute mixing zone or zone of initial dilution. Acute mixing zones
shall be calculated in accordance with one of the approaches presented in
Appendix E, or by such other method as may be demonstrated to be appropriate to
the Commission.

D. The mixing zone shall be located so as not to interfere significantly with

migratory movements and passage of fish, other aquatic life, and wildlife. No
mixing zone shall adversely impact water quality so as to interfere with potable or
industrial water supplies, bathing areas, reproduction of fish, other aquatic life and
wildlife.

17
E. In no case shall a permitting authority grant a mixing zone that would likely
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species listed
under Section 4 of the Federal Endangered Species Act or result in the destruction
or adverse modification of such species’ critical habitat.

F. 1. Facilities with discharges which were in existence on or before October

16, 2003 will have mixing zones eliminated for any bioaccumulative
chemical of concern (BCC) as soon as is practicable, as determined by the
permitting authority, considering the following criteria:

i. Measures taken during the current permit cycle and an

evaluation of those measures proposed to be taken during
the next permit cycle to reduce or eliminate the necessity of
a mixing zone for each BCC;

ii. The concentration and duration of the discharge,

bioaccumulation factors and exposure considerations for
each BCC for which the mixing zone is sought to be
continued.

2. The necessity for continuation of a mixing zone for a BCC shall be

evaluated and determined by the permitting authority during each permit
renewal and reissuance utilizing the criteria above in subparagraph 1.i. and
1.ii.

3. The addition of waste streams to an existing facility shall be evaluated

under this section by the permitting authority at the time of permit review.

4. Mixing zones shall continue to be prohibited for BCCs for discharges from
facilities that came into existence after October 16, 2003.

5. No mixing zone for a BCC shall be approved by a permitting authority that

would result in a violation of any water quality standard or impairment of
any designated use of a waterbody.

6. BCCs are defined as any chemicals that accumulate in aquatic organisms

by a human health bioaccumulation factor (BAF) greater than 1000 (after
considering various specified factors), and have the potential upon
entering surface waters to cause adverse effects, either by themselves or in
the form of their toxic transformation, as a result of that accumulation.
Currently, the list of BCCs, as described in the Final Rule to Amend the
Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System to Prohibit
Mixing Zones for Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern, includes:

18
 Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern

Lindane Mirex
Hexachlorocyclohexane Hexachlorobenzene
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane Chlordane
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane DDD
delta-Hexachlorocyclohexane DDT
Hexachlorobutadiene DDE
Photomirex Octachlorostyrene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene PCBs
Toxaphene 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Pentachlorobenzene Mercury
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene Dieldrin

G. If mixing zones from two or more proximate sources interact or overlap, the
combined effect must be evaluated to ensure that applicable values will be met in
the area where any applicable mixing zones overlap.

CHAPTER 5: WASTEWATER DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS

5.1 GENERAL

A. No discharge of sewage, industrial wastes, toxic wastes, other wastes, cooling

water or residues from potable water treatment plants shall cause or contribute to
a violation of these wastewater discharge requirements, shall preclude the
attainment of any designated use of the main stem waters of the Ohio River, or
cause or contribute to a violation of the water quality criteria set forth in Chapter
3.

B. Each holder of an individual NPDES permit shall post and maintain a permanent
marker at the establishment under permit as follows:

1. A marker shall be posted on the stream bank at each outfall discharging

directly to the Ohio River.

2. The marker shall consist of, at a minimum, the name of the establishment
to which the permit was issued, the permit number, and the outfall
number. The information shall be printed in letters not less than two
inches in height.

3. The marker shall be a minimum of two feet by two feet and shall be a
minimum of three feet above ground level.

19
5.2 CRITICAL FLOW

For derivation of effluent limitations, the following river flows shall be used:

A. For substances identified as human carcinogens, wastewater discharge

requirements shall be developed based on the in-stream concentration above the
point of discharge, and calculated so as to prevent one additional cancer per one
million population at the harmonic mean stream flow (see Appendix C).

B. For substances not identified as human carcinogens, wastewater discharge

requirements shall be developed based on the in-stream concentration above the
point of discharge and calculated to meet the water quality criteria at the minimum
seven day, ten year flow (see Appendix C).

5.3 WASTEWATER DISCHARGES FOR CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS

Wastewater discharge requirements for these constituents shall be expressed as total

recoverable limits based on the dissolved aquatic life criteria multiplied by the
appropriate translators, the appropriate in-stream concentration upstream of the point of
discharge, and the minimum appropriate critical flow as contained in Appendix C. The
appropriate critical flow shall be the seven day, ten year low flow for chronic criteria, and
the one day, ten year low flow for acute criteria. The appropriate translators for arsenic,
copper, nickel and zinc are in the table below. Translators for cadmium, chromium (III),
chromium (VI), lead, mercury, and silver are the inverse of the values contained in the
table in Chapter 3.2.F.2. Other translators may be used after successful demonstration to
the Commission and its member states.

Translators of Translators of Translators of

Constituent Upper Ohio River Middle Ohio River Lower Ohio River
(river miles 0-265) (river miles 266-629) (river miles 630-981)
Arsenic 1+(0.040*TSS) 1+(0.023*TSS) 1+(0.013*TSS)
Copper 1+(0.049*TSS) 1+(0.033*TSS) 1+(0.023*TSS)
Nickel 1+(0.035*TSS) 1+(0.039*TSS) 1+(0.032*TSS)
Zinc 1+(0.21*TSS) 1+(0.15*TSS) 1+(0.083*TSS)
Note: Total Suspended Solids (TSS) values in translator formulas are to be applied in units of mg/L.

5.4 SEWAGE

A. MINIMUM LEVEL OF TREATMENT:

Sewage shall be treated prior to discharge, to meet the following effluent limitations in
addition to the requirements of Chapter 5.1.

20
 1. Biochemical Oxygen Demand

i. Five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) -- the arithmetic

mean of the values for effluent samples collected in a month shall
not exceed 30 mg/L, and the arithmetic mean of the values for
effluent samples collected in a week shall not exceed 45 mg/L.

ii. Five-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) may

be substituted for BOD5, provided that the arithmetic mean of the
values for effluent samples collected in a month shall not exceed
25 mg/L, and the arithmetic mean of the values of effluent samples
collected in a week shall not exceed 40 mg/L.

2. Suspended Solids

The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samples collected in a

month shall not exceed 30 mg/L, and the arithmetic mean of the values for
effluent samples collected in a week shall not exceed 45 mg/L.

3. pH

The effluent values for pH shall be maintained within the limits of 6.0 to
9.0 standard units.

4. Bacteria

i. The geometric mean of the fecal coliform bacteria content of

effluent samples collected in a month shall not exceed 2,000/100
mL.

ii. During the months of April through October, the geometric mean
of the E. coli bacteria content of effluent samples collected in a 90-
day period shall not exceed 130/100 mL, and no more than 25
percent of the values shall exceed 240/100 mL.

B. ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT:

Such facilities as waste stabilization ponds and trickling filters shall be deemed to
provide effective treatment of sewage, provided that the requirements of Chapter
5.1, 5.4.A are met, that the effluent does not cause any violations of applicable
states’ water quality standards or Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of these regulations,
and that the following requirements are met:

1. Biochemical Oxygen Demand

i. Five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) -- the arithmetic

mean of the values for effluent samples collected in a month shall

21
 not exceed 45 mg/L; and the arithmetic mean of the values for
effluent samples collected in a week shall not exceed 65 mg/L.

ii. Five-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) may

be substituted for BOD5, provided that the levels are not less
stringent than the following: the arithmetic mean of the values for
effluent samples collected in a month shall not exceed 40 mg/L
and; the arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samples
collected in a week shall not exceed 60 mg/L.

2. Suspended Solids

The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samples collected in a

month shall not exceed 45 mg/L; and the arithmetic mean of the values for
effluent samples collected in a week shall not exceed 65 mg/L.

C. COMBINED SEWER SYSTEMS:

1. Prohibition of Dry Weather Discharges

No combined sewer overflow (CSO) to the Ohio River shall occur under
dry weather flow conditions unless the discharge is caused by elevated
river stage. All discharges from combined sewers must be in compliance
with the NPDES permit and the National Combined Sewer Overflow
Control Policy.

2. System Overflows During Wet Weather

A direct discharge, if caused by temporary excess flows due to storm water

collected and conveyed through combined sewer systems, shall not be
considered in violation of these wastewater discharge requirements,
providing that the discharger is demonstrating compliance with the nine
minimum controls as specified in the National Combined Sewer Overflow
Control Policy. The nine minimum controls are as follows:

i. Proper operation and regular maintenance programs for the

sewer system and the CSOs;

ii. Maximum use of the collection system for storage;

iii. Review and modification of pre-treatment requirements to

assure CSO impacts are minimized;

iv. Maximization of flow to the POTW for treatment;

v. Prohibition of CSOs during dry weather;

vi. Control of solid and floatable materials in CSOs;

22
 vii. Pollution prevention;

viii. Public notification to ensure that the public receives

adequate notice of CSO occurrences and CSO impacts;

ix. Monitoring to effectively characterize CSO impacts and the

efficacy of CSO controls.

In addition, the system must be operated in accordance with an approved

Long Term Control Plan (LTCP), where required, and the discharge must
not interfere with the attainment of the water quality criteria set forth in
Chapter 3 except in situations where alternative criteria are authorized by
the permitting agency and the Commission. Authorization of such
alternative criteria shall be based upon and justified through a Use
Attainability Analysis (UAA) consistent with 40 CFR 131.10g. The LTCP
must be developed and implemented to fully attain the alternative criteria.

The approved LTCP and UAA will identify the conditions, at or above
which, the contact recreation use and associated bacteria criteria cannot be
achieved, and will identify alternative bacteria criteria that can be
achieved. The alternative bacteria criteria shall apply for the period during
which conditions exist and shall not exceed 2000 fecal coliform per 100
mL as a monthly geometric mean for the protection of public water
supplies.

3. Treatment of Flows from Combined Sewer Systems during Wet Weather

Conditions

In cases where municipal wastewater treatment plants serving combined

sewer areas have primary treatment capacity in excess of secondary
treatment capacity, opportunities may exist for partial treatment of
combined flows which would otherwise be discharged as untreated
combined sewer overflows. In such cases, in order to maximize the
treatment of wet weather flows from combined sewer systems and reduce
the frequency and duration of combined sewer overflow (CSO) events,
bypass of the secondary treatment during wet weather conditions may be
allowed on an interim basis, provided the following conditions are met:

i. the facilities are properly operated and maintained;

ii. the maximum possible quantity of wastewater (determined

through an approved engineering study) receives secondary
treatment in accordance with discharge requirements; and

iii. the discharge does not cause exceedances of water quality

criteria in the Ohio River outside the mixing zone.

23
 Bypasses of secondary treatment which are necessary in order to
implement a CSO long-term control plan which includes primary
treatment options at the municipal wastewater treatment plant may be
allowed, provided it is not technically or financially feasible to provide
secondary treatment of greater amounts of wet weather flow. The
consideration of feasible alternatives should be documented in the
development of the long-term control plan.

5.5 INDUSTRIAL WASTES, INCLUDING TOXIC WASTES

A. The minimum level of treatment for industrial wastes including toxic wastes, prior
to discharge, shall be in accordance with national effluent limitations and
guidelines adopted by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA pursuant to Sections 301
and 302 of the Federal Clean Water Act, national standards of performance for
new sources adopted pursuant to Section 306 of the Federal Clean Water Act, and
national toxic and pretreatment effluent limitations, adopted pursuant to Section
307 of the Federal Clean Water Act or in accordance with the standards of the
state in which the discharge occurs.

B. Effluent limitations for discharges of industrial wastes, including toxic wastes

may be based on the net discharge of pollutants, provided that the following
conditions are met:

1. Any determination for net discharge of pollutants must be made on a

pollutant-by-pollutant, outfall-by-outfall basis.

2. A net discharge of pollutants would only be allowed in the absence of a

TMDL applicable to the discharge.

3. The facility withdraws 100 percent of the intake water containing the
pollutant from the same body of water into which the discharge is made.

4. The facility does not contribute any additional mass of the identified intake
pollutant to its wastewater.

5. The facility does not alter the identified intake pollutant chemically or
physically in a manner that would cause adverse water quality impacts to
occur that would not occur if the pollutants were left in-stream.

6. The facility does not increase the identified intake pollutant concentration,
as defined by the permitting authority, at the edge of the mixing zone, or at
the point of discharge if a mixing zone is not allowed, as compared to the
pollutant concentration in the intake water, unless the increased
concentration does not cause or contribute to an excursion above an
applicable water quality standard.

24
 7. The timing and location of the discharge would not cause adverse water
quality impacts to occur that would not occur if the identified intake
pollutant were left in-stream.

C. Industrial waste treatment facilities shall notify ORSANCO of all upsets and
bypasses within two hours of their discovery.

5.6 RESIDUES FROM POTABLE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS

The use of controlled discharge for residues from potable water treatment plant processes
of sedimentation, coagulation, and filtration may be authorized provided that, as a
minimum, the discharge meets all the requirements of Chapters 3.1 and 5.1.

5.7 COOLING WATER

A. A discharge of cooling water shall meet the requirements of Chapter 5.1. and shall
not cause violations of the temperature criteria set forth in Chapter 3.2.C, except
as authorized by a variance issued pursuant to Section 316(a) of the Federal Clean
Water Act.

B. Any cooling water additives that will ultimately be discharged to the environment
must be approved by the appropriate state agency.

5.8 OTHER WASTES

The discharge of Other Wastes (other than those specified above) shall meet the
requirements of Chapter 5.1 and shall not cause or contribute to a violation of the water
quality criteria set forth in Chapter 3.

5.9 ANALYTICAL METHODS

Tests or analytical determinations establish compliance or non-compliance with the

Wastewater Discharge Requirements and stream criteria established herein shall be made
in accordance with accepted procedures such as those contained in the: (a) latest edition
of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, prepared and
published jointly by the American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water
Works Association (AWWA), and Water Environment Federation (WEF); (b) Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, Part 31 – Water, by the American Society for Testing and
Materials; (c) Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants (40
CFR 136) by the U.S. EPA; or (d) by such other methods as are approved by the
Commission as equal or superior to or not available within methods in documents listed
above, provided such other test methods are available to the public.

25
 Appendix A
Acute and Chronic Criteria Concentrations
for Total Ammonia-Nitrogen (in mg/L)
For Varying Combinations of pH and Temperature

26
Table A1: Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the Acute Criterion for Total Ammonia Nitrogen;
Unionid Mussels Present
pH Temperature, Celsius
0-10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
6.5 51 48 44 41 37 34 32 29 27 25 23 21 19 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 9.9
6.6 49 46 42 39 36 33 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 17 16 14 13 12 11 10 9.5
6.7 46 44 40 37 34 31 29 27 24 22 21 19 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 9.8 9.0
6.8 44 41 38 35 32 30 27 25 23 21 20 18 17 15 14 13 12 11 10 9.2 8.5
6.9 41 38 35 32 30 28 25 23 21 20 18 17 15 14 13 12 11 10 9.4 8.6 7.9
7.0 38 35 33 30 28 25 23 21 20 18 17 15 14 13 12 11 10 9.4 8.6 7.9 7.3
7.1 34 32 30 27 25 23 21 20 18 17 15 14 13 12 11 10 9.3 8.5 7.9 7.2 6.7
7.2 31 29 27 25 23 21 19 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 9.8 9.1 8.3 7.7 7.1 6.5 6.0
7.3 27 26 24 22 20 18 17 16 14 13 12 11 10 9.5 8.7 8.0 7.4 6.8 6.3 5.8 5.3
7.4 24 22 21 19 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 9.8 9.0 8.3 7.7 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.1 4.7
7.5 21 19 18 17 15 14 13 12 11 10 9.2 8.5 7.8 7.2 6.6 6.1 5.6 5.2 4.8 4.4 4.0
7.6 18 17 15 14 13 12 11 10 9.3 8.6 7.9 7.3 6.7 6.2 5.7 5.2 4.8 4.4 4.1 3.8 3.5
7.7 15 14 13 12 11 10 9.3 8.6 7.9 7.3 6.7 6.2 5.7 5.2 4.8 4.4 4.1 3.8 3.5 3.2 2.9
7.8 13 12 11 10 9.3 8.5 7.9 7.2 6.7 6.1 5.6 5.2 4.8 4.4 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.5
7.9 11 9.9 9.1 8.4 7.7 7.1 6.6 6.0 5.6 5.1 4.7 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1
8.0 8.8 8.2 7.6 7.0 6.4 5.9 5.4 5.0 4.6 4.2 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.7
8.1 7.2 6.8 6.3 5.8 5.3 4.9 4.5 4.1 3.8 3.5 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4
8.2 6.0 5.6 5.2 4.8 4.4 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2
8.3 4.9 4.6 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.96
8.4 4.1 3.8 3.5 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.93 0.86 0.79
8.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.90 0.83 0.77 0.71 0.65
8.6 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.88 0.81 0.75 0.69 0.63 0.58 0.54
8.7 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.94 0.87 0.80 0.74 0.68 0.62 0.57 0.53 0.49 0.45
8.8 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.93 0.86 0.79 0.73 0.67 0.62 0.57 0.52 0.48 0.44 0.41 0.37
8.9 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.93 0.85 0.79 0.72 0.67 0.61 0.56 0.52 0.48 0.44 0.40 0.37 0.34 0.32
9.0 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.93 0.86 0.79 0.73 0.67 0.62 0.57 0.52 0.48 0.44 0.41 0.37 0.34 0.32 0.29 0.27

27
Table A2: Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the Acute Criterion for
Total Ammonia Nitrogen; Unionid Mussels Absent
pH Temperature, Celsius
0-14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
6.5 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 48 44 40 37 34 31 29 27
6.6 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 46 42 39 36 33 30 28 26
6.7 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 43 40 37 34 31 29 26 24
6.8 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 41 38 35 32 29 27 25 23
6.9 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 38 35 32 30 27 25 23 21
7.0 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 35 32 30 27 25 23 21 20
7.1 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 32 29 27 25 23 21 19 18
7.2 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 29 26 24 22 21 19 17 16
7.3 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 26 23 22 20 18 17 16 14
7.4 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 22 21 19 17 16 15 14 13
7.5 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 19 18 16 15 14 13 12 11
7.6 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 15 14 13 12 11 10 9.3
7.7 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 13 12 11 10 9.3 8.6 7.9
7.8 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 11 10 9.2 8.5 7.8 7.2 6.6
7.9 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 9.9 9.1 8.4 7.7 7.1 6.5 6.0 5.5
8.0 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.2 7.5 6.9 6.4 5.9 5.4 5.0 4.6
8.1 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 6.8 6.2 5.7 5.3 4.9 4.5 4.1 3.8
8.2 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.6 5.1 4.7 4.4 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.1
8.3 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.2 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.6
8.4 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.8 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1
8.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8
8.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.4
8.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2
8.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0
8.9 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.92 0.85
9.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.93 0.85 0.78 0.72

28
Table A3: Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the Chronic Criterion for Total Ammonia Nitrogen;
Unionid Mussels Present

pH Temperature, Celsius
0-7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
6.5 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1
6.6 4.8 4.5 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1
6.7 4.8 4.5 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1
6.8 4.6 4.4 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1
6.9 4.5 4.2 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0
7.0 4.4 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0
7.1 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
7.2 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.90
7.3 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.91 0.85
7.4 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.90 0.85 0.79
7.5 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.89 0.83 0.78 0.73
7.6 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.92 0.86 0.81 0.76 0.71 0.67
7.7 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.94 0.88 0.83 0.78 0.73 0.68 0.64 0.60
7.8 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.89 0.84 0.79 0.74 0.69 0.65 0.61 0.57 0.53
7.9 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.89 0.84 0.79 0.74 0.69 0.65 0.61 0.57 0.53 0.50 0.47
8.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.94 0.88 0.83 0.78 0.73 0.68 0.64 0.60 0.56 0.53 0.50 0.44 0.44 0.41
8.1 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.92 0.87 0.81 0.76 0.71 0.67 0.63 0.59 0.55 0.52 0.49 0.46 0.43 0.40 0.38 0.35
8.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.90 0.84 0.79 0.74 0.70 0.65 0.61 0.57 0.54 0.50 0.47 0.44 0.42 0.39 0.37 0.34 0.32 0.30
8.3 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.93 0.87 0.82 0.76 0.72 0.67 0.63 0.59 0.55 0.52 0.49 0.46 0.43 0.40 0.38 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.26
8.4 0.95 0.89 0.84 0.79 0.74 0.69 0.65 0.61 0.57 0.53 0.50 0.47 0.44 0.41 0.39 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.22
8.5 0.80 0.75 0.71 0.67 0.62 0.58 0.55 0.51 0.48 0.45 0.42 0.40 0.37 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.18
8.6 0.68 0.64 0.60 0.56 0.53 0.49 0.46 0.43 0.41 0.38 0.36 0.33 0.31 0.29 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15
8.7 0.57 0.54 0.51 0.47 0.44 0.42 0.39 0.37 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13
8.8 0.49 0.46 0.43 0.40 0.38 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11
8.9 0.42 0.39 0.37 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09
9.0 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08

29
Table A4: Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the Chronic
Criterion for Total Ammonia Nitrogen; Unionid Mussels
Absent and Fish Early Life Stages Present (March 1 –
October 31)

pH Temperature, Celsius
0-14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
6.5 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.0 6.6 6.2 5.8 5.4 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.2
6.6 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 6.9 6.5 6.1 5.7 5.4 5.0 4.7 4.4 4.1
6.7 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 6.8 6.4 6.0 5.6 5.3 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.1
6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.6 6.2 5.8 5.5 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.0
6.9 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.5 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0 4.7 4.4 4.1 3.9
7.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.2 5.8 5.5 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.0 3.7
7.1 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.0 5.6 5.3 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.1 3.8 3.6
7.2 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.7 5.3 5.0 4.7 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.6 3.4
7.3 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.0 4.7 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.2
7.4 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.0 4.7 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0
7.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.3 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.8
7.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.5
7.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.3
7.8 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0
7.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8
8.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5
8.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3
8.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1
8.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.96
8.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.99 0.93 0.87 0.81
8.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.95 0.89 0.83 0.78 0.73 0.69
8.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.97 0.91 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.66 0.62 0.58
8.7 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.82 0.77 0.72 0.68 0.64 0.60 0.56 0.52 0.49
8.8 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.70 0.65 0.61 0.58 0.54 0.51 0.47 0.44 0.42
8.9 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.60 0.56 0.52 0.49 0.46 0.43 0.41 0.38 0.36
9.0 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.51 0.48 0.45 0.42 0.40 0.37 0.35 0.33 0.31

30
Table A5: Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the Chronic Criterion for Total Ammonia Nitrogen;
Unionid Mussels Absent and Fish Early Life Stages Absent (November 1 – February 29)

pH Temperature, Celsius
0-7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
6.5 19 17 16 15 14 13 13 12 11 10 9.7 9.1 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.6 6.2 5.8 5.4 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.2
6.6 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 12 11 10 9.6 9.0 8.4 7.9 7.4 6.9 6.5 6.1 5.7 5.4 5.0 4.7 4.4 4.1
6.7 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 11 10 9.4 8.8 8.3 7.7 7.3 6.8 6.4 6.0 5.6 5.3 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.1
6.8 17 16 15 14 14 13 12 11 10 9.8 9.2 8.6 8.1 7.6 7.1 6.7 6.2 5.8 5.5 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.0
6.9 17 16 15 14 13 12 12 11 10 9.5 8.9 8.4 7.8 7.4 6.9 6.5 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0 4.7 4.4 4.1 3.9
7.0 16 15 14 14 13 12 11 10 9.8 9.2 8.6 8.1 7.6 7.1 6.7 6.2 5.9 5.5 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.0 3.7
7.1 16 15 14 13 12 11 11 10 9.4 8.8 8.3 7.7 7.3 6.8 6.4 6.0 5.6 5.3 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.1 3.8 3.6
7.2 15 14 13 12 12 11 10 9.5 9.0 8.4 7.9 7.4 6.9 6.5 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0 4.7 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.6 3.4
7.3 14 13 12 12 11 10 9.6 9.0 8.4 7.9 7.4 6.9 6.5 6.1 5.7 5.4 5.0 4.7 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.2
7.4 13 12 12 11 10 9.5 9.0 8.4 7.9 7.4 6.9 6.5 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0 4.7 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0
7.5 12 11 11 10 9.4 8.8 8.2 7.7 7.2 6.8 6.4 6.0 5.6 5.2 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.8
7.6 11 10 10 9.1 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.6 6.2 5.8 5.4 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.5
7.7 9.9 9.3 8.7 8.1 7.7 7.2 6.8 6.3 5.9 5.6 5.2 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.3
7.8 8.8 8.3 7.8 7.3 6.8 6.4 6.0 5.6 5.3 5.0 4.6 4.4 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0
7.9 7.8 7.3 6.8 6.4 6.0 5.6 5.3 5.0 4.6 4.4 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8
8.0 6.8 6.3 6.0 5.6 5.2 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5
8.1 5.8 5.5 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3
8.2 5.0 4.7 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1
8.3 4.2 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
8.4 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.92 0.87 0.81
8.5 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.89 0.83 0.78 0.73 0.69
8.6 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.91 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.66 0.62 0.58
8.7 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.93 0.88 0.82 0.77 0.72 0.68 0.63 0.60 0.56 0.52 0.49
8.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.90 0.85 0.79 0.74 0.70 0.65 0.61 0.58 0.54 0.51 0.47 0.44 0.42
8.9 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.94 0.88 0.82 0.77 0.72 0.68 0.64 0.60 0.56 0.52 0.49 0.46 0.43 0.40 0.38 0.36
9.0 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.92 0.87 0.81 0.76 0.71 0.66 0.62 0.58 0.55 0.51 0.48 0.45 0.42 0.40 0.37 0.35 0.33 0.31

31
 Appendix B
Dissolved Metals Criteria

Table B1: Numerical Values of Dissolved Metals Criteria

at Specified Hardness Levels

Hardness Cadmium Chromium (III) Lead Silver

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic
Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
50 1.03 0.15 323 42.0 30.1 1.17 0.98 ---
100 2.01 0.25 570 74.1 64.6 2.52 3.22 ---
150 2.99 0.33 794 103 100 3.90 6.46 ---
200 3.95 0.40 1005 131 136 5.31 10.6 ---
250 4.90 0.46 1207 157 172 6.72 15.6 ---
300 5.85 0.53 1401 182 209 8.13 21.3 ---

Hardness Copper Nickel Zinc

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic
Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
50 6.99 4.95 261 28.9 65.1 65.7
100 13.4 8.96 469 52.0 117 118
150 19.7 12.7 660 73.3 165 167
200 25.8 16.2 842 93.5 211 213
250 31.9 19.6 1017 113 255 257
300 37.8 22.9 1187 132 297 300

32
 Appendix C
Critical Flow Values

Minimum Minimum
7-day 1-day Harmonic
FROM TO 10-year 10-year Mean
2
Low-Flow, Low-Flow, Flow, cfs
1 2
cfs cfs
Pittsburgh (MP 0.0) Montgomery Dam (MP 31.7) 4,730 4,200 16,200

Montgomery Dam (MP 31.7) Willow Island Dam (MP 161.7) 5,880 5,000 20,500

Willow Island Dam (MP 161.7) Racine Dam (MP 237.5) 6,560 5,170 24,500

Racine Dam (MP 237.5) R.C. Byrd Dam (MP 279.2) 6,700 5,170 26,000

R.C. Byrd Dam (MP 279.2) Guyandotte River (MP 305.2) 9,120 5,870 34,500

Guyandotte River (MP 305.2) Big Sandy River (MP 317.1) 9,300 6,000 35,900

Big Sandy River (MP 317.1) Greenup Dam (MP 341.0) 10,000 7,000 38,400

Greenup Dam (MP 341.0) Meldahl Dam (MP 436.2) 10,600 7,960 42,100

Meldahl Dam (MP 436.2) McAlpine Dam (MP 606.8) 10,600 8,670 45,300

McAlpine Dam (MP 606.8) Newburgh Dam (MP 776.1) 11,000 8,670 49,000

Newburgh Dam (MP 776.1) J.T. Myers Dam (MP 846.0) 12,900 10,000 60,900

J.T. Myers Dam (MP 846.0) Smithland Dam (MP 918.5) 16,900 12,700 78,600

Smithland Dam (MP 918.5) Cairo Point (MP 981.0) 51,000 40,900 175,000
1
Minimum 7-day, 10-year flow (in cubic feet per second) provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2
Based on Commission analysis of stream flow data provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

33
 Appendix D
Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Methodologies for
Development of Aquatic Life Criteria and Values

Methodology for Deriving Aquatic Life Criteria:

Tier I
Great Lakes States and Tribes shall adopt provisions consistent with (as protective as)
this appendix.

I. Definitions

A. Material of Concern. When defining the material of concern, the following

should be considered:

1. Each separate chemical that does not ionize substantially in most natural
bodies of water should usually be considered a separate material, except
possibly for structurally similar organic compounds that only exist in large
quantities as commercial mixtures of the various compounds and
apparently have similar biological, chemical, physical, and toxicological
properties.

2. For chemicals that ionize substantially in most natural bodies of water

(e.g., some phenols and organic acids, some salts of phenols and organic
acids, and most inorganic salts and coordination complexes of metals and
metalloid), all forms that would be in chemical equilibrium should usually
be considered one material. Each different oxidation state of a metal and
each different non-ionizable covalently bonded organometallic compound
should usually be considered a separate material.

3. The definition of the material of concern should include an operational

analytical component. Identification of a material simply as "sodium," for
example, implies "total sodium," but leaves room for doubt. If "total" is
meant, it must be explicitly stated. Even "total" has different operational
definitions, some of which do not necessarily measure "all that is there" in
all samples. Thus, it is also necessary to reference or describe the
analytical method that is intended. The selection of the operational
analytical component should take into account the analytical and
environmental chemistry of the material and various practical
considerations, such as labor and equipment requirements, and whether the

34
 method would require measurement in the field or would allow
measurement after samples are transported to a laboratory.

a. The primary requirements of the operational analytical component

are that it be appropriate for use on samples of receiving water, that
it be compatible with the available toxicity and bioaccumulation
data without making extrapolations that are too hypothetical, and
that it rarely results in underprotection or overprotection of aquatic
organisms and their uses. Toxicity is the property of a material, or
combination of materials, to adversely affect organisms.

b. Because an ideal analytical measurement will rarely be available,

an appropriate compromise measurement will usually have to be
used. This compromise measurement must fit with the general
approach that if an ambient concentration is lower than the
criterion, unacceptable effects will probably not occur, i.e., the
compromise measure must not err on the side of underprotection
when measurements are made on a surface water. What is an
appropriate measurement in one situation might not be appropriate
for another. For example, because the chemical and physical
properties of an effluent are usually quite different from those of
the receiving water, an analytical method that is appropriate for
analyzing an effluent might not be appropriate for expressing a
criterion, and vice versa. A criterion should be based on an
appropriate analytical measurement, but the criterion is not
rendered useless if an ideal measurement either is not available or
is not feasible.

Note: The analytical chemistry of the material might have to be

taken into account when defining the material or when judging the
acceptability of some toxicity tests, but a criterion must not be
based on the sensitivity of an analytical method. When aquatic
organisms are more sensitive than routine analytical methods, the
proper solution is to develop better analytical methods.

4. It is now the policy of U.S. EPA that the use of dissolved metals to set and
measure compliance with water quality standards is the recommended
approach, because dissolved metals more closely approximates the
bioavailable fraction of metal in the water column than does total
recoverable metal. One reason is that a primary mechanism for water
column toxicity is adsorption at the gill surface which requires metals to
be in the dissolved form. Reasons for the consideration of total recoverable
metals criteria include risk management considerations not covered by
evaluation of water column toxicity. A risk manager may consider
sediments and food chain effects and may decide to take a conservative
approach for metals, considering that metals are very persistent chemicals.
This approach could include the use of total recoverable metals in water
35
 quality standards. A range of different risk management decisions can be
justified. U.S. EPA recommends that State water quality standards be
based on dissolved metals. U.S. EPA will also approve a State risk
management decision to adopt standards based on total recoverable metals,
if those standards are otherwise approvable under this program.

B. Acute Toxicity. Concurrent and delayed adverse effect(s) that results from an
acute exposure and occurs within any short observation period which begins when
the exposure begins, may extend beyond the exposure period, and usually does not
constitute a substantial portion of the life span of the organism. (Concurrent
toxicity is an adverse effect to an organism that results from, and occurs during,
its exposure to one or more test materials.) Exposure constitutes contact with a
chemical or physical agent. Acute exposure, however, is exposure of an organism
for any short period which usually does not constitute a substantial portion of its
life span.

C. Chronic Toxicity. Concurrent and delayed adverse effect(s) that occurs only as a
result of a chronic exposure. Chronic exposure is exposure of an organism for any
long period or for a substantial portion of its life span.

II. Collection Of Data

A. Collect all data available on the material concerning toxicity to aquatic animals
and plants.

B. All data that are used should be available in typed, dated, and signed hard copy
(e.g., publication, manuscript, letter, memorandum, etc.) with enough supporting
information to indicate that acceptable test procedures were used and that the
results are reliable. In some cases, it might be appropriate to obtain written
information from the investigator, if possible. Information that is not available for
distribution shall not be used.

C. Questionable data, whether published or unpublished, must not be used. For

example, data must be rejected if they are from tests that did not contain a control
treatment, and tests in which too many organisms in the control treatment died or
showed signs of stress or disease.

D. Data on technical grade materials may be used, if appropriate, but data on

formulated mixtures and emulsifiable concentrates of the material must not be
used.

E. For some highly volatile, hydrolyzable, or degradable materials, it might be

appropriate to use only results of flow-through tests in which the concentrations of
test material in test solutions were measured using acceptable analytical methods.
A flow-through test is a test with aquatic organisms in which test solutions flow
into constant-volume test chambers either intermittently (e.g., every few minutes)
or continuously, with the excess flowing out.
36
F. Data must be rejected if obtained using:

1. Brine shrimp, because they usually only occur naturally in water with
salinity greater than 35 g/kg.

2. Species that do not have reproducing wild populations in North America.

3. Organisms that were previously exposed to substantial concentrations of

the test material or other contaminants.

4. Saltwater species except for use in deriving Acute-Chronic Ratios (ACR).

An ACR is a standard measure of the acute toxicity of a material divided
by an appropriate measure of the chronic toxicity of the same material
under comparable conditions.

G. Questionable data, data on formulated mixtures and emulsifiable concentrates,

and data obtained with species non-resident to North America or previously
exposed organisms may be used to provide auxiliary information but must not be
used in the derivation of criteria.

III. Required Data

A. Certain data should be available to help ensure that each of the major kinds of
possible adverse effects receives adequate consideration. An adverse effect is a
change in an organism that is harmful to the organism. Exposure means contact
with a chemical or physical agent. Results of acute and chronic toxicity tests with
representative species of aquatic animals are necessary so that data available for
tested species can be considered a useful indication of the sensitivities of
appropriate untested species. Fewer data concerning toxicity to aquatic plants are
usually available because procedures for conducting tests with plants and
interpreting the results of such tests are not as well developed.

B. To derive a Tier I criterion for aquatic organisms and their uses, the following
must be available:

1. Results of acceptable acute (or chronic) tests (see section IV or VI of this

appendix) with at least one species of freshwater animal in at least eight
different families such that all of the following are included:
a. The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes;
b. One other family (preferably a commercially or recreationally
important, warmwater species) in the class Osteichthyes (e.g.,
bluegill, channel catfish);
c. A third family in the phylum Chordata (e.g., fish, amphibian);
d. A planktonic crustacean (e.g., a cladoceran, copepod);
e. A benthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish);

37
 f. An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly,
mosquito, midge);
g. A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata (e.g.,
Rotifera, Annelida, Mollusca);
h. A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already
represented.

2. Acute-chronic ratios (see section VI of this appendix) with at least one

species of aquatic animal in at least three different families provided that
of the three species:
a. At least one is a fish,
b. At least one is an invertebrate, and
c. At least one species is an acutely sensitive freshwater species.

3. Results of at least one acceptable test with a freshwater algae or vascular

plant is desirable but not required for criterion derivation (see section VIII
of this appendix). If plants are among the aquatic organisms most
sensitive to the material, results of a test with a plant in another phylum
(division) should also be available.

C. If all required data are available, a numerical criterion can usually be derived
except in special cases. For example, derivation of a chronic criterion might not
be possible if the available ACRs vary by more than a factor of ten with no
apparent pattern. Also, if a criterion is to be related to a water quality
characteristic (see sections V and VII of this appendix), more data will be
required.

D. Confidence in a criterion usually increases as the amount of available pertinent

information increases. Thus, additional data are usually desirable.

IV. Final Acute Value

A. Appropriate measures of the acute (short-term) toxicity of the material to a variety

of species of aquatic animals are used to calculate the Final Acute Value (FAV).
The calculated FAV is a calculated estimate of the concentration of a test material
such that 95 percent of the genera (with which acceptable acute toxicity tests have
been conducted on the material) have higher Genus Mean Acute Values
(GMAVs). An acute test is a comparative study in which organisms, that are
subjected to different treatments, are observed for a short period usually not
constituting a substantial portion of their life span. However, in some cases, the
Species Mean Acute Value (SMAV) of a commercially or recreationally
important species is lower than the calculated FAV, then the SMAV replaces the
calculated FAV in order to provide protection for that important species.

B. Acute toxicity tests shall be conducted using acceptable procedures. For good
examples of acceptable procedures see American Society for Testing and

38
 Materials (ASTM) Standard E 729, Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests
with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates and Amphibians.

C. Results of acute tests during which the test organisms were fed should not be
used, unless data indicate that the food did not affect the toxicity of the test
material.

D. Results of acute tests conducted in unusual dilution water, e.g., dilution water in
which total organic carbon or particulate matter exceeded five mg/L, should not
be used, unless a relationship is developed between acute toxicity and organic
carbon or particulate matter, or unless data show that organic carbon or particulate
matter, etc., do not affect toxicity.

E. Acute values must be based upon endpoints which reflect the total severe adverse
impact of the test material on the organisms used in the test. Therefore, only the
following kinds of data on acute toxicity to aquatic animals shall be used:

1. Tests with daphnids and other cladocerans must be started with organisms
less than 24 hours old and tests with midges must be started with second
or third instar larvae. It is preferred that the results should be the 48-hour
EC50 based on the total percentage of organisms killed and immobilized.
If such an EC50 is not available for a test, the 48-hour LC50 should be
used in place of the desired 48-hour EC50. An EC50 or LC50 of longer
than 48 hours can be used as long as the animals were not fed and the
control animals were acceptable at the end of the test. An EC50 is a
statistically or graphically estimated concentration that is expected to
cause one or more specified effects in 50 percent of a group of organisms
under specified conditions. An LC50 is a statistically or graphically
estimated concentration that is expected to be lethal to 50 percent of a
group of organisms under specified conditions.

2. It is preferred that the results of a test with embryos and larvae of

barnacles, bivalve mollusks (clams, mussels, oysters and scallops), sea
urchins, lobsters, crabs, shrimp and abalones be the 96-hour EC50 based
on the percentage of organisms with incompletely developed shells plus
the percentage of organisms killed. If such an EC50 is not available from
a test, of the values that are available from the test, the lowest of the
following should be used in place of the desired 96-hour EC50: 48- to 96-
hour EC50s based on percentage of organisms with incompletely
developed shells plus percentage of organisms killed, 48- to 96-hour
EC50s based upon percentage of organisms with incompletely developed
shells, and 48-hour to 96-hour LC50s.

3. It is preferred that the result of tests with all other aquatic animal species
and older life stages of barnacles, bivalve mollusks (clams, mussels,
oysters and scallops), sea urchins, lobsters, crabs, shrimp and abalones be
the 96-hour EC50 based on percentage of organisms exhibiting loss of
39
 equilibrium plus percentage of organisms immobilized plus percentage of
organisms killed. If such an EC50 is not available from a test, of the
values that are available from a test the lower of the following should be
used in place of the desired 96-hour EC50: the 96-hour EC50 based on
percentage of organisms exhibiting loss of equilibrium plus percentage of
organisms immobilized and the 96-hour LC50.

4. Tests whose results take into account the number of young produced, such
as most tests with protozoans, are not considered acute tests, even if the
duration was 96 hours or less.

5. If the tests were conducted properly, acute values reported as "greater

than" values and those that are above the solubility of the test material
should be used, because rejection of such acute values would bias the FAV
by eliminating acute values for resistant species.

F. If the acute toxicity of the material to aquatic animals has been shown to be
related to a water quality characteristic such as hardness or particulate matter for
freshwater animals, refer to section V of this appendix.

G. The agreement of the data within and between species must be considered. Acute
values that appear to be questionable in comparison with other acute and chronic
data for the same species and for other species in the same genus must not be
used. For example, if the acute values available for a species or genus differ by
more than a factor of ten, rejection of some or all of the values would be
appropriate, absent countervailing circumstances.

H. If the available data indicate that one or more life stages are at least a factor of two
more resistant than one or more other life stages of the same species, the data for
the more resistant life stages must not be used in the calculation of the SMAV
because a species cannot be considered protected from acute toxicity if all of the
life stages are not protected.

I. For each species for which at least one acute value is available, the SMAV shall
be calculated as the geometric mean of the results of all acceptable flow-through
acute toxicity tests in which the concentrations of test material were measured
with the most sensitive tested life stage of the species. For a species for which no
such result is available, the SMAV shall be calculated as the geometric mean of
all acceptable acute toxicity tests with the most sensitive tested life stage, i.e.,
results of flow-through tests in which the concentrations were not measured and
results of static and renewal tests based on initial concentrations (nominal
concentrations are acceptable for most test materials if measured concentrations
are not available) of test material. A renewal test is a test with aquatic organisms
in which either the test solution in a test chamber is removed and replaced at least
once during the test or the test organisms are transferred into a new test solution
of the same composition at least once during the test. A static test is a test with
aquatic organisms in which the solution and organisms that are in a test chamber
40
 at the beginning of the test remain in the chamber until the end of the test, except
for removal of dead test organisms.

Note 1: Data reported by original investigators must not be rounded off. Results
of all intermediate calculations must not be rounded off to fewer than four
significant digits.

Note 2: The geometric mean of N numbers is the Nth root of the product of the N
numbers. Alternatively, the geometric mean can be calculated by adding the
logarithms of the N numbers, dividing the sum by N, and taking the antilog of the
quotient. The geometric mean of two numbers is the square root of the product of
the two numbers, and the geometric mean of one number is that number. Either
natural (base e) or common (base 10) logarithms can be used to calculate
geometric means as long as they are used consistently within each set of data, i.e.,
the antilog used must match the logarithms used.

Note 3: Geometric means, rather than arithmetic means, are used here because
the distributions of sensitivities of individual organisms in toxicity tests on most
materials and the distributions of sensitivities of species within a genus are more
likely to be lognormal than normal. Similarly, geometric means are used for
ACRs because quotients are likely to be closer to lognormal than normal
distributions. In addition, division of the geometric mean of a set of numerators
by the geometric mean of the set of denominators will result in the geometric
mean of the set of corresponding quotients.

J. For each genus for which one or more SMAVs are available, the GMAV shall be
calculated as the geometric mean of the SMAVs available for the genus.

K. Order the GMAVs from high to low.

L. Assign ranks, R, to the GMAVs from "1" for the lowest to "N" for the highest. If
two or more GMAVs are identical, assign them successive ranks.

M. Calculate the cumulative probability, P, for each GMAV as R/(N + 1).

N. Select the four GMAVs which have cumulative probabilities closest to 0.05 (if
there are fewer than 59 GMAVs, these will always be the four lowest GMAVs).

O. Using the four selected GMAVs, and Ps, calculate:

41
 ( ln GMAV)  S( ( P ))
L=
4

( ( ln GMAV) )2
(( ln GMAV ) )  2

2 4
S =
( ( P ) ) 2
(P) 
4

A = S( 0.05 )+ L

Note: Natural logarithms (logarithms to base e, denoted as ln) are used herein
merely because they are easier to use on some hand calculators and computers
than common (base 10) logarithms. Consistent use of either will produce the
same result.

P. If, for a commercially or recreationally important species, the geometric mean of

the acute values from flow-through tests in which the concentrations of test
material were measured is lower than the calculated Final Acute Value (FAV),
then that geometric mean must be used as the FAV instead of the calculated FAV.

Q. See section VI of this appendix.

V. Final Acute Equation

A. When enough data are available to show that acute toxicity to two or more species
is similarly related to a water quality characteristic, the relationship shall be taken
into account as described in sections V.B through V.G of this appendix or using
analysis of covariance. The two methods are equivalent and produce identical
results. The manual method described below provides an understanding of this
application of covariance analysis, but computerized versions of covariance
analysis are much more convenient for analyzing large data sets. If two or more
factors affect toxicity, multiple regression analysis shall be used.

B. For each species for which comparable acute toxicity values are available at two
or more different values of the water quality characteristic, perform a least squares
regression of the acute toxicity values on the corresponding values of the water
quality characteristic to obtain the slope and its 95 percent confidence limits for
each species.

Note: Because the best documented relationship is that between hardness and
acute toxicity of metals in fresh water and a log-log relationship fits these data,
geometric means and natural logarithms of both toxicity and water quality are
used in the rest of this section. For relationships based on other water quality

42
 characteristics, such as pH or temperature, no transformation or a different
transformation might fit the data better, and appropriate changes will be necessary
throughout this section.

C. Decide whether the data for each species are relevant, taking into account the
range and number of the tested values of the water quality characteristic and the
degree of agreement within and between species. For example, a slope based on
six data points might be of limited value if it is based only on data for a very
narrow range of values of the water quality characteristic. A slope based on only
two data points, however, might be useful if it is consistent with other information
and if the two points cover a broad enough range of the water quality
characteristic. In addition, acute values that appear to be questionable in
comparison with other acute and chronic data available for the same species and
for other species in the same genus should not be used. For example, if after
adjustment for the water quality characteristic, the acute values available for a
species or genus differ by more than a factor of ten, rejection of some or all of the
values would be appropriate, absent countervailing justification. If useful slopes
are not available for at least one fish and one invertebrate or if the available slopes
are too dissimilar or if too few data are available to adequately define the
relationship between acute toxicity and the water quality characteristic, return to
section IV.G of this appendix, using the results of tests conducted under
conditions and in waters similar to those commonly used for toxicity tests with the
species.

D. For each species, calculate the geometric mean of the available acute values and
then divide each of the acute values for the species by the geometric mean for the
species. This normalizes the acute values so that the geometric mean of the
normalized values for each species individually and for any combination of
species is 1.0.

E. Similarly, normalize the values of the water quality characteristic for each species
individually using the same procedure as above.

F. Individually for each species, perform a least squares regression of the normalized
acute values of the water quality characteristic. The resulting slopes and 95
percent confidence limits will be identical to those obtained in section V.B. of this
appendix. If, however, the data are actually plotted, the line of best fit for each
individual species will go through the point 1,1 in the center of the graph.

G. Treat all of the normalized data as if they were all for the same species and
perform a least squares regression of all of the normalized acute values on the
corresponding normalized values of the water quality characteristic to obtain the
pooled acute slope, V, and its 95 percent confidence limits. If all of the
normalized data are actually plotted, the line of best fit will go through the point
1,1 in the center of the graph.

43
H. For each species, calculate the geometric mean, W, of the acute toxicity values
and the geometric mean, X, of the values of the water quality characteristic.
(These were calculated in sections V.D and V.E of this appendix.)

I. For each species, calculate the logarithm, Y, of the SMAV at a selected value, Z,
of the water quality characteristic using the equation:

Y = ln W - V(ln X - ln Z)

J. For each species, calculate the SMAV at X using the equation:

SMAV = eY

Note: Alternatively, the SMAVs at Z can be obtained by skipping step H above,

using the equations in steps I and J to adjust each acute value individually to Z,
and then calculating the geometric mean of the adjusted values for each species
individually. This alternative procedure allows an examination of the range of the
adjusted acute values for each species.

K. Obtain the FAV at Z by using the procedure described in sections IV.J through
IV.O of this appendix.

L. If, for a commercially or recreationally important species, the geometric mean of

the acute values at Z from flow-through tests in which the concentrations of the
test material were measured is lower than the FAV at Z, then the geometric mean
must be used as the FAV, instead of the FAV.

M. The Final Acute Equation is written as:

FAV = e(V[ln(water quality characteristic)] + A - V[ln Z]),

where V = pooled acute slope, and A = ln(FAV at Z).

Because V, A, and Z are known, the FAV can be calculated for any selected value
of the water quality characteristic.

VI. Final Chronic Value

A. Depending on the data that are available concerning chronic toxicity to aquatic
animals, the Final Chronic Value (FCV) can be calculated in the same manner as
the FAV or by dividing the FAV by the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio (FACR). In
some cases, it might not be possible to calculate a FCV. The FCV is (a) a
calculated estimate of the concentration of a test material such that 95 percent of
the genera (with which acceptable chronic toxicity tests have been conducted on
the material) have higher GMCVs, or (b) the quotient of an FAV divided by an
appropriate ACR, or (c) the SMCV of an important and/or critical species, if the

44
 SMCV is lower than the calculated estimate or the quotient, whichever is
applicable.

Note: As the name implies, the ACR is a way of relating acute and chronic
toxicities.

B. Chronic values shall be based on results of flow-through (except renewal is

acceptable for daphnids) chronic tests in which the concentrations of test material
in the test solutions were properly measured at appropriate times during the test.
A chronic test is a comparative study in which organisms, that are subjected to
different treatments, are observed for a long period or a substantial portion of their
life span.

C. Results of chronic tests in which survival, growth, or reproduction in the control

treatment was unacceptably low shall not be used. The limits of acceptability will
depend on the species.

D. Results of chronic tests conducted in unusual dilution water, e.g., dilution water in
which total organic carbon or particulate matter exceeded five mg/L, should not
be used, unless a relationship is developed between chronic toxicity and organic
carbon or particulate matter, or unless data show that organic carbon, particulate
matter, etc., do not affect toxicity.

E. Chronic values must be based on endpoints and lengths of exposure appropriate to

the species. Therefore, only results of the following kinds of chronic toxicity tests
shall be used:

1. Life-cycle toxicity tests consisting of exposures of each of two or more

groups of individuals of a species to a different concentration of the test
material throughout a life cycle. To ensure that all life stages and life
processes are exposed, tests with fish should begin with embryos or newly
hatched young less than 48 hours old, continue through maturation and
reproduction, and should end not less than 24 days (90 days for salmonids)
after the hatching of the next generation. Tests with daphnids should
begin with young less than 24 hours old and last for not less than 21 days,
and for ceriodaphnids not less than seven days. For good examples of
acceptable procedures see American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Standard E 1193 Guide for conducting renewal life-cycle toxicity
tests with Daphnia magna and ASTM Standard E 1295 Guide for
conducting three-brood, renewal toxicity tests with Ceriodaphnia dubia.
Tests with mysids should begin with young less than 24 hours old and
continue until seven days past the median time of first brood release in the
controls. For fish, data should be obtained and analyzed on survival and
growth of adults and young, maturation of males and females, eggs
spawned per female, embryo viability (salmonids only), and hatchability.
For daphnids, data should be obtained and analyzed on survival and young

45
 per female. For mysids, data should be obtained and analyzed on survival,
growth, and young per female.

2. Partial life-cycle toxicity tests consist of exposures of each of two more

groups of individuals of a species of fish to a different concentration of the
test material through most portions of a life cycle. Partial life-cycle tests
are allowed with fish species that require more than a year to reach sexual
maturity, so that all major life stages can be exposed to the test material in
less than 15 months. A life-cycle test is a comparative study in which
organisms, that are subjected to different treatments, are observed at least
from a life stage in one generation to the same life-stage in the next
generation. Exposure to the test material should begin with immature
juveniles at least two months prior to active gonad development, continue
through maturation and reproduction, and end not less than 24 days (90
days for salmonids) after the hatching of the next generation. Data should
be obtained and analyzed on survival and growth of adults and young,
maturation of males and females, eggs spawned per female, embryo
viability (salmonids only), and hatchability.

3. Early life-stage toxicity tests consisting of 28-day to 32-day (60 days post
hatch for salmonids) exposures of the early life stages of a species of fish
from shortly after fertilization through embryonic, larval, and early
juvenile development. Data should be obtained and analyzed on survival
and growth.

Note: Results of an early life-stage test are used as predictions of results

of life cycle and partial life-cycle tests with the same species. Therefore,
when results of a life cycle or partial life-cycle test are available, results of
an early life-stage test with the same species should not be used. Also,
results of early life-stage tests in which the incidence of mortalities or
abnormalities increased substantially near the end of the test shall not be
used because the results of such tests are possibly not good predictions of
comparable life-cycle or partial life-cycle tests.

F. A chronic value may be obtained by calculating the geometric mean of the lower
and upper chronic limits from a chronic test or by analyzing chronic data using
regression analysis.

1. A lower chronic limit is the highest tested concentration:

a) In an acceptable chronic test;
b) Which did not cause an unacceptable amount of adverse effect on
any of the specified biological measurements; and
c) Below which no tested concentration caused an unacceptable
effect.

2. An upper chronic limit is the lowest tested concentration:

a) In an acceptable chronic test;
46
 b) Which did cause an unacceptable amount of adverse effect on one
or more of the specified biological measurements; and
c) Above which all tested concentrations also caused such an effect.

Note: Because various authors have used a variety of terms and

definitions to interpret and report results of chronic tests, reported results
should be reviewed carefully. The amount of effect that is considered
unacceptable is often based on a statistical hypothesis test, but might also
be defined in terms of a specified percent reduction from the controls. A
small percent reduction (e.g., three percent) might be considered
acceptable even if it is statistically significantly different from the control,
whereas a large percent reduction (e.g., 30 percent) might be considered
unacceptable even if it is not statistically significant.

G. If the chronic toxicity of the material to aquatic animals has been shown to be
related to a water quality characteristic such as hardness or particulate matter for
freshwater animals, refer to section VII of this appendix.

H. If chronic values are available for species in eight families as described in section
III.B.1 of this appendix, a SMCV shall be calculated for each species for which at
least one chronic value is available by calculating the geometric mean of the
results of all acceptable life-cycle and partial life-cycle toxicity tests with the
species; for a species of fish for which no such result is available, the SMCV is
the geometric mean of all acceptable early life-stage tests. Appropriate GMCVs
shall also be calculated. A GMCV is the geometric mean of the SMCVs for the
genus. The FCV shall be obtained using the procedure described in sections IV.J
through IV.O of this appendix, substituting SMCV and GMCV for SMAV and
GMAV respectively. (See section VI.M of this appendix.)

Note: Sections VI.I through VI.L of this appendix are for use when chronic
values are not available for species in eight taxonomic families as described in
section III.B.1 of this appendix.

I. For each chronic value for which at least one corresponding appropriate acute
value is available, calculate an ACR, using for the numerator the geometric mean
of the results of all acceptable flow-through (except static is acceptable for
daphnids and midges) acute tests in the same dilution water in which the
concentrations are measured. For fish, the acute test(s) should be conducted with
juveniles. The acute test(s) should be part of the same study as the chronic test. If
acute tests were not conducted as part of the same study, but were conducted as
part of a different study in the same laboratory and dilution water, then they may
be used. If no such acute tests are available, results of acute tests conducted in the
same dilution water in a different laboratory may be used. If no such acute tests
are available, an ACR shall not be calculated.

J. For each species, calculate the SMACR as the geometric mean of all ACRs
available for that species.
47
K. For some materials, the ACR seems to be the same for all species, but for other
materials the ratio seems to increase or decrease as the SMAV increases. Thus the
FACR can be obtained in three ways, depending on the data available:

1. If the species mean ACR seems to increase or decrease as the MAVs

increase, the FACR shall be calculated as the geometric mean of the ACRs
for species whose SMAVs are close to the FAV.

2. If no major trend is apparent and the ACRs for all species are within a
factor of ten, the FACR shall be calculated as the geometric mean of all of
the SMACRs.

3. If the most appropriate SMACRs are less than 2.0, and especially if they
are less than 1.0, acclimation has probably occurred during the chronic
test. In this situation, because continuous exposure and acclimation cannot
be assured to provide adequate protection in field situations, the FACR
should be assumed to be 2.0, so that the FCV is equal to the Criterion
Maximum Concentration (CMC). (See section X.B of this appendix.)

If the available SMACRs do not fit one of these cases, a FACR may not be
obtained and a Tier I FCV probably cannot be calculated.

L. Calculate the FCV by dividing the FAV by the FACR:

FCV = FAV/FACR

If there is a Final Acute Equation rather than a FAV, see Section V of this
appendix.

M. If the SMCV of a commercially or recreationally important species is lower than

the calculated FCV, then that SMCV must be used as the FCV instead of the
calculated FCV.

N. See section VIII of this appendix.

VII. Final Chronic Equation

A. A Final Chronic Equation can be derived in two ways. The procedure described
in section VII.A of this appendix will result in the chronic slope being the same as
the acute slope. The procedure described in sections VII.B. through N of this
appendix will usually result in the chronic slope being different from the acute
slope.

1. If ACRs are available for enough species at enough values of the water
quality characteristic to indicate that the ACR appears to be the same for
all species and appears to be independent of the water quality

48
 characteristic, calculate the FACR as the geometric mean of the available
SMACRs.

2. Calculate the FCV at the selected value Z of the water quality

characteristic by dividing the FAV at Z (see section V.M of this appendix)
by the FACR.

3. Use V = pooled acute slope (see section V.M of this appendix), and L =
pooled chronic slope.

4. See section VII.M of this appendix.

B. When enough data are available to show that chronic toxicity to at least one
species is related to a water quality characteristic, the relationship should be taken
into account as described in Sections C through G below or using analysis of
covariance. The two methods are equivalent and produce identical results. The
manual method described below provides an understanding of this application of
covariance analysis, but computerized versions of covariance analysis are much
more convenient for analyzing large data sets. If two or more factors affect
toxicity, multiple regression analysis shall be used.

C. For each species for which comparable chronic toxicity values are available at two
or more different values of the water quality characteristic, perform a least squares
regression of the chronic toxicity values on the corresponding values of the water
quality characteristic to obtain the slope and its 95 percent confidence limits for
each species.

Note: Because the best documented relationship is that between hardness and
acute toxicity of metals in fresh water and a log-log relationship fits these data,
geometric means and natural logarithms of both toxicity and water quality are
used in the rest of this section. For relationships based on other water quality
characteristics, such as pH or temperature, no transformation or a different
transformation might fit the data better, and appropriate changes will be necessary
throughout this section. It is probably preferable, but not necessary, to use the
same transformation that was used with the acute values in section V of this
appendix.

D. Decide whether the data for each species are relevant, taking into account the
range and number of the tested values of the water quality characteristic and the
degree of agreement within and between species. For example, a slope based on
six data points might be of limited value if it is based only on data for a very
narrow range of values of the water quality characteristic. A slope based on only
two data points, however, might be more useful if it is consistent with other
information and if the two points cover a broad range of the water quality
characteristic. In addition, chronic values that appear to be questionable in
comparison with other acute and chronic data available for the same species and
for other species in the same genus in most cases should not be used. For
49
 example, if after adjustment for the water quality characteristic, the chronic values
available for a species or genus differ by more than a factor of ten, rejection of
some or all of the values is, in most cases, absent countervailing circumstances,
appropriate. If a useful chronic slope is not available for at least one species or if
the available slopes are too dissimilar or if too few data are available to
adequately define the relationship between chronic toxicity and the water quality
characteristic, it might be appropriate to assume that the chronic slope is the same
as the acute slope, which is equivalent to assuming that the ACR is independent of
the water quality characteristic. Alternatively, return to section VI.H of this
appendix, using the results of tests conducted under conditions and in waters
similar to those commonly used for toxicity tests with the species.

E. Individually for each species, calculate the geometric mean of the available
chronic values and then divide each chronic value for a species by the mean for
the species. This normalizes the chronic values so that the geometric mean of the
normalized values for each species individually, and for any combination of
species, is 1.0.

F. Similarly, normalize the values of the water quality characteristic for each species
individually.

G. Individually for each species, perform a least squares regression of the normalized
chronic toxicity values on the corresponding normalized values of the water
quality characteristic. The resulting slopes and the 95 percent confidence limits
will be identical to those obtained in section VII.B of this appendix. Now,
however, if the data are actually plotted, the line of best fit for each individual
species will go through the point 1,1 in the center of the graph.

H. Treat all of the normalized data as if they were all the same species and perform a
least squares regression of all of the normalized chronic values on the
corresponding normalized values of the water quality characteristic to obtain the
pooled chronic slope, L, and its 95 percent confidence limits. If all normalized
data are actually plotted, the line of best fit will go through the point 1,1 in the
center of the graph.

I. For each species, calculate the geometric mean, M, of the toxicity values and the
geometric mean, P, of the values of the water quality characteristic. (These are
calculated in sections VII.E and F of this appendix.)

J. For each species, calculate the logarithm, Q, of the SMCV at a selected value, Z,
of the water quality characteristic using the equation:

Q = ln M - L(ln P - ln Z)

Note: Although it is not necessary, it is recommended that the same value of the
water quality characteristic be used here as was used in section V of this appendix.

50
K. For each species, calculate a SMCV at Z using the equation:

SMCV = eQ

Note: Alternatively, the SMCV at Z can be obtained by skipping section VII.J of

this appendix, using the equations in sections VII.J and K of this appendix to
adjust each chronic value individually to Z, and then calculating the geometric
means of the adjusted values for each species individually. This alternative
procedure allows an examination of the range of the adjusted chronic values for
each species.

L. Obtain the FCV at Z by using the procedure described in sections IV.J through O
of this appendix.

M. If the SMCV at Z of a commercially or recreationally important species is lower

than the calculated FCV at Z, then that SMCV shall be used as the FCV at Z
instead of the calculated FCV.

N. The Final Chronic Equation is written as:

FCV = e(L[ln(water quality characteristic)] + lnS- L[lnZ])

where:
L = pooled chronic slope
S = FCV at Z.

Because L, S, and Z are known, the FCV can be calculated for any selected value
of the water quality characteristic.

VIII. Final Plant Value

A. A Final Plant Value (FPV) is the lowest plant value that was obtained with an
important aquatic plant species in an acceptable toxicity test for which the
concentrations of the test material were measured and the adverse effect was
biologically important. Appropriate measures of the toxicity of the material to
aquatic plants are used to compare the relative sensitivities of aquatic plants and
animals. Although procedures for conducting and interpreting the results of
toxicity tests with plants are not well-developed, results of tests with plants
usually indicate that criteria which adequately protect aquatic animals and their
uses will, in most cases, also protect aquatic plants and their uses.

B. A plant value is the result of a 96-hour test conducted with an alga or a chronic
test conducted with an aquatic vascular plant.

Note: A test of the toxicity of a metal to a plant shall not be used if the medium
contained an excessive amount of a completing agent, such as EDTA, that might

51
 affect the toxicity of the metal. Concentrations of EDTA above 200 μg/L should
be considered excessive.
C. The FPV shall be obtained by selecting the lowest result from a test with an
important aquatic plant species in which the concentrations of test material are
measured and the endpoint is biologically important.

IX. Other Data

Pertinent information that could not be used in earlier sections might be available
concerning adverse effects on aquatic organisms. The most important of these are data on
cumulative and delayed toxicity, reduction in survival, growth, or reproduction, or any
other adverse effect that has been shown to be biologically important. Delayed toxicity is
an adverse effect to an organism that results from, and occurs after the end of, its
exposure to one or more test materials. Especially important are data for species for
which no other data are available. Data from behavioral, biochemical, physiological,
microcosm, and field studies might also be available. Data might be available from tests
conducted in unusual dilution water (see sections IV.D and VI.D of this appendix), from
chronic tests in which the concentrations were not measured (see section VI.B of this
appendix), from tests with previously exposed organisms (see section II.F.3 of this
appendix), and from tests on formulated mixtures or emulsifiable concentrates (see
section II.D of this appendix). Such data might affect a criterion if the data were obtained
with an important species, the test concentrations were measured, and the endpoint was
biologically important.

X. Criterion
A. A criterion consists of two concentrations: the Criterion Maximum Concentration
(CMC) and the Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC).

B. The CMC is equal to one-half the FAV. The CMC is an estimate of the highest
concentration of a material in the water column to which an aquatic community
can be exposed briefly without resulting in an unacceptable effect.

C. The CCC is equal to the lowest of the FCV or the FPV (if available) unless other
data (see section IX of this appendix) show that a lower value should be used.
The CCC is an estimate of the highest concentration of a material in the water
column to which an aquatic community can be exposed indefinitely without
resulting in an unacceptable effect. If toxicity is related to a water quality
characteristic, the CCC is obtained from the Final Chronic Equation or FPV (if
available) that results in the lowest concentrations in the usual range of the water
quality characteristic, unless other data (see section IX of this appendix) show that
a lower value should be used.

D. Round both the CMC and the CCC to two significant digits.

E. The criterion is stated as:

52
 The procedures described in the Tier I methodology indicate that, except possibly
where a commercially or recreationally important species is very sensitive, aquatic
organisms should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average
concentration of (1) does not exceed (2) μg/L more than once every three years on
the average and if the one-hour average concentration does not exceed (3) μg/L
more than once every three years on the average.
where:
(1) = Insert name of material
(2) = Insert the CCC
(3) = Insert the CMC

If the CMC averaging period of one hour or the CCC averaging period of four
days is inappropriate for the pollutant, or if the once-in-three-year allowable
excursion frequency is inappropriate for the pollutant or for the sites to which a
criterion is applied, then the State may specify alternative averaging periods or
frequencies. The choice of an alternative averaging period or frequency shall be
justified by a scientifically defensible analysis demonstrating that the alternative
values will protect the aquatic life uses of the water. Appropriate laboratory data
and/or well-designed field biological surveys shall be submitted to U.S. EPA as
justification for differing averaging periods and/or frequencies of exceedance.

XI. Final Review

A. The derivation of the criterion should be carefully reviewed by rechecking each

step of the Guidance in this part. Items that should be especially checked are:

1. If unpublished data are used, are they well documented?

2. Are all required data available?

3. Is the range of acute values for any species greater than a factor of ten?

4. Is the range of SMAVs for any genus greater than a factor of ten?

5. Is there more than a factor of ten difference between the four lowest
GMAVs?

6. Are any of the lowest GMAVs questionable?

7. Is the FAV reasonable in comparison with the SMAVs and GMAVs?

8. For any commercially or recreationally important species, is the geometric

mean of the acute values from flow-through tests in which the
concentrations of test material were measured lower than the FAV?

9. Are any of the chronic values used questionable?

53
 10. Are any chronic values available for acutely sensitive species?

11. Is the range of acute-chronic ratios greater than a factor of ten?

12. Is the FCV reasonable in comparison with the available acute and chronic
data?

13. Is the measured or predicted chronic value for any commercially or

recreationally important species below the FCV?

14. Are any of the other data important?

15. Do any data look like they might be outliers?

16. Are there any deviations from the guidance in this part? Are they
acceptable?

B. On the basis of all available pertinent laboratory and field information, determine
if the criterion is consistent with sound scientific evidence. If it is not, another
criterion, either higher or lower, shall be derived consistent with the Guidance in
this part.

Methodology for Deriving Aquatic Life Values:

Tier II
XII. Secondary Acute Value

If all eight minimum data requirements for calculating an FAV using Tier I are not met, a
Secondary Acute Value (SAV) shall be calculated for a chemical as follows:

To calculate a SAV, the lowest GMAV in the database is divided by the Secondary Acute
Factor (SAF) (Table A-1 of this appendix) corresponding to the number of satisfied
minimum data requirements listed in the Tier I methodology (section III.B.1 of this
appendix). Requirements for definitions, data collection and data review, contained in
sections I, II, and IV shall be applied to calculation of a SAV. If all eight minimum data
requirements are satisfied, a Tier I criterion calculation may be possible. In order to
calculate a SAV, the database must contain, at a minimum, a genus mean acute value
(GMAV) for one of the following three genera in the family Daphnidae - Ceriodaphnia
sp., Daphnia sp., or Simocephalus sp.

If appropriate, the SAV shall be made a function of a water quality characteristic in a

manner similar to that described in Tier I.

54
XIII. Secondary Acute-Chronic Ratio
If three or more experimentally determined ACRs, meeting the data collection and review
requirements of section VI of this appendix, are available for the chemical, determine the
FACR using the procedure described in section VI of this appendix. If fewer than three
acceptable experimentally determined ACRs are available, use enough assumed ACRs of
18 so that the total number of ACRs equals three. Calculate the Secondary Acute-
Chronic Ratio (SACR) as the geometric mean of the three ACRs. Thus, if no
experimentally determined ACRs are available, the SACR is 18.

XIV. Secondary Chronic Value

Calculate the Secondary Chronic Value (SCV) using one of the following:

A. SCV = FAV (use FAV from Tier I)

SACR

B. SCV = SAV
FACR

C. SCV = SAV
SACR

If appropriate, the SCV will be made a function of a water quality characteristic in a

manner similar to that described in Tier I.

XV. Commercially Or Recreationally Important Species

If for a commercially or recreationally important species the geometric mean of the acute
values or chronic values from flow-through tests in which the concentrations of the test
materials were measured is lower than the calculated SAV or SCV, then that geometric
mean must be used as the SAV or SCV instead of the calculated SAV or SCV.

XVI. Tier II Value

A. A Tier II value shall consist of two concentrations: the Secondary Maximum

Concentration (SMC) and the Secondary Continuous Concentration (SCC).

B. The SMC is equal to one-half of the SAV.

C. The SCC is equal to the lowest of the SCV or the Final Plant Value, if available,
unless other data (see section IX of this appendix) show that a lower value should
be used.

55
 If toxicity is related to a water quality characteristic, the SCC is obtained from the
Secondary Chronic Equation or FPV, if available, that results in the lowest
concentrations in the usual range of the water quality characteristic, unless other
data (see section IX of this appendix) show that a lower value should be used.

D. Round both the SMC and the SCC to two significant digits.

E. The Tier II value is stated as:

The procedures described in the Tier II methodology indicate that, except possibly
where a locally important species is very sensitive, aquatic organisms should not
be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of (1) does not
exceed (2) μg/L more than once every three years on the average and if the one-
hour average concentration does not exceed (3) μg/L more than once every three
years on the average, where:

(1) = insert name of material

(2) = insert the SCC
(3) = insert the SMC

As discussed above, States and Tribes have the discretion to specify alternative
averaging periods or frequencies.

XVII. Appropriate Modifications

On the basis of all available pertinent laboratory and field information, determine if the
Tier II value is consistent with sound scientific evidence. If it is not, another value, either
higher or lower, shall be derived consistent with the Guidance in this part.

Table A-1: Secondary Acute Factors

Number of Minimum Adjustment

Data Requirements Satisfied Factor
1 21.9
2 13.0
3 8.0
4 7.0
5 6.1
6 5.2
7 4.3

XVIII. Definitions

The following definitions apply in this part. Terms not defined in this section have the
meaning given by the Clean Water Act and U.S. EPA implementing regulations.

56
 Acute-chronic ratio (ACR) is a standard measure of the acute toxicity of a
material divided by an appropriate measure of the chronic toxicity of the same
material under comparable conditions.
 Acute toxicity is concurrent and delayed adverse effect(s) that results from an
acute exposure and occurs within any short observation period which begins when
the exposure begins, may extend beyond the exposure period, and usually does not
constitute a substantial portion of the life span of the organism.
 Adverse effect is any deleterious effect to organisms due to exposure to a
substance. This includes effects which are or may become debilitating, harmful or
toxic to the normal functions of the organism, but does not include non-harmful
effects such as tissue discoloration alone or the induction of enzymes involved in
the metabolism of the substance.
 Bioaccumulation is the net accumulation of a substance by an organism as a
result of uptake from all environmental sources.
 Bioaccumulation factor (BAF) is the ratio (in L/kg) of a substance's
concentration in tissue of an aquatic organism to its concentration in the ambient
water, in situations where both the organism and its food are exposed and the ratio
does not change substantially over time.
 Bioaccumulative chemical of concern (BCC) is any chemical that has the
potential to cause adverse effects which, upon entering the surface waters, by
itself or as its toxic transformation product, accumulates in aquatic organisms by a
human health bioaccumulation factor greater than 1000, after considering
metabolism and other physicochemical properties that might enhance or inhibit
bioaccumulation, in accordance with the methodology in appendix B of this part.
Chemicals with half-lives of less than eight weeks in the water column, sediment,
and biota are not BCCs. The minimum BAF information needed to define an
organic chemical as a BCC is either a field-measured BAF or a BAF derived using
the BSAF methodology. The minimum BAF information needed to define an
inorganic chemical, including an organometal, as a BCC is either a field-measured
BAF or a laboratory-measured BCF. BCCs include, but are not limited to, the
pollutants identified as BCCs in Chapter 4.F.
 Bioconcentration is the net accumulation of a substance by an aquatic organism
as a result of uptake directly from the ambient water through gill membranes or
other external body surfaces.
 Bioconcentration factor (BCF) is the ratio (in L/kg) of a substance's
concentration in tissue of an aquatic organism to its concentration in the ambient
water, in situations where the organism is exposed through the water only and the
ratio does not change substantially over time.
 Biota-sediment accumulation factor (BSAF) is the ratio (in kg of organic
carbon/kg of lipid) of a substance's lipid-normalized concentration in tissue of an
aquatic organism to its organic carbon-normalized concentration in surface
sediment, in situations where the ratio does not change substantially over time,
both the organism and its food are exposed, and the surface sediment is
representative of average surface sediment in the vicinity of the organism.

57
 Carcinogen is a substance which causes an increased incidence of benign or
malignant neoplasms, or substantially decreases the time to develop neoplasms, in
animals or humans.
 Chronic toxicity is concurrent and delayed adverse effect(s) that occurs only as a
result of a chronic exposure.
 Criterion continuous concentration (CCC) is an estimate of the highest
concentration of a material in the water column to which an aquatic community
can be exposed indefinitely without resulting in an unacceptable effect.
 Criterion maximum concentration (CMC) is an estimate of the highest
concentration of a material in the water column to which an aquatic community
can be exposed briefly without resulting in an unacceptable effect.
 EC50 is a statistically or graphically estimated concentration that is expected to
cause one or more specified effects in 50 percent of a group of organisms under
specified conditions.
 Endangered or threatened species are those species that are listed as endangered
or threatened under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act.
 Existing discharger is any building, structure, facility, or installation from which
there is or may be a "discharge of pollutants" (as defined in 40 CFR 122.2), that
is not a new discharger.
 Final acute value (FAV) is (a) a calculated estimate of the concentration of a test
material such that 95 percent of the genera (with which acceptable acute toxicity
tests have been conducted on the material) have higher GMAVs, or (b) the SMAV
of an important and/or critical species, if the SMAV is lower than the calculated
estimate.
 Final chronic value (FCV) is (a) a calculated estimate of the concentration of a
test material such that 95 percent of the genera (with which acceptable chronic
toxicity tests have been conducted on the material) have higher GMCVs, (b) the
quotient of an FAV divided by an appropriate acute-chronic ratio, or (c) the
SMCV of an important and/or critical species, if the SMCV is lower than the
calculated estimate or the quotient, whichever is applicable.
 Final plant value (FPV) is the lowest plant value that was obtained with an
important aquatic plant species in an acceptable toxicity test for which the
concentrations of the test material were measured and the adverse effect was
biologically important.
 Genus mean acute value (GMAV) is the geometric mean of the SMAVs for the
genus.
 Genus mean chronic value (GMCV) is the geometric mean of the SMCVs for
the genus.
 Human cancer criterion (HCC) is a Human Cancer Value (HCV) for a pollutant
that meets the minimum data requirements for Tier I.
 Human cancer value (HCV) is the maximum ambient water concentration of a
substance at which a lifetime of exposure from either: drinking the water,
consuming fish from the water, and water-related recreation activities; or
consuming fish from the water, and water-related recreation activities, will
represent a plausible upper-bound risk of contracting cancer of one in 100,000

58
 using the exposure assumptions specified in the Methodologies for the
Development of Human Health Criteria and Values.
 Human noncancer criterion (HNC) is a Human Noncancer Value (HNV) for a
pollutant that meets the minimum data requirements for Tier I.
 Human noncancer value (HNV) is the maximum ambient water concentration of
a substance at which adverse noncancer effects are not likely to occur in the
human population from lifetime exposure via either: drinking the water,
consuming fish from the water, and water-related recreation activities; or
consuming fish from the water, and water-related recreation activities using the
Methodologies for the Development of Human Health Criteria and Values.
 LC50 is a statistically or graphically estimated concentration that is expected to
be lethal to 50 percent of a group of organisms under specified conditions.
 Load allocation (LA) is the portion of a receiving water's loading capacity that is
attributed either to one of its existing or future nonpoint sources or to natural
background sources, as more fully defined at 40 CFR 130.2(g). Nonpoint sources
include: in-place contaminants, direct wet and dry deposition, groundwater
inflow, and overland runoff.
 Loading capacity is the greatest amount of loading that a water can receive
without violating water quality standards.
 Lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) is the lowest tested dose or
concentration of a substance which resulted in an observed adverse effect in
exposed test organisms when all higher doses or concentrations resulted in the
same or more severe effects.
 Method detection level is the minimum concentration of an analyte (substance)
that can be measured and reported with a 99 percent confidence that the analyte
concentration is greater than zero as determined by the procedure set forth in
appendix B of 40 CFR part 136.
 Minimum level (ML) is the concentration at which the entire analytical system
must give a recognizable signal and acceptable calibration point. The ML is the
concentration in a sample that is equivalent to the concentration of the lowest
calibration standard analyzed by a specific analytical procedure, assuming that all
the method-specified sample weights, volumes and processing steps have been
followed.
 New discharger is any building, structure, facility, or installation from which
there is or may be a "discharge of pollutants" (as defined in 40 CFR 122.2).
 No observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) is the highest tested dose or
concentration of a substance which resulted in no observed adverse effect in
exposed test organisms where higher doses or concentrations resulted in an
adverse effect.
 No observed effect concentration (NOEC) is the highest concentration of
toxicant to which organisms are exposed in a full life cycle or partial life-cycle
(short-term) test, that causes no observable adverse effects on the test organisms
(i.e., the highest concentration of toxicant in which the values for the observed
responses are not statistically significantly different from the controls).
 Quantification level is a measurement of the concentration of a contaminant
obtained by using a specified laboratory procedure calibrated at a specified
59
 concentration above the method detection level. It is considered the lowest
concentration at which a particular contaminant can be quantitatively measured
using a specified laboratory procedure for monitoring of the contaminant.
 Quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) or structure activity
relationship (SAR) is a mathematical relationship between a property (activity) of
a chemical and a number of descriptors of the chemical. These descriptors are
chemical or physical characteristics obtained experimentally or predicted from the
structure of the chemical.
 Risk associated dose (RAD) is a dose of a known or presumed carcinogenic
substance in (mg/kg)/day which, over a lifetime of exposure, is estimated to be
associated with a plausible upper bound incremental cancer risk equal to one in
100,000.
 Species mean acute value (SMAV) is the geometric mean of the results of all
acceptable flow-through acute toxicity tests (for which the concentrations of the
test material were measured) with the most sensitive tested life stage of the
species. For a species for which no such result is available for the most sensitive
tested life stage, the SMAV is the geometric mean of the results of all acceptable
acute toxicity tests with the most sensitive tested life stage.
 Species mean chronic value (SMCV) is the geometric mean of the results of all
acceptable life-cycle and partial life-cycle toxicity tests with the species; for a
species of fish for which no such result is available, the SMCV is the geometric
mean of all acceptable early life-stage tests.
 Stream design flow is the stream flow that represents critical conditions,
upstream from the source, for protection of aquatic life, human health, or wildlife.
 Threshold effect is an effect of a substance for which there is a theoretical or
empirically established dose or concentration below which the effect does not
occur.
 Tier I criteria are numeric values derived by use of the Tier I methodologies in
Appendices A, C and D of this part, the methodology in Appendix B of this part,
and the procedures in Appendix E of this part, that either have been adopted as
numeric criteria into a water quality standard or are used to implement narrative
water quality criteria.
 Tier II values are numeric values derived by use of the Tier II methodologies in
Appendices A and C of this part, the methodology in Appendix B of this part, and
the procedures in Appendix E of this part, that are used to implement narrative
water quality criteria.
 Total maximum daily load (TMDL) is the sum of the individual waste load
allocations for point sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural
background, as more fully defined at 40 CFR 130.2(i). A TMDL sets and
allocates the maximum amount of a pollutant that may be introduced into a water
body and still assure attainment and maintenance of water quality standards.
 Uncertainty factor (UF) is one of several numeric factors used in operationally
deriving criteria from experimental data to account for the quality or quantity of
the available data.
 Uptake is acquisition of a substance from the environment by an organism as a
result of any active or passive process.
60
 Waste load allocation (WLA) is the portion of a receiving water's loading
capacity that is allocated to one of its existing or future point sources of pollution,
as more fully defined at 40 CFR 130.2(h). In the absence of a TMDL approved by
U.S. EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 130.7 or an assessment and remediation plan
developed and approved in accordance with procedure 3.A of appendix F of this
part, a WLA is the allocation for an individual point source, that ensures that the
level of water quality to be achieved by the point source is derived from and
complies with all applicable water quality standards.
 Wet weather point source means any discernible, confined and discrete
conveyance from which pollutants are, or may be, discharged as the result of a wet
weather event. Discharges from wet weather point sources shall include only:
discharges of storm water from a municipal separate storm sewer as defined at 40
CFR 122.26(b)(8); storm water discharge associated with industrial activity as
defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14); discharges of storm water and sanitary
wastewater (domestic, commercial, and industrial) from a combined sewer
overflow; or any other storm water discharge for which a permit is required under
section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act. A storm water discharge associated with
industrial activity which is mixed with process wastewater shall not be considered
a wet weather point source.

61
 Appendix E

Alternate Approaches For Calculating Acute Mixing Zones

Alternative 1:

Apply the acute criterion at the end-of-pipe.

Alternative 2 (for high velocity discharges => 3 m/s):

The acute criterion should be met within 50 times the discharge length scale (50
times square root of the cross-sectional pipe area). The scientific basis for this
alternative is that these conditions will ensure that the acute criterion is met within
a few minutes under practically all conditions.

Alternative 3 (for low velocity discharges < 3 m/s):

The acute criterion should be met:

1) Within ten percent of the distance from the end-of-pipe to the edge of the
regulatory mixing zone in any direction. This will restrict the acute zone
to a relatively small area around the discharge pipe.
2) Within a distance of 50 times the square root of the pipe diameter
(discharge length scale). This will ensure a dilution factor of at least ten at
the edge of the acute mixing zone.
3) Within a distance of five times the local in any horizontal direction water
depth. This will ensure that mixing zones are not established in shallow,
near-shore waters.

Alternative 4 (demonstration by discharger):

A discharger may demonstrate that a drifting organism would not be exposed to

one-hour average concentrations exceeding acute aquatic life criteria or would not
receive harmful exposure when evaluated by other valid toxicological analyses.

62
63
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission

5735 Kellogg Avenue

Cincinnati, OH 45230
513-231-7719
www.orsanco.org

64
 National Primary
ACTION: Refiled DATE: 08/04/2020 9:05 AM

Drinking Water Regulations

Potential health effects
MCL or TT1 Common sources of contaminant in Public Health
Contaminant from long-term3 exposure
(mg/L)2 drinking water Goal (mg/L)2
above the MCL

Nervous system or blood Added to water during sewage/

Acrylamide TT4
problems; increased risk of cancer wastewater treatment
zero

Eye, liver, kidney, or spleen

Runoff from herbicide used on row
Alachlor 0.002 problems; anemia; increased risk
crops
zero
of cancer
Erosion of natural deposits of certain
15 picocuries
Alpha/photon minerals that are radioactive and
emitters
per Liter Increased risk of cancer
may emit a form of radiation known
zero
(pCi/L)
as alpha radiation
Discharge from petroleum refineries;
Increase in blood cholesterol;
Antimony 0.006
decrease in blood sugar
fire retardants; ceramics; electronics; 0.006
solder
Skin damage or problems with Erosion of natural deposits; runoff
Arsenic 0.010 circulatory systems, and may have from orchards; runoff from glass & 0
increased risk of getting cancer electronics production wastes
Asbestos 7 million
Increased risk of developing Decay of asbestos cement in water
(fibers >10 fibers per Liter
benign intestinal polyps mains; erosion of natural deposits
7 MFL
micrometers) (MFL)

Cardiovascular system or Runoff from herbicide used on row

Atrazine 0.003
reproductive problems crops
0.003

Discharge of drilling wastes; discharge

Barium 2 Increase in blood pressure from metal refineries; erosion 2
of natural deposits

Anemia; decrease in blood Discharge from factories; leaching

Benzene 0.005
platelets; increased risk of cancer from gas storage tanks and landfills
zero

Benzo(a)pyrene Reproductive difficulties; Leaching from linings of water storage

(PAHs)
0.0002
increased risk of cancer tanks and distribution lines
zero

Discharge from metal refineries and

coal-burning factories; discharge
Beryllium 0.004 Intestinal lesions
from electrical, aerospace, and
0.004
defense industries
Decay of natural and man-made
deposits of certain minerals that are
Beta photon 4 millirems
emitters per year
Increased risk of cancer radioactive and may emit forms of zero
radiation known as photons and beta
radiation

Byproduct of drinking water

Bromate 0.010 Increased risk of cancer
disinfection
zero

Corrosion of galvanized pipes; erosion

of natural deposits; discharge
Cadmium 0.005 Kidney damage
from metal refineries; runoff from
0.005
waste batteries and paints

Problems with blood, nervous Leaching of soil fumigant used on rice

Carbofuran 0.04
system, or reproductive system and alfalfa
0.04

LEGEND

DISINFECTANT DISINFECTION INORGANIC MICROORGANISM ORGANIC RADIONUCLIDES

BYPRODUCT CHEMICAL CHEMICAL
ATTACH p(185637) pa(331657) d: (742381) ra(574505) print date: 09/21/2020 12:54 PM
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations EPA 816-F-09-004 | MAY 2009

Potential health effects

MCL or TT1 Common sources of contaminant Public Health
Contaminant from long-term3 exposure
(mg/L)2 in drinking water Goal (mg/L)2
above the MCL

Carbon Liver problems; increased risk of Discharge from chemical plants and
tetrachloride
0.005
cancer other industrial activities
zero

Chloramines Eye/nose irritation; stomach Water additive used to control

(as Cl2)
MRDL=4.01
discomfort; anemia microbes
MRDLG=41

Liver or nervous system problems;

Chlordane 0.002
increased risk of cancer
Residue of banned termiticide zero

Chlorine Eye/nose irritation; stomach Water additive used to control

(as Cl2)
MRDL=4.01
discomfort microbes
MRDLG=41

Anemia; infants, young children,

Chlorine dioxide Water additive used to control
(as ClO2)
MRDL=0.81 and fetuses of pregnant women:
microbes
MRDLG=0.81
nervous system effects

Anemia; infants, young children,

Byproduct of drinking water
Chlorite 1.0 and fetuses of pregnant women:
disinfection
0.8
nervous system effects

Discharge from chemical and

Chlorobenzene 0.1 Liver or kidney problems
agricultural chemical factories
0.1

Discharge from steel and pulp mills;

Chromium (total) 0.1 Allergic dermatitis
erosion of natural deposits
0.1

Short-term exposure:
Gastrointestinal distress. Long-
term exposure: Liver or kidney
TT5; Action damage. People with Wilson’s Corrosion of household plumbing
Copper
Level=1.3 Disease should consult their systems; erosion of natural deposits
1.3
personal doctor if the amount of
copper in their water exceeds the
action level
Short-term exposure:
Cryptosporidium TT7 Gastrointestinal illness (e.g., Human and animal fecal waste zero
diarrhea, vomiting, cramps)
Discharge from steel/metal
Cyanide Nerve damage or thyroid
(as free cyanide)
0.2
problems
factories; discharge from plastic and 0.2
fertilizer factories

Kidney, liver, or adrenal gland Runoff from herbicide used on row

2,4-D 0.07
problems crops
0.07

Runoff from herbicide used on

Dalapon 0.2 Minor kidney changes
rights of way
0.2

1,2-Dibromo-3- Runoff/leaching from soil fumigant

Reproductive difficulties;
chloropropane 0.0002
increased risk of cancer
used on soybeans, cotton, zero
(DBCP) pineapples, and orchards

Liver, kidney, or circulatory system Discharge from industrial chemical

o-Dichlorobenzene 0.6
problems factories
0.6

Anemia; liver, kidney, or spleen Discharge from industrial chemical

p-Dichlorobenzene 0.075
damage; changes in blood factories
0.075

Discharge from industrial chemical

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.005 Increased risk of cancer
factories
zero

LEGEND

DISINFECTANT DISINFECTION INORGANIC MICROORGANISM ORGANIC RADIONUCLIDES

BYPRODUCT CHEMICAL CHEMICAL
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations EPA 816-F-09-004 | MAY 2009

Potential health effects

MCL or TT1 Common sources of Public Health
Contaminant from long-term3 exposure
(mg/L)2 contaminant in drinking water Goal (mg/L)2
above the MCL

Discharge from industrial

1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.007 Liver problems
chemical factories
0.007

cis-1,2- Discharge from industrial

Dichloroethylene
0.07 Liver problems
chemical factories
0.07

trans-1,2, Discharge from industrial

Dichloroethylene
0.1 Liver problems
chemical factories
0.1

Liver problems; increased risk of Discharge from industrial

Dichloromethane 0.005
cancer chemical factories
zero

Discharge from industrial

1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 Increased risk of cancer
chemical factories
zero

Di(2-ethylhexyl) Weight loss, liver problems, or Discharge from chemical

adipate
0.4
possible reproductive difficulties factories
0.4

Di(2-ethylhexyl) Reproductive difficulties; liver Discharge from rubber and

phthalate
0.006
problems; increased risk of cancer chemical factories
zero

Runoff from herbicide used on

Dinoseb 0.007 Reproductive difficulties
soybeans and vegetables
0.007

Emissions from waste

Reproductive difficulties; increased incineration and other
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) 0.00000003
risk of cancer combustion; discharge from
zero
chemical factories

Diquat 0.02 Cataracts Runoff from herbicide use 0.02

Endothall 0.1 Stomach and intestinal problems Runoff from herbicide use 0.1

Endrin 0.002 Liver problems Residue of banned insecticide 0.002

Discharge from industrial

Increased cancer risk; stomach chemical factories; an impurity
Epichlorohydrin TT 4
problems of some water treatment
zero
chemicals

Discharge from petroleum

Ethylbenzene 0.7 Liver or kidney problems
refineries
0.7

Problems with liver, stomach,

Discharge from petroleum
Ethylene dibromide 0.00005 reproductive system, or kidneys;
refineries
zero
increased risk of cancer
Fecal coliforms and E. coli are
bacteria whose presence indicates
that the water may be contaminated
with human or animal wastes.
Microbes in these wastes may cause
Fecal coliform and
E. coli
MCL6 short term effects, such as diarrhea, Human and animal fecal waste zero6
cramps, nausea, headaches, or
other symptoms. They may pose a
special health risk for infants, young
children, and people with severely
compromised immune systems.

LEGEND

DISINFECTANT DISINFECTION INORGANIC MICROORGANISM ORGANIC RADIONUCLIDES

BYPRODUCT CHEMICAL CHEMICAL
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations EPA 816-F-09-004 | MAY 2009

Potential health effects

MCL or TT1 Common sources of contaminant Public Health
Contaminant from long-term3 exposure
(mg/L)2 in drinking water Goal (mg/L)2
above the MCL
Water additive which promotes
Bone disease (pain and
strong teeth; erosion of natural
Fluoride 4.0 tenderness of the bones); children
deposits; discharge from fertilizer
4.0
may get mottled teeth
and aluminum factories
Short-term exposure:
Giardia lamblia TT7 Gastrointestinal illness (e.g., Human and animal fecal waste zero
diarrhea, vomiting, cramps)

Kidney problems; reproductive

Glyphosate 0.7
difficulties
Runoff from herbicide use 0.7

Haloacetic acids Byproduct of drinking water

(HAA5)
0.060 Increased risk of cancer
disinfection
n/a9

Liver damage; increased risk of

Heptachlor 0.0004
cancer
Residue of banned termiticide zero

Liver damage; increased risk of

Heptachlor epoxide 0.0002
cancer
Breakdown of heptachlor zero

HPC has no health effects; it is an

analytic method used to measure
the variety of bacteria that are HPC measures a range of bacteria
Heterotrophic plate
count (HPC)
TT7 common in water. The lower that are naturally present in the n/a
the concentration of bacteria environment
in drinking water, the better
maintained the water system is.
Liver or kidney problems;
Discharge from metal refineries
Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 reproductive difficulties; increased
and agricultural chemical factories
zero
risk of cancer

Hexachloro-
cyclopentadiene
0.05 Kidney or stomach problems Discharge from chemical factories 0.05

Infants and children: Delays in

physical or mental development;
TT5; Action children could show slight deficits Corrosion of household plumbing
Lead
Level=0.015 in attention span and learning systems; erosion of natural deposits
zero
abilities; Adults: Kidney problems;
high blood pressure

Legionnaire’s Disease, a type of Found naturally in water; multiplies

Legionella TT7
pneumonia in heating systems
zero

Runoff/leaching from insecticide

Lindane 0.0002 Liver or kidney problems
used on cattle, lumber, and gardens
0.0002

Erosion of natural deposits;

discharge from refineries and
Mercury (inorganic) 0.002 Kidney damage
factories; runoff from landfills and
0.002
croplands
Runoff/leaching from insecticide
Methoxychlor 0.04 Reproductive difficulties used on fruits, vegetables, alfalfa, 0.04
and livestock

Infants below the age of six

months who drink water
containing nitrate in excess of Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching
Nitrate (measured
as Nitrogen)
10 the MCL could become seriously from septic tanks, sewage; erosion 10
ill and, if untreated, may die. of natural deposits
Symptoms include shortness of
breath and blue-baby syndrome.

LEGEND

DISINFECTANT DISINFECTION INORGANIC MICROORGANISM ORGANIC RADIONUCLIDES

BYPRODUCT CHEMICAL CHEMICAL
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations EPA 816-F-09-004 | MAY 2009

Potential health effects

MCL or TT1 Common sources of contaminant Public Health
Contaminant from long-term3 exposure
(mg/L)2 in drinking water Goal (mg/L)2
above the MCL
Infants below the age of six
months who drink water
containing nitrite in excess of Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching
Nitrite (measured
as Nitrogen)
1 the MCL could become seriously from septic tanks, sewage; erosion 1
ill and, if untreated, may die. of natural deposits
Symptoms include shortness of
breath and blue-baby syndrome.
Runoff/leaching from insecticide
Oxamyl (Vydate) 0.2 Slight nervous system effects used on apples, potatoes, and 0.2
tomatoes

Liver or kidney problems; Discharge from wood-preserving

Pentachlorophenol 0.001
increased cancer risk factories
zero

Picloram 0.5 Liver problems Herbicide runoff 0.5

Skin changes; thymus gland

problems; immune deficiencies;
Polychlorinated Runoff from landfills; discharge of
biphenyls (PCBs)
0.0005 reproductive or nervous system
waste chemicals
zero
difficulties; increased risk of
cancer
Radium 226
and Radium 228 5 pCi/L Increased risk of cancer Erosion of natural deposits zero
(combined)
Hair or fingernail loss; numbness Discharge from petroleum and
Selenium 0.05 in fingers or toes; circulatory metal refineries; erosion of natural 0.05
problems deposits; discharge from mines

Simazine 0.004 Problems with blood Herbicide runoff 0.004

Liver, kidney, or circulatory system Discharge from rubber and plastic

Styrene 0.1
problems factories; leaching from landfills
0.1

Liver problems; increased risk of Discharge from factories and dry

Tetrachloroethylene 0.005
cancer cleaners
zero

Leaching from ore-processing sites;

Hair loss; changes in blood; kidney,
Thallium 0.002
intestine, or liver problems
discharge from electronics, glass, 0.0005
and drug factories

Nervous system, kidney, or liver Discharge from petroleum

Toluene 1
problems factories
1

Coliforms are bacteria that

indicate that other, potentially Naturally present in the
Total Coliforms 5.0 percent 8
harmful bacteria may be present. environment
zero
See fecal coliforms and E. coli
Total Liver, kidney, or central nervous
Byproduct of drinking water
Trihalomethanes 0.080 system problems; increased risk
disinfection
n/a9
(TTHMs) of cancer

Kidney, liver, or thyroid problems; Runoff/leaching from insecticide

Toxaphene 0.003
increased risk of cancer used on cotton and cattle
zero

2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.05 Liver problems Residue of banned herbicide 0.05

1,2,4- Discharge from textile finishing

Trichlorobenzene
0.07 Changes in adrenal glands
factories
0.07

LEGEND

DISINFECTANT DISINFECTION INORGANIC MICROORGANISM ORGANIC RADIONUCLIDES

BYPRODUCT CHEMICAL CHEMICAL
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations EPA 816-F-09-004 | MAY 2009

MCL or Potential health effects Common sources of

Public Health
Contaminant TT1 from long-term3 exposure contaminant in drinking
Goal (mg/L)2
(mg/L)2 above the MCL water
Discharge from metal
1,1,1-
Trichloroethane
0.2 Liver, nervous system, or circulatory problems degreasing sites and other 0.2
factories
1,1,2- Discharge from industrial
Trichloroethane
0.005 Liver, kidney, or immune system problems
chemical factories
0.003

Discharge from metal

Trichloroethylene 0.005 Liver problems; increased risk of cancer degreasing sites and other zero
factories
Turbidity is a measure of the cloudiness of
water. It is used to indicate water quality and
filtration effectiveness (e.g., whether disease-
causing organisms are present). Higher turbidity
Turbidity TT7 levels are often associated with higher levels of Soil runoff n/a
disease-causing microorganisms such as viruses,
parasites, and some bacteria. These organisms
can cause short term symptoms such as nausea,
cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches.

Uranium 30μg/L Increased risk of cancer, kidney toxicity Erosion of natural deposits zero

Leaching from PVC pipes;

Vinyl chloride 0.002 Increased risk of cancer
discharge from plastic factories
zero

Short-term exposure: Gastrointestinal illness Human and animal fecal

Viruses (enteric) TT7
(e.g., diarrhea, vomiting, cramps) waste
zero

Discharge from petroleum

Xylenes (total) 10 Nervous system damage factories; discharge from 10
chemical factories

LEGEND

DISINFECTANT DISINFECTION INORGANIC MICROORGANISM ORGANIC RADIONUCLIDES

BYPRODUCT CHEMICAL CHEMICAL

NOTES
1 Definitions • Giardia lamblia: 99.9 percent removal/inactivation
• Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking • Viruses: 99.9 percent removal/inactivation
water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a • Legionella: No limit, but EPA believes that if Giardia and viruses are removed/
margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals. inactivated, according to the treatment techniques in the surface water treatment rule,
• Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is Legionella will also be controlled.
allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the • Turbidity: For systems that use conventional or direct filtration, at no time can turbidity
best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration. MCLs are (cloudiness of water) go higher than 1 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU), and samples
enforceable standards. for turbidity must be less than or equal to 0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of the samples
• Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG): The level of a drinking water in any month. Systems that use filtration other than the conventional or direct filtration
disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not must follow state limits, which must include turbidity at no time exceeding 5 NTU.
reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants. • HPC: No more than 500 bacterial colonies per milliliter
• Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL): The highest level of a disinfectant • Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment: Surface water systems or ground
allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant water systems under the direct influence of surface water serving fewer than 10,000
is necessary for control of microbial contaminants. people must comply with the applicable Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water
• Treatment Technique (TT): A required process intended to reduce the level of a Treatment Rule provisions (e.g. turbidity standards, individual filter monitoring,
contaminant in drinking water. Cryptosporidium removal requirements, updated watershed control requirements for
unfiltered systems).
2 Units are in milligrams per liter (mg/L) unless otherwise noted. Milligrams per liter are • Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment: This rule applies to all surface water
equivalent to parts per million (ppm). systems or ground water systems under the direct influence of surface water. The rule
3 Health effects are from long-term exposure unless specified as short-term exposure. targets additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements for higher risk systems
and includes provisions to reduce risks from uncovered finished water storages facilities
4 Each water system must certify annually, in writing, to the state (using third-party or and to ensure that the systems maintain microbial protection as they take steps to
manufacturers certification) that when it uses acrylamide and/or epichlorohydrin to treat reduce the formation of disinfection byproducts. (Monitoring start dates are staggered
water, the combination (or product) of dose and monomer level does not exceed the by system size. The largest systems (serving at least 100,000 people) will begin
levels specified, as follows: Acrylamide = 0.05 percent dosed at 1 mg/L (or equivalent); monitoring in October 2006 and the smallest systems (serving fewer than 10,000
Epichlorohydrin = 0.01 percent dosed at 20 mg/L (or equivalent). people) will not begin monitoring until October 2008. After completing monitoring
and determining their treatment bin, systems generally have three years to comply
5 Lead and copper are regulated by a Treatment Technique that requires systems to with any additional treatment requirements.)
control the corrosiveness of their water. If more than 10 percent of tap water samples • Filter Backwash Recycling: The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule requires systems that
exceed the action level, water systems must take additional steps. For copper, the action recycle to return specific recycle flows through all processes of the system’s existing
level is 1.3 mg/L, and for lead is 0.015 mg/L. conventional or direct filtration system or at an alternate location approved by the state.
6 A routine sample that is fecal coliform-positive or E. coli-positive triggers repeat samples- 8 No more than 5.0 percent samples total coliform-positive in a month. (For water systems
-if any repeat sample is total coliform-positive, the system has an acute MCL violation. A that collect fewer than 40 routine samples per month, no more than one sample can be
routine sample that is total coliform-positive and fecal coliform-negative or E. coli- total coliform-positive per month.) Every sample that has total coliform must be analyzed
negative triggers repeat samples--if any repeat sample is fecal coliform-positive or E. for either fecal coliforms or E. coli. If two consecutive TC-positive samples, and one is also
coli-positive, the system has an acute MCL violation. See also Total Coliforms. positive for E. coli or fecal coliforms, system has an acute MCL violation.
7 EPA’s surface water treatment rules require systems using surface water or ground 9 Although there is no collective MCLG for this contaminant group, there are individual
water under the direct influence of surface water to (1) disinfect their water, and (2) filter MCLGs for some of the individual contaminants:
their water or meet criteria for avoiding filtration so that the following contaminants are • Haloacetic acids: dichloroacetic acid (zero); trichloroacetic acid (0.3 mg/L)
controlled at the following levels: • Trihalomethanes: bromodichloromethane (zero); bromoform (zero);
• Cryptosporidium: 99 percent removal for systems that filter. Unfiltered systems are dibromochloromethane (0.06 mg/L)
required to include Cryptosporidium in their existing watershed control provisions.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations EPA 816-F-09-004 | MAY 2009

NATIONAL SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATION

National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations are non-enforceable guidelines regarding contaminants
that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste,
odor, or color) in drinking water. EPA recommends secondary standards to water systems but does not
require systems to comply. However, some states may choose to adopt them as enforceable standards.

Contaminant Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level

Aluminum 0.05 to 0.2 mg/L

Chloride 250 mg/L

Color 15 (color units)

Copper 1.0 mg/L

Corrosivity Noncorrosive

Fluoride 2.0 mg/L

Foaming Agents 0.5 mg/L

Iron 0.3 mg/L

Manganese 0.05 mg/L

Odor 3 threshold odor number

pH 6.5-8.5

Silver 0.10 mg/L

Sulfate 250 mg/L

Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L

Zinc 5 mg/L

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON EPA’S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

SAFE DRINKING WATER:
To order additional posters or other ground
water and drinking water publications,
visit: epa.gov/safewater please contact the National Service Center for
Environmental Publications at: (800) 490-9198,
or email: [email protected].
call: (800) 426-4791
 ACTION: Refiled DATE: 08/04/2020 9:05 AM

MEMORANDUM

TO: Amanda Payton, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

FROM: Ethan Wittkorn, Regulatory Policy Advocate

DATE: September 26, 2019

RE: CSI Review – Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (3745-
1-32, 3745-1-33, 3745-1-34)

On behalf of Lt. Governor Jon Husted, and pursuant to the authority granted to the Common Sense
Initiative (CSI) Office under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) section 107.54, the CSI Office has reviewed
the abovementioned administrative rule package and associated Business Impact Analysis (BIA).
This memo represents the CSI Office’s comments to the Agency as provided for in ORC 107.54.

Analysis

This Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule package consists of three amended rules.
The draft rules were submitted to the CSI Office on April 2, 2019, and the public comment period
was open through May 2, 2019. Unless otherwise noted below, this recommendation reflects the
version of the proposed rules filed with the CSI office on April 2, 2019.

The proposed rules are located in OAC Chapter 3745-1, which governs Ohio standards for water
quality. The EPA is amending the rules as a result of the required Agency Triennial Water Quality
Standards Review by the Clean Water Act. The rules provide water quality criteria for human health
numbers from the U.S. EPA updated chemical criteria, the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission’s (ORSANCO) 2015 Pollution Control Standards, and maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The criteria apply to facilities that discharge or plan
to discharge wastewater containing any of the specific chemicals listed in these rules.

During the rule review period, the EPA sent notifications to the Division of Surface Water’s

CSIR p(185637) pa(331657) d: (746482) print date: 09/21/2020 12:55 PM

interested party list and posted a factsheet to the Division website. In the fall of 2016, the EPA held
a webinar on the proposed rules and received input from The Nature Conservancy, the Ohio
Department of Transportation, Ohio Environmental Council, Midwest Biodiversity Institute, the
City of Columbus, and Ohio Utility Group. All comments advocated for the adoption of the U.S.
EPA’s or ORSANCO updated criteria.

During the CSI public comment period, the EPA received comments from the Association of Ohio
Metropolitan Wastewater Agencies, the American Forest and Paper Association, the National
Council for Air and Stream Improvement Inc., the Ohio Manufacturers Association, and Greater
Cincinnati Water Works. Comments included requests for clarifications, notations of specific data
value typographical errors, questions about the EPA’s decision not to pursue state-specific criteria,
and questions about the potential impacts of the rules. Regarding its decision not to adopt a state-
specific option, the EPA noted that the use of state or region-specific values for the ambient water
quality criteria (AWQC) calculations would not largely affect the output. The EPA said it was unable
to locate Ohio-specific drinking water consumption rate data, other calculations like obesity rates
and fish consumption were comparable to the national average.

Furthermore, the EPA rejected assertions that the updates were conservative because they are based
on a large data set compiled by the Centers for Disease Control. Some stakeholders suggested the
adverse impacts of the proposed rules’ costs were more significant than EPA estimates, particularly
for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The EPA identified two
potential sources of increased costs–treatment upgrades and advanced chemical testing. While the
EPA does not believe any significant treatment updates will be needed, some dischargers will be
required to do additional low-level testing for new parameters. Low-level testing could cost up to
$400 annually per facility, depending on sampling frequency, discharge points being tested, and
whether the facility already employs advanced analytical techniques to monitor water quality. The
EPA has provided a cost analysis document to help determine potential impacts. Lastly, the EPA
fulfilled a request for information regarding assessments of pollutants, documentation supporting
the EPA’s decisions and clarification of the EPA’s actions, for the purpose of helping potentially
impacted parties review the proposed rules.

The proposed rules will impact 151 of the 3,250 permitted dischargers in Ohio. Out of the identified
facilities, 60 currently have limits on one or more of the chemicals, and 91 monitor one or more
chemicals, but do not currently have limits. The EPA notes that some factors may not directly
correlate to the specific water quality criteria, leading to varied estimates of impacts. Potential
impacts include costs associated with implementing water quality criteria through NPDES, based on
factors such as the volume of wastewater treated, complexity of treatment system, stringency of the
effluent limitations, effluent monitoring requirements, and treatment technology installed at the
point source. Other impacts may arise for specific facilities if they receive a new permit. Costs
associated with the proposed rules may vary based on the treatment type, sludge generated, water
discharged, sampling requirements, and other required treatments.

The EPA states that the proposed rules are necessary to protect public health and the environment
and implement a federal requirement. The Clean Water Act requires states to have water quality
standards that protect lakes, rivers, streams and other surface waters from pollution.

Recommendations

Based on the information above, the CSI Office has no recommendations on this rule package.

Conclusion

The CSI Office concludes that the EPA should proceed in filing the proposed rules with the Joint
Committee on Agency Rule Review.
 ACTION: Refiled DATE: 08/04/2020 9:05 AM

M EMORANDUM OF R ESPONSE
To: Ethan Wittkorn, Regulatory Policy Advocate
From: Mandi Payton, Rules Coordinator
Date: September 26, 2019
Memorandum of Response to CSI Review – Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health
Subject: (3745-1-32, 3745-1-33, 3745-1-34)

Recommendations
On September 26, 2019, Ohio EPA received the Recommendations for the Division of Surface Water’s Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (3745-1-32, 3745-1-33, 3745-1-34) rules.
The CSI memorandum stated that:
“The proposed rules will impact 151 of the 3,250 permitted dischargers in Ohio. Out of the identified facilities,
60 currently have limits on one or more of the chemicals, and 91 monitor one or more chemicals, but do not
currently have limits. The EPA notes that some factors may not directly correlate to the specific water quality
criteria, leading to varied estimates of impacts. Potential impacts include costs associated with implementing
water quality criteria through NPDES, based on factors such as the volume of wastewater treated, complexity
of treatment system, stringency of the effluent limitations, effluent monitoring requirements, and treatment
technology installed at the
point source. Other impacts may arise for specific facilities if they receive a new permit. Costs associated with
the proposed rules may vary based on the treatment type, sludge generated, water discharged, sampling
requirements, and other required treatments.
The EPA states that the proposed rules are necessary to protect public health and the environment and
implement a federal requirement. The Clean Water Act requires states to have water quality standards that
protect lakes, rivers, streams and other surface waters from pollution.
Based on the information above, the CSI Office has no recommendations on this rule package.
The CSI Office concludes that the EPA should proceed in filing the proposed rules with the Joint Committee
on Agency Rule Review.”
Next Steps
At this time, it is Ohio EPA’s plan to move forward with the original filing of these rules with the Joint Committee on
Agency Rule Review.
If you have any questions, please contact Mandi Payton at 614-644-3134.

www.epa.ohio.gov • 50 W. Town St., Ste. 700 • P.O. Box 1049 • Columbus, OH 43216-1049 • (614) 644-3020 • (614) 644-2737 (fax)
AMR p(185637) pa(331657) d: (746483) print date: 09/21/2020 12:57 PM
 Hearing Summary Report SUBMITTED: 08/04/2020 4:50 PM
Hearing Summary
Rule Package: Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health

Original filing date: October 30, 2019

Public comment start date: October 30, 2019

Public comment end date: December 4, 2019

Public hearing date: December 4, 2019

List of Rules: 3745-1-32, 3745-1-33, 3745-1-34

Were there any participants in this public hearing beyond Ohio EPA staff or JCARR staff?

☒ Yes ☐ No

Were there comments received during the public comment period outside of those presented at this hearing?

☒ Yes ☐ No

This hearing summary has been compiled to meet the requirements of Section 119.03 of the Revised Code.

This hearing summary includes this cover sheet and the following attachments:

1. Attachment A - A copy of the public notice for this hearing,

2. Attachment B - A copy of the sign-in sheet for this hearing,
3. Attachment C - A copy of the script read into the record to begin and end the hearing, and
4. Attachment D - A copy of the response to comments including the original cost impact analysis.

Ohio EPA’s response to comments document includes the comments received, who commented, the agency
response to comments, and a statement of whether or not the rule was changed due to the comments.

Ohio EPA digitally records all public hearings for rules. The digital recordings are available upon request in a
WAVE (.wav) file format. These recordings may be sent out for transcription if necessary.

HSR p(185637) d: (760174) print date: 09/22/2020 3:47 PM

 ACTION: Original DATE: 10/30/2019 9:09 AM

BEFORE THE
OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Public Notice
Public Hearing Scheduled For
Proposed Rulemaking Governing
Water Quality Standards Program

Notice is hereby given that a public hearing regarding proposed amendments to the Water Quality
Standards Program rules in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-1 has been scheduled for
December 4, 2019. This rulemaking includes the following rules:

Rule Number Rule Title

3745-1-32 Ohio river standards.
3745-1-33 Water quality criteria for water supply use designation.
3745-1-34 Water quality criteria for the protection of human health [fish
consumption].

OAC Chapter 3745-1 contains Ohio’s standards for water quality. This rulemaking includes the
review and update of three rules containing numeric water quality criteria to reflect the latest
scientific information available from U.S. EPA and the Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission
(ORSANCO).

The Agency invites all interested parties to comment on this rule. The public comment period will
run until December 4, 2019. A public hearing on this proposed rulemaking will be held to consider
public comments in accordance with Section 119.03 of the Ohio Revised Code. This hearing will be
held at Conference Room A at the Ohio EPA Central Office, 50 West Town Street, Suite 700,
Columbus, Ohio at 10:30 a.m. on December 4, 2019. All visitors to Ohio EPA must register at the
Security desk in the lobby upon arrival. Please bring photo identification (such as a valid driver's
license). For security reasons, visitors are required to wear their badge at all times while in the
building. Please arrive early to complete these procedures.

To facilitate the scheduling of oral presentations, persons intending to give testimony at the
hearing should notify the Ohio EPA Public Interest Center, P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43216-
1049, (614) 644-2160. Prior registration will ensure that registrants are heard ahead of those
individuals who register at the hearing. Oral testimony may be limited to five minutes, depending
on the number of persons testifying. All interested persons are entitled to attend or be
represented and to present oral and/or written comments concerning the proposed rulemaking.

Written testimony should be sent to the attention of Emily DeLay at the Division of Surface Water,
P.O. Box 1049, Columbus Ohio 43216-1049. Written comments may also be submitted to the
Hearing Officer at the public hearing. Written testimony will receive the same consideration as oral
testimony. All testimony received at the hearing or by close of business on December 4, 2019, will

PHN p(185637) pa(328754) d: (747642) print date: 10/30/2019 9:24 AM

be considered by Ohio EPA prior to final action on this rulemaking proposal. Written comments
submitted after this date may be considered as time and circumstances permit.

Pre-notice of this rulemaking is being given to provide a minimum of 45 days’ notice of the public
hearing. The preliminary proposed rule and a fact sheet explaining the rule revisions are posted on
the Ohio EPA website at www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/dswrules.aspx. Another notice will be provided
when this rule is officially filed with the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review and the rule will
be posted on the Ohio EPA website at the above link. Questions regarding this rule package should
be directed to Audrey Rush, at the Division of Surface Water, at (614) 644-2035.
DSW WQS Program Rules Hearing

12/4/19

My name is Mary McCarron. I am with the Public Interest Center. I will be presiding over
today’s public hearing.

Thank you for taking time to attend this hearing before Ohio EPA. The purpose of the
hearing today is to obtain comments from any interested person regarding Ohio EPA’s
proposed rules.

Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water is proposing to amend the following rules of the
Ohio Administrative Code chapter 3745-1-32, 1-33 and 1-34. These rules contain
numeric water quality criteria to reflect the latest scientific information available from
U.S. EPA and the Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission.

These rules have been filed with the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review. Copies
of the rules are available for public review at Ohio EPA’s Columbus Office and on our
website.

All interested persons are entitled to attend or be represented, and to present oral
and/or written comments concerning the proposed rules. All written and oral comments
received as part of the official record will be considered by the director of Ohio EPA.

To be included in the official record, written comments must be received by Ohio EPA
by the close of business, today, December 4, 2019. These comments may be filed with
me today or emailed to [email protected]. All written comments submitted for
the record receive the same consideration as oral testimony given today.

Written statements submitted after today may be considered as time and circumstances
permit, but will not be part of the official record of the hearing.

If you wish to present oral testimony at this hearing today and have not already signed
the registration sheet, please do so at this time. The sheet is available at the registration
table. Persons will be called in the order in which they have registered.

There is no cross examination of speakers or of representatives of Ohio EPA in public

hearings. Ohio EPA hearings such as this afford citizens the opportunity to provide
comments on the official record. Therefore, we will not be able to answer questions
during the hearing. However, members of the panel may ask clarifying questions of the
person testifying to ensure the record is as complete and accurate as possible.

I will now read the names of those who have registered at this hearing and will give
each person an opportunity to testify.

Is there anyone else who wishes to testify at this time?

Seeing no further requests for testimony, I remind you that written comments can be
submitted through the close of business today.

Thank you for attending. The time is now and this hearing is adjourned.
Response to Comments
Human Health WQC
June 2020 Page 1 of 11

Division of Surface Water

Response to Comments

Rules: Water Quality Standards Program Rules, OAC Chapter 3745-1:

OAC 3745-1-32: Ohio river standards.
OAC 3745-1-33: Water quality criteria for water supply use designations.
OAC 3745-1-34: Water quality criteria for the protection of human health [fish
consumption].

Agency Contact for this Package:

Division Contact: Audrey Rush

Division of Surface Water
614-644-2035
[email protected]

Ohio EPA held a proposed rule comment period from October 30, 2019 to December 4,
2019 regarding three Water Quality Standards Program rules. This document summarizes
the comments and questions received during the associated comment period.

Ohio EPA reviewed and considered all comments received during the public comment
period. By law, Ohio EPA has authority to consider specific issues related to protection of
the environment and public health.

In an effort to help you review this document, the questions are grouped by topic and
organized in a consistent format. The name of the commenter follows the comment in
parentheses.

Comment 1: I. The RTC Document Does Not Adequately Demonstrate that Current and Future
Dischargers Will Not Incur Treatment Costs
To determine potential overall compliance costs, Ohio EPA first removed from
consideration pollutants with aquatic life criteria more stringent than their
corresponding HHC. Next, it eliminated pollutants where “there are not sufficient
monitoring requirements in NPDES permits to provide data for analysis (in many cases,
none).” For the remaining pollutants, “Ohio EPA first looked at whether the new criteria
would generate new, lower limits through the wasteload allocation process,” and then
reviewed 2011-2019 discharge data “to determine if the new limits would be met.” RTC
document, Attachment 1, pp. 2-3.
AF&PA has two concerns with this approach. First, it is not clear how Ohio EPA
performed its wasteload allocations, which usually are undertaken for specific
Response to Comments
Human Health WQC
June 2020 Page 2 of 11

dischargers on specific water bodies. To better facilitate informed public comments,

Ohio EPA should provide the underlying data and analysis to support its allocations.
Second, the discharge data examined by Ohio EPA were generated in the 2011-
2019 time frame using available analytical methods. The RTC document states that
“Ohio law requires that the dischargers use the most sensitive test method available.”
Analytical methods are continuously becoming more sensitive and future methods
likely will be able to detect and quantify pollutants at lower and lower levels. It is
reasonable to expect that these new methods will find and quantify pollutants in
dischargers’ effluents at levels above the new criteria, especially since approximately:
90 percent (86/96) of Ohio’s current criteria values are greater (less stringent) than
EPA’s 2015 criteria recommendations; 70 percent (68/96) of Ohio’s current criteria
values are greater than 10 times EPA’s 2015 criteria values, and 30 percent (32/96) are
greater than 100 times EPA’s 2015 criteria. Further, 81/86 proposed criteria for the
Ohio River basin are more stringent than Ohio’s previous criteria. While a few of these
are due to updated IRIS toxicity values posted since Ohio last updated their criteria,
most are more stringent because of changes in EPA policy choices related to selected
exposure scenarios. With EPA’s criteria, many more dischargers will have permit limits
and incur treatment costs in addition to the monitoring costs discussed in the RTC
document. (American Forest &Paper Association)

Response 1: Ohio EPA calculates wasteload allocations (WLAs) based on our rules in OAC
Chapter 3745-2, specifically rules 3745-2-05 and 3745-2-10 for ammonia-nitrogen
toxicity. If you need more information about calculating wasteloads, please see these
rules.
As for how we calculated the WLAs for this particular exercise, we used the
eDMR (electronic discharge monitoring report) data submitted by each facility and their
permit limits to screen out those who would be unaffected by these rule changes, and
then used: 1. the main outfall design flow of each facility; 2. a stream dilution ration of
0.10 or 10% (in the Ohio River Basin – set by ORSANCO); 3. the harmonic mean flow
(HMQ), and 4. assumed no background water quality concentration for these pollutants
not weeded out by our initial analysis (see attachment in IPR response to comments)
because the parameters left are not naturally occurring substances. The equation to
determine mass balance below was used (directly from OAC rule 3745-2-05):

WQC (Qeff + Qup) – Qup(WQup)

Qeff

Where:
WQC = water quality criterion as established in OAC rule 3745-2-04.
Qeff = Effluent flow
Qup = percent of stream design flow (stream dilution ratio)
WQup = background water quality

The Agency believes that it would be inappropriate to publish facility’s eDMR

reports without permission or a public records request, so we opted to mail a letter
about the rulemaking to each facility that we determined may be negatively impacted
Response to Comments
Human Health WQC
June 2020 Page 3 of 11

by these rule changes. None of the 153 dischargers responded to our letters, reached
out to the Agency or commented on these rules.
We would like to point out that facilities do not usually receive a permit limit
that is a water quality standard (WQS) straight from the rule, hence Ohio EPA’s analysis
using calculated wasteload allocations. WQSs are only “end-of-pipe” limits if: the
receiving stream has no dilution (a zero-low flow stream), if there is flow in the receiving
stream but the background concentration of the pollutant is at or above the WQS, or if
the pollutant is being discharged where mixing zones are not allowed (I.e., if a pollutant
is a bioaccumulative chemical of concern). If these situations do not apply, then the
WQS is applied as an ambient in-stream concentration, meaning that they are calculated
with dilution factored in and would result in a permit limit higher than the WQS.
AF&PA quotes the Agency’s response to IPR comments: “Ohio law requires that
the dischargers use the most sensitive test method available.” By this statement, we
meant that dischargers are required to use the most sensitive test method available
that has been promulgated into our rules or in 40 CFR part 136. This is a very important
distinction to make and we apologize for any confusion because this does not include all
of U.S. EPA’s approved methods. Eventually there may be new analytical methods
promulgated into rule that can read to a lower level with statistical confidence,
however, as Ohio EPA has demonstrated by our wasteload analysis, almost all facilities
are already meeting the new WQS numbers, and the other facilities would only need to
make minor adjustments (I.e. increasing chemical feed) in order to meet the new WQS.
To say that “It is reasonable to expect that these new methods will find and quantify
pollutants in dischargers’ effluents at levels above the new criteria” is simply incorrect
because we have not promulgated any new methods and if the current methods find
that the concentration of a parameter is below detection of the most sensitive method
promulgated, the facility is still in compliance. Labs have to have equipment and employ
methods sensitive enough to read to that level.
Detailed analysis of potential compliance costs associated with the adoption of
these criteria were provided during interested party review and are found in
Attachment 1.

Comment 2: II. EPA’s National HHWQC are Extremely Conservative

As it undertakes the risk management inherent in establishing its HHC, Ohio EPA
should recognize that EPA’s national HHC (which are based on the 2000 Human Health
Methodology) use very conservative default values that result in unnecessarily stringent
criteria because of “compounded conservatism.”1 The RTC document states that U.S.
EPA would not agree that the exposure factors in the 2015 update are “highly
conservative revisions,” because the increase in the new factors was not that significant
compared to the old. In addition, the national factors are based on the “90th percentile
for all adults over the age of 21” and Ohio EPA states this is not a “narrow range of the
general population,” as commenters such as AF&PA have asserted. RTC document,
Attachment 1, p. 2. We have three important concerns regarding the positions
articulated in the RTC.
First, the changes in exposure assumptions made by EPA as part of the 2015
“update” are primarily policy-based and do not merely reflect “the latest toxicological

1
See the NCASI comments that discuss in more detail the compounded conservatism embodied in the national
HHC.
Response to Comments
Human Health WQC
June 2020 Page 4 of 11

and exposure data.” For example, EPA’s fish consumption rate (FCR) reflects a policy
change to include several marine species that may spend part of their lifecycle in near-
shore marine waters and these species may not be relevant to waters in Ohio or
exposures of Ohioans. EPA’s selection of 2.4 liters/day of drinking water (DW)
consumption reflects a 90th percentile choice, whereas the previously used value of 2.0
liters was an 86th percentile. And, the vast majority of EPA’s 2015 criteria for non-
carcinogens use a relative source contribution (RSC) value of 0.2 whereas nearly all of
EPA’s criteria prior to 2015 used a value of 1.0. These choices are policy-based, not
science-based, and Ohio should evaluate their appropriateness for waters of the state,
just as other states have done.
Second, we disagree that use of “the new factors was not that significant
compared to the old.” Considered collectively, the increase in FCR, DW and RSC make
many of the resulting criteria 5-10 times more stringent than previous criteria values.
This is a significant change not justified solely by new science or data. Rather, this
increase in stringency is based largely on the policies for interpreting those data, not on
a need to make the criteria more stringent to account for increased actual exposure.
Third, the RTC misses the point of what we mean by “compounded
conservatism.” EPA’s methodology assumes that every day for 70 years, everyone in the
state drinks 2.4 liters of water that is:
• Unfiltered and untreated and
• From surface water (lakes, streams, etc.) and
• Contaminated at the HHC level

For water and organism values, the methodology assumes that every day for 70
years people are not only drinking water as described above, but they also are eating 22
grams per day of fish from the same location that is:
• From local waters, grocery stores, aquaculture, foreign countries (now
including some marine species not previously included) and
• From waters contaminated at the HHC level (including near-shore marine
waters) and
• Contaminated with pollutants from the water to the maximum extent
possible and
• Contaminated with the same amount of pollutants despite reductions
from cooking.

Each of these exposure factors is conservative in and of itself. The conservatism

of the individual factors is compounded because EPA’s methodology assumes all the
people in the state every day for 70 years drink water and eat fish having all these
characteristics. Clearly this is an excessive level of conservatism and it is very unlikely
that there is even one citizen in the state that drinks water and eats fish as described
above.
Ohio EPA highlights the data and supporting information underlying EPA’s
national criteria to support its proposed action to adopt those criteria, without any
further analysis. We are not challenging the national criteria in these comments,
although there are significant flaws with those criteria, as discussed above and in the
FWQC comments. We are asserting, however, that they are purposefully conservative
to serve as national default criteria and that they do not apply to any Ohio waters or
Response to Comments
Human Health WQC
June 2020 Page 5 of 11

consumers. Therefore, Ohio EPA should take the opportunity provided by EPA’s water
quality standards regulations to develop state-specific data that are reflective of actual
Ohio residents and waters and undertake the analysis to tailor the national default
criteria to Ohio. This would be consistent with the approach taken by other states
including New York and Illinois, which specifically have deferred adoption, allowing for
greater consideration of the criteria. Additionally, ORSANCO did not include the
national criteria in their 2015 update to the Pollution Control Standards and states such
as Delaware will be deriving their HHC using state-specific exposure factor values to
better tailor the criteria to their communities.
Finally, there is a better, more scientifically advanced way to calculate HHC
through PRA. U.S. EPA has both endorsed and used the probabilistic approach for
several years. In 2014, they published a Risk Assessment Forum White Paper on PRA
and their Guidelines for Human Exposure Assessment also recognizes the value of the
method. The Probabilistic Risk Assessment is a systematic and comprehensive method
to evaluate total risk and is used by a wide range of institutions including NASA and the
US Federal Railroad Administration to determine the probability and severity of a
detrimental outcome. The method is extremely flexible and can reliably account for a
wide variety and range of risk while guarding against excessive conservatisms which
may bias results unnecessarily. As noted in the NCASI comments filed in May, a tool has
been developed that allows easy, spreadsheet-based, application to PRA techniques.
(AF&PA)

Response 2: Ohio EPA does recognize that U.S. EPA’s national recommended water quality
criteria are conservative and fully understands the concept of “compounded
conservativism.” However, water quality criteria are designed to be conservative in
order to protect sensitive populations. The fish consumption rate, drinking water intake
rate and relative source contribution change as more data are collected and the
population demographic changes.

Comment 3: III. Conclusion

Based to a large extent on its wasteload allocation, Ohio EPA has concluded that
no dischargers will incur treatment costs for compliance with the new criteria and that
only analytical costs will increase, even though most of the existing criteria will become
more stringent. The agency should provide additional information behind its wasteload
allocation so commenters can better understand the agency’s analysis, and provide
more information to support its conclusion that dischargers will not incur treatment
costs.
Further, Ohio EPA should take the opportunity provided under EPA regulations
to develop more scientifically defensible criteria that are achievable and applicable to
Ohio waters. Finally, Ohio EPA should consider the many benefits of using PRA. (AF&PA)

Response 3: Please see response 1. Ohio EPA will continue to promulgate U.S. EPA’s national
recommended criteria at this time.

Comment 4: FWQC member entities or their members own and operate facilities located
throughout the country, including in Ohio. Those facilities operate pursuant to permits
issued by States or EPA under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Response to Comments
Human Health WQC
June 2020 Page 6 of 11

(NPDES) program, which impose control requirements with respect to wastewater

discharges. Many of those permits either include or will include effluent limits based on
water quality standards developed for the protection of human health. Those
standards, issued by States, are often based on the recommended human health
criteria issued by USEPA – which is exactly what Ohio EPA is proposing to do here.
Those State standards will ultimately determine the effluent limits in permits for FWQC
members – both in Ohio and, if the Ohio standards are used as a precedent elsewhere,
for members in other States as well. The FWQC, therefore, has a direct interest in the
Proposal.
It is important to recognize, here, one basic concept in the process of setting
State water quality standards: States are NOT required to adopt the recommended
criteria issued by USEPA. While they need to consider the EPA recommendations,
States are entirely free to use other scientifically defensible approaches. Unfortunately,
Ohio EPA has refused to do that here, even though there is ample justification for doing
so. Instead, Ohio EPA has simply decided to adopt the Federal recommendations
completely. This course of action ignores major scientific flaws in the EPA approach.
Moreover, the State has based its Proposal on an unsupported and illogical claim that
the new standards will impose no major burdens on the regulated community. The
Proposal will impose such burdens, and Ohio EPA should reconsider before taking final
action.
The scientific problems with EPA’s human health recommendations were
pointed out to EPA while it was developing those criteria. In 2014, the FWQC submitted
extensive comments to EPA on the proposed criteria, accompanied by detailed
technical reports. Those documents (copies of which are attached to these comments)
point out a series of steps in EPA’s methodology that are not scientifically justified,
including: (1) the derivation of fish consumption rates; (2) the use of a Relative Source
Contribution value; (3) the assumptions used as to the amount of fish consumed from
local waters, (4) the use of unduly high fish lipid levels; and, even more fundamentally,
(5) the use of a bioaccumulation model that ignores some important factors and
overstates others. These issues were not addressed by EPA when it finalized its criteria,
so all of these concerns remain. Despite these concerns, Ohio EPA seeks to adopt the
USEPA criteria, instead of developing its own standards that could address these issues
in a scientifically valid manner.
Ohio EPA justifies its acceptance of the flawed EPA recommendations by giving
three reasons: “lack of data,” “lack of resources,” and a claim that the USEPA
recommendations “have already been extensively vetted through peer and public
review and comment. (Ohio EPA Response to Comments on Human Health WQC at p.
5.) None of those reasons are sufficient. Certainly the agency cannot excuse its
acceptance of scientifically flawed standards because it has decided not to expend
resources to develop its own data and approaches. And while the USEPA criteria were
certainly heavily criticized, including by the FWQC, the fact is that those criticisms have
not been addressed – by USEPA or Ohio EPA. That must happen before standards are
adopted that will be used to develop enforceable effluent limits.
Ohio EPA also seeks to justify its Proposal by arguing that the new standards will
not impose any significant compliance costs on businesses or municipalities in Ohio. But
that claim is simply not credible. Many of the new standards are orders of magnitude
more stringent than the previous standards. In fact, some are considerably lower than
Response to Comments
Human Health WQC
June 2020 Page 7 of 11

measured ambient concentrations in waterbodies. For example, in the Ohio River, data
collected by the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) have shown
that ambient levels for various organic compounds are much greater than the new
standards. If the new standards will require dischargers to treat their effluents to below
ambient levels, it is hard to see how that would NOT impose major financial costs – if it
is doable at all.
Ohio EPA tries to support its claim as to lack of compliance costs by citing to an
analysis that it has done as to specific dischargers in the State, but that, too, is subject to
question. The agency claims that it has “looked at whether the new criteria would
generate new, lower limits through the wasteload allocation process.” (Ohio EPA
Response to Comments on Human Health WQS, Attachment 1 at p. 3.) Does this mean
that the agency has developed new wasteload allocations for the 151 facilities that are
potentially affected by the new standards? If so, the agency needs to make those
documents available, so those facilities and other stakeholders can review and comment
on the calculations. But we doubt that actual wasteload allocations have been
determined, since that process would take years. If Ohio EPA has performed some other
kind of calculation that is not a true wasteload allocation, those results should not be
relied on in support of the new standards.
There are other, additional concerns about the Ohio EPA cost analysis. For
example, the agency says that the group of facilities that it reviewed (after going
through the “wasteload allocation process”) included only organic chemical facilities and
“other dischargers that had limits for the chemicals.” So the focus, there, is on facilities
that already have effluent limits for the chemicals. But those facilities have limits
because they have effluent levels that are already of concern under the existing, higher
standards. The main impact of the new standards is that they are so low that many
facilities that do not need limits under the existing standards will exhibit “reasonable
potential” under the new standards, and therefore will receive new, stringent limits. It
appears that Ohio EPA’s analysis completely ignores that set of affected facilities, which
could be very large. Therefore, it is likely that the State’s analysis radically
underestimates the true compliance costs, and needs to be redone before any final
standards can be issued. (Federal Water Quality Coalition)

Response 4: As stated in our response to IPR comments, “Although Ohio EPA is aware that
there are options when updating the water quality criteria rules, we must satisfy our
regulatory obligation for triennial review under the Clean Water Act and the State of
Ohio requires review of rules every five years.
OUG also points out that states have three options when developing criteria,
and as previously stated, Ohio EPA is adopting U.S. EPA’s national recommended criteria
and will not develop state-specific criteria for several reasons including lack of data, lack
of resources and because U.S. EPA’s criteria recommendations have already been
extensively vetted through peer and public review and comment.”
U.S EPA has an entire think tank dedicated to assessing and developing water
quality standards. Ohio EPA does not currently have the resources for this type of
undertaking. Ohio EPA will continue to adopt the national recommended criteria until
additional staff can be hired to assist with the WQS program.
These new criteria should not impose major burdens on the regulated
community as explained in the IPR response to comments and cost analysis. Ohio EPA
Response to Comments
Human Health WQC
June 2020 Page 8 of 11

has recalculated the wasteload allocations for the facilities that had the potential to be
affected and the data speaks for itself. Because FWQC has not completed their own cost
analysis based on actual data and presented different results, FWQC’s claim cannot be
substantiated.

Comment 5: OUG submits the following comments on proposed changes to Ohio Adm. Code
3745-1-32, Ohio Adm. Code 3745-1-33, and Ohio Adm. Code 3745-1-34. These
comments pertain to proposed changes to human health criteria (“HHC”) applicable to
the Ohio River, inland water supply use designations, and inland WQC for protection of
human health (fish consumption).
With regard to the proposed changes to the WQC for the Ohio River (Ohio Adm.
Code 3745-1-32), the agency is proposing to adopt the more stringent of the following:
(1) the maximum concentration level (“MCL”) per the Safe Drinking Water Act; (2) the
ORSANCO human health criterion; and (3) U.S. EPA’s 2-route human health criteria.
Some of the proposed revised criteria are more stringent than existing criteria
applicable to the Ohio River, while some of the proposed criteria are less stringent.
In addressing comments from interested stakeholders in it response to
comments, Ohio EPA referred to the table that was presented in the factsheet for the
draft rules and its response to comment number 1. Further clarification is necessary.
The table provides no clarification of how Ohio EPA determined which criteria applied
(other than the most stringent). The response to comment number 1 addresses only
the use of U.S. EPA’s default criteria. Ohio EPA is required to provide independent
justification for its water quality criteria and its response to comments is inadequate.
(Ohio Utility Group)

Response 5: The criteria listed in the various tables is selected from the following sources:
ORSANCO PCS, U.S. EPA Human Health 304(a) criteria, MCLs, or Ohio-derived values.
ORSANCO typically updates their values with U.S. EPA updated criteria. Because
ORSANCO adopted the 2015 PCS before the U.S. EPA updated criteria became effective
in 2015, some of the values in the Ohio River do not reflect the current PCS values – the
most stringent of the two values were selected.

Comment 6: U.S. EPA Default Criteria Input Variables Were Not Evaluated by Ohio EPA
In comments on the draft water quality standards, OUG noted that Ohio EPA
has not evaluated the relevance of U.S. EPA’s updated HHC (finalized in 2015) for Ohio
waters. A justification is needed that assesses the appropriateness of the U.S. EPA
criteria input variables to Ohio waters. These input variables include: (1) a presumed
drinking water intake level of 2.4 liters per day, for a lifetime exposure of 70 years; (2) a
daily fish consumption rate of 22 grams per day, specific for locally-caught fish, which
does not include consumption of marine fish that are typically purchased in grocery
stores or fish markets; and (3) a presumed relative source contribution (“RSC”) of 0.2.
The conservative RSC value assumes that no more than 20% of the chemical- specific
reference dose is attributed to consumption of water and ingestion of fish. Other
sources of exposure (e.g., dermal and inhalation) are thus granted a higher proportion
of exposure. OUG notes that U.S. EPA has, previously, approved state-specific RSC
values of up to 0.8 for various chemical compounds. OUG thinks that, if the U.S. EPA
HHC are adopted by Ohio EPA, a default RSC value of 0.5 should be set as the default
Response to Comments
Human Health WQC
June 2020 Page 9 of 11

value, with the caveat that less stringent RSC values could be approved pending a
technical demonstration. In short, Ohio EPA cannot simply propose to adopt nationally
recommended U.S. EPA HHC without evaluating each input variable in terms of
appropriateness to Ohio surface waters and sources of exposure.
Despite these comments (from several interested parties), Ohio EPA’s response
to comments reiterates that it is relying on the default criteria because of a lack of state-
specific data. This response is inadequate. If Ohio EPA lacks state-specific data, Ohio EPA
should consider delay of adoption of these standards until it has collected and assessed
these data. This will ensure that the adoption of the water quality criteria is based on
the assessment of sound data. (OUG)

Response 6: As we have previously stated in the IPR response to comments, Ohio EPA did
evaluate the relevance of U.S. EPA’s updated HHC for Ohio waters and determined that
there is not enough data to establish scientifically defensible state-specific criteria, and
that our preliminary evaluation of the available data indicates that the criteria would
not be significantly different.
The RSC value is a number between 0.2 and 0.8 which represents the
percentage of exposure from the consumption of fish and drinking water. This number
is not always 0.2 and varies from parameter to parameter. U.S. EPA sets these
percentages based on toxicological and demographics data for the nation, and Ohio will
continue to use these inputs. As we stated in our response to IPR comments in October:
“Ohio EPA does not have enough data to justify a default RSC value of 0.5. U.S. EPA’s
default RSC value is 0.2 unless there is enough data to prove that the RSC of a chemical
is greater (up to 0.8). Ohio cannot set an arbitrary default value of 0.5 without the data
to back it up.”

Comment 7: Manganese.
With regard to the proposed changes to Ohio Adm.Code 3745-1-34 (WQC for
the protection of human health – fish consumption), OUG opposed the proposed
criterion of 100 µg/L for manganese. The proposed criterion had no basis in the
protection of human health via fish ingestion. U.S. EPA, 2002 (National Recommended
Water Quality Criteria: 2002 – Human Health Criteria Calculation Matrix, EPA-822-R-02-
012, U.S. EPA Office of Water) indicates that this 2-route criterion “…is not based on
toxic effects, but rather is intended to minimize objectionable qualities such as laundry
stains and objectionable tastes in beverages.” OUG thanks Ohio EPA for deleting this
criterion as it has no basis in actual human health effects. (OUG)

Response 7: Comment noted.

Comment 8: States Are Not Required to Adopt U.S. EPA’s HHC

U.S. EPA issues nationally-recommended HHC pursuant to Section 304(a) of the
Clean Water Act; states use these as the starting point for deriving WQC in their
respective Clean Water Act water quality standard regulations. On page 3 of the CSI, it is
stated that the proposed revisions to Ohio WQC regulations are needed to satisfy 40
CFR §131.11. However, U.S. EPA regulations (40 CFR §131.11[b]) are clear that states
have the three options when developing WQC and submitting them to U.S. EPA for
approval: (1) adopt the U.S. EPA nationally-recommended criteria; (2) modify these
Response to Comments
Human Health WQC
June 2020 Page 10 of 11

criteria to reflect site-specific conditions; or (3) develop other “scientifically defensible”

criteria.
OUG understands that one of the options is to adopt the nationally-
recommended criteria. However, if there is reason to think that the other alternatives
are more appropriate, Ohio EPA should evaluate those alternatives and make a
determination based on its evaluation. Ohio EPA’s justification for adopting the
nationally-recommended criteria is simply that it lacks data that are specific to Ohio.
OUG thinks that Ohio EPA should postpone adopting these criteria until it has adequate
data to provide a justification for the criteria it will ultimately adopt. (OUG)

Response 8: Ohio EPA has evaluated alternatives to adopting the U.S. EPA nationally-
recommended criteria. Based on these evaluations the Agency does not believe it
feasible to modify criteria to reflect site-specific conditions or develop other
“scientifically defensible” criteria. Ohio EPA does not currently have the resources for
this type of undertaking. Ohio EPA will continue to adopt the nationally-recommended
criteria until additional staff can be hired to assist with the WQS program. Therefore,
although Ohio EPA is aware that there are options when updating the water quality
criteria rules, we must satisfy our regulatory obligation for triennial review under the
Clean Water Act and the State of Ohio requires review of rules every five years.
As we have previously stated in the IPR response to comments, Ohio EPA did
evaluate the relevance of U.S. EPA’s updated HHC for Ohio waters and determined that
there is not enough data to establish scientifically defensible state-specific criteria, and
that our preliminary evaluation of the available data indicates that the criteria would
not be significantly different.

Comment 9: Other State Activities in Adopting U.S. EPA HHC

OUG notes that two adjacent states have chosen not to initially adopt the U.S.
EPA 2015 HHC. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection recently
received instructions from the West Virginia State Legislature to delay adoption of the
2015 U.S. EPA HHC until a thorough analysis of the appropriateness of the U.S. EPA
criteria to West Virginia waters be evaluated. Similarly, the Kentucky Division of Water
has determined that an evaluation of the U.S. EPA criteria be conducted by a multi-
stakeholder group, in terms of relevance to waters in the Kentucky Commonwealth.
Lastly, OUG points out that U.S. EPA Region 10 recently approved the adoption of HHC,
and other WQC, proposed by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (letter
from Chris Hladick [U.S. EPA Region 10] to John Tippets [“Idaho DEQ”] dated April 4,
2019). Some of the Idaho DEQ HHC deviated significantly from U.S. EPA’s 2015 updated
criteria.
In its response to comments, Ohio EPA took note that other states are
developing or assessing state-specific criteria but it provided no justification regarding
why it is not assessing state-specific data. If Ohio still lacks the appropriate state-specific
data, OUG recommends rather than adopting the default national values, Ohio EPA
should spend additional time and resources to collect these state-specific data to ensure
that the proposed criteria are appropriate.
OUG recommends that Ohio EPA, in conjunction with stakeholders, further
evaluate the appropriateness of adopting U.S. EPA’s 2015 HHC to Ohio waters. OUG
Response to Comments
Human Health WQC
June 2020 Page 11 of 11

thinks that a more extensive cost impact analysis must be conducted for potentially-
affected facilities.
OUG thanks Ohio EPA for the opportunity to comment and looks forward to
clarification in order to better understand the proposal. (OUG)

Response 9: Ohio is obligated to update its water quality criteria through the triennial rule
evaluation. This review was initiated in late 2016. In addition, Ohio requires that we
evaluate our rules every five years for updates. These rules have not been updated since
2002 and are long overdue. As stated previously, we do not have the resources to
exhaustively evaluate exposure and toxicity data specific to Ohio. If in the future such
resources become available, we may consider the option of further evaluation.
The cost impact analysis was provided as part of the IPR response to comments
and is attached. During the rules process we have reached out to all potentially affected
permittees and did not receive any objection to criteria adoption. We have no data
suggesting that significant costs will be incurred from these rules.

- End of Response to Comments -

Response to Comments
Human Health WQC – Attachment 1
October 2019 Page 1 of 4

Attachment 1:
Ohio EPA has identified two potential sources of additional cost to regulated entities – costs due to
treatment upgrades, and costs for more advanced chemical testing. The Agency does not believe that
any significant treatment upgrades will be needed to meet limits based on the new criteria. Therefore,
no new cost.

Ensuring compliance with these lower numbers will require some dischargers to do additional, low-level
testing for a few parameters. Ohio EPA projects that these new costs will run from $0 - $400 per year
per facility; the specific cost will depend on the sampling frequency required by the permit, the number
of discharge points tested at the facility, and whether or not the facility is already using one or more of
these advanced analytical techniques.

In breaking down costs, Ohio EPA first filtered out pollutants that would not drive additional costs
because the new human health numbers were higher than other regulatory standards that would drive
permit conditions. These would include pollutants that have lower aquatic life water quality standards
than the new human health criteria and pollutants that have lower treatment technology standards
(BAT/NSPS) than the new human health criteria. Note that some BAT values were lower only for the
basins.

Table 1. Pollutants Where Aquatic Life WQS are lower than Human Health Criteria

Ohio River Ohio River Lake Erie

Mainstem Basin Basin

Acenaphthene Acenaphthene Benzene

Anthracene Anthracene Chlorobenzene
Barium Antimony Cyanide, free
Chlorobenzene Barium 2,4-Dimethylphenol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Toluene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene Bromoform
1,3-Dichloropropene Chlorobenzene
Diethylphthalate Cyanide, free
Dimethylphthalate 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dimethylphenol 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Fluoranthene 1,3-Dichloropropene
Fluorene Diethylphthalate
Methyl Bromide Dimethylphthalate
Phenol Ethylbenzene
Pyrene Fluoranthene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Fluorene
Response to Comments
Human Health WQC – Attachment 1
October 2019 Page 2 of 4

Zinc Isophorone
Methlyene Chloride
Nitrobenzene
Phenol
Pyrene
Selenium
Toluene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Zinc

Table 2. Pollutants Where BAT/NSPS are Lower than Human Health Criteria

Acenaphthene 2-Chlorphenol (ORB)

Anthracene Dibutylphthalate (ORB)
Chlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane (ORB)
Chloroform 1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloropropane (ORB)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2,4-Dinitrophenol (ORB)
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene Nitrobenzene (ORB)
2,4-Dimethylphenol Tetrachloroethylene (ORB)
Ethylbenzene 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ORB)
Fluorene Trichloroethylene (ORB/LEB)
Phenol
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane

An additional set of pollutants was removed from consideration because there are not sufficient
monitoring requirements in NPDES permits to provide data for analysis (in many cases, none). Ohio EPA
does not expect that new monitoring and limits will be required for these pollutants based on the low
detection frequency of these pollutants in NPDES application testing data, and Ohio EPA effluent
sampling.

Table 3. Pollutants not monitored in NPDES Permits

Benzidine alpha -Hexachlorocyclohexane

Bis(2-chloro-1methylethyl) ether beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Bis(2-chloromethyl) ether gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Response to Comments
Human Health WQC – Attachment 1
October 2019 Page 3 of 4

Bis(2-chloroethoxy)ethane Isophorone
Chlordane Methoxychlor
2,4-D 3-Methyl-4-chlorophenol
4,4'-DDD N-Nitrosodiethylamine
4,4'-DDE N-Nitrosodibutyl amine
4,4'-DDT N-Nitrosodipyrrolidine
3,3'Dichlorobenzidene Pentachlorobenzene
Dinitrophenols Silvex
Endrin aldehyde 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
alpha-Endosulfan Toxaphene
beta-Endosulfan 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
Endosulfan sulfate 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclohexane - technical grade

To assess potential treatment costs of the remaining parameters, Ohio EPA first looked at whether the
new criteria would generate new, lower limits through the wasteload allocation process. If so, the
Agency looked at the facility’s reported discharge data for 2011-19 to determine whether the new limits
would be met. Ohio EPA reviewed information for all organic chemical facilities that directly discharge
to waters of the state, and also looked at other dischargers that had limits for the chemicals not
excluded using the methods above. For the following seven pollutants, at least one discharger had more
restrictive wasteload allocations using the new criteria:

• 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
• 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
• Benzo(a)pyrene
• Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
• Hexachlorobenzene
• Hexachlorobutadiene
• Hexachloroethane
• Vinyl Chloride

The analysis for 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene showed that only 1 discharger out of 13 would have lower limits
under this rule. Compliance with the new standard cannot be determined because the test methods
currently used by the discharger are not sufficiently sensitive to determine compliance; however, highly
chlorinated organic chemicals are not commonly used, and have historically been used/generated at
relatively few plants. This is also true for hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene and
hexachloroethane (although more facilities will have lower limits for these pollutants). It is not expected
that facilities will have compliance issues with these chemicals. The only facility that has a history of
using similar chemicals has not shown significant detections (1 detection in 46 samples for
hexachlorobenzene) and test quantification levels have generally been good for this facility. Ohio EPA
does not expect compliance issues for these chemicals.
Response to Comments
Human Health WQC – Attachment 1
October 2019 Page 4 of 4

A similar situation exists with benzo(a)pyrene. This chemical is typically associated with tar
manufacturing and processing and is not commonly detected in NPDES effluents. While seven of the
nine facilities reviewed by Ohio EPA would have lower limits for benzo(a)pyrene, four of the seven use
test methods capable of testing these new limits and have not found any detections. Ohio EPA does not
believe that the remaining three facilities with lower limits will have any different results.

One facility would have more restrictive limits for 2,4-dintrotoluene. The limit change is relatively small,
from 87 ug/l to 69 ug/l. This facility has not detected this chemical and will be able to meet the new
limit.

Similarly, neither of the two facilities facing lower limits for vinyl chloride would experience compliance
issues.

Several facilities have discharge limits for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. The new WQS for this chemical
would cause lower limits at 9 of 23 facilities. It appears that seven of the nine facilities meet the new
limits currently; the remaining two plants are expected to meet the new limits as they implement good
sampling protocols. Bis-2EHP is a common contaminant from automatic sampler tubing; Ohio EPA has
recommended collecting samples manually for phthalate parameters to eliminate this issue. The
Agency believes that there are some dischargers that have not adopted this practice and may still be
getting occasional detections of bis-2EHP in the effluent as a result.

Analytical Costs

Testing for these pollutants are typically done using scans that test for large groups of pollutants at one
time. For organic pollutants, these are done in 2 groups: (1) easily volatile chemicals (easily
evaporated), and (2) less easily evaporated chemicals (semi-volatiles). Most dischargers testing these
chemicals do 1-2 scans per year. Scans for volatile compounds cost $75-100 per scan; semi-volatiles
cost $150-200 per scan.

Some of the ten pollutants specifically evaluated for treatment cost increases above will require more
sensitive analyses to detect the new standards. Federal NPDES rules require that permittees use test
methods sufficiently sensitive to quantify discharge limits or wasteload allocation values. For limits that
are less than the lowest quantification limit for that pollutant, Ohio law requires that the discharger use
the most sensitive test method available (ORC 6111.13). To test for these pollutants at very low levels,
permittees may need to run samples using low-level methods, which will result in additional testing
costs. Based on a short survey of commercial laboratories, using these methods amounts to an
additional run of the sample at the same cost as the general method. About half of permittees appear
to be using low-level methods currently. The remaining ten permittees will face extra costs of $100-400
per year based on how many samples they are required to do per year, and how many extra method
runs have to be performed.
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
Agenda - 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M.
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

FINAL AGENDA FINAL AGENDA

Consent
1 Attorney General • Charitable Foundation
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/23/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/27/2020 Public Hearing: 7/29/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing No Yes 109:1-1-04 Annual report.
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/23/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 6/29/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/27/2020 Public Hearing: 7/29/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Revised Filing No Yes 109:1-5-02 Annual financial report of charitable organization.
2 Attorney General • Environmental Background Investigation
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/29/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/2/2020 Public Hearing: 8/5/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing No Yes 109:6-1-05 Waiver.
3 Bureau of Workers' Compensation •
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/29/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 7/2/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/2/2020 Public Hearing: 8/7/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Revised Filing Yes Yes 4123-18-09 Vocational rehabilitation provider fee schedule.
4 Counselor, Social Worker, and Marriage and Family Therapist Board •
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/15/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/18/2020 Public Hearing: 8/24/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Standards of practice and professional conduct: electronic service delivery
Amendment Original Filing Yes No 4757-5-13
(internet, email, teleconference, etc.).
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/15/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 7/27/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/18/2020 Public Hearing: 8/24/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Standards of practice and professional conduct: electronic service delivery
Amendment Revised Filing Yes No 4757-5-13
(internet, email, teleconference, etc.).
Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 1 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

5 Department of Administrative Services • Division of EEO for Construction

Total Rules: 15 Original Filing Date: 7/10/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/13/2020 Public Hearing: 8/10/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 123:2-14-01 Definitions.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 123:2-14-02 Certification Criteria.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 123:2-14-03 Recertification.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 123:2-14-04 Expedited certification.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 123:2-14-05 Joint venture.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 123:2-14-06 Commercially useful function.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 123:2-14-07 Revocation.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 123:2-14-08 Adjudication hearings.
New Rule Original Filing No No 123:2-14-09 EDGE Procurement Goals.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 123:2-14-10 Demonstration of good faith effort to include EDGE business participation.
New Rule Original Filing No No 123:2-14-11 Annual expenditure projection report.
New Rule Original Filing No No 123:2-14-12 Quarterly expenditure report.
New Rule Original Filing No No 123:2-14-13 EDGE participation goals in solicitations and contracts.
New Rule Original Filing No No 123:2-14-14 EDGE data collection.
New Rule Original Filing No No 123:2-14-15 Monitoring Waiver Compliance.
Total Rules: 15 Original Filing Date: 7/10/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 7/16/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/13/2020 Public Hearing: 8/10/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-01 Definitions.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-02 Certification Criteria.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-03 Recertification.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-04 Expedited certification.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-05 Joint venture.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-06 Commercially useful function.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-07 Revocation.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-08 Adjudication hearings.
New Rule Revised Filing No No 123:2-14-09 EDGE Procurement Goals.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-10 Demonstration of good faith effort to include EDGE business participation.
New Rule Revised Filing No No 123:2-14-11 Annual expenditure projection report.

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 2 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

New Rule Revised Filing No No 123:2-14-12 Quarterly expenditure report.

New Rule Revised Filing No No 123:2-14-13 EDGE participation goals in solicitations and contracts.
New Rule Revised Filing No No 123:2-14-14 EDGE data collection.
New Rule Revised Filing No No 123:2-14-15 Monitoring Waiver Compliance.
Total Rules: 15 Original Filing Date: 7/10/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 7/17/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/13/2020 Public Hearing: 8/10/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-01 Definitions.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-02 Certification criteria.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-03 Recertification.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-04 Expedited certification.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-05 Joint venture.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-06 Commercially useful function.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-07 Revocation.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-08 Adjudication hearings.
New Rule Revised Filing No No 123:2-14-09 EDGE procurement goals.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 123:2-14-10 Demonstration of good faith effort to include EDGE business participation.
New Rule Revised Filing No No 123:2-14-11 Annual expenditure projection report.
New Rule Revised Filing No No 123:2-14-12 Quarterly expenditure report.
New Rule Revised Filing No No 123:2-14-13 EDGE participation goals in solicitations and contracts.
New Rule Revised Filing No No 123:2-14-14 EDGE data collection.
New Rule Revised Filing No No 123:2-14-15 Monitoring waiver compliance.
6 Department of Administrative Services • Division of EEO for Construction
Total Rules: 22 Original Filing Date: 7/10/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/13/2020 Public Hearing: 8/10/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-01 Application for certification as a minority business enterprise.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-02 Bid notifications and specifications concerning minority business enterprises.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-03 Minority set aside review board established.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-04 Application to the minority set aside review board.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-05 Minority set aside review board procedures for emergency contracts.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-06 Minority set aside review board notice of meetings.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-01 Definitions.

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 3 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-02 Certification criteria.

Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-03 Certification of business structure.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-04 Expedited certification.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-05 Recertification.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-06 Decertification and revocation.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-07 Adjudication hearings.
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 123:2-16-08 Edge participation goals.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-09 Demonstration of good faith effort to include EDGE business participation.
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 123:2-16-10 Annual expenditure projection report.
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 123:2-16-11 Quarterly expenditure report.
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 123:2-16-12 Proposals.
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 123:2-16-13 EDGE data collection.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-14 Joint venture.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-15 Commercially useful function.
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 123:2-16-16 Monitoring waiver compliance.
Total Rules: 22 Original Filing Date: 7/10/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 7/16/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/13/2020 Public Hearing: 8/10/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-01 Application for certification as a minority business enterprise.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-02 Bid notifications and specifications concerning minority business enterprises.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-03 Minority set aside review board established.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-04 Application to the minority set aside review board.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-05 Minority set aside review board procedures for emergency contracts.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-06 Minority set aside review board notice of meetings.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-01 Definitions.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-02 Certification criteria.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-03 Certification of business structure.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-04 Expedited certification.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-05 Recertification.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-06 Decertification and revocation.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-07 Adjudication hearings.
Rescission Revised Filing No Yes 123:2-16-08 Edge participation goals.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-09 Demonstration of good faith effort to include EDGE business participation.
Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 4 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

Rescission Revised Filing No Yes 123:2-16-10 Annual expenditure projection report.

Rescission Revised Filing No Yes 123:2-16-11 Quarterly expenditure report.
Rescission Revised Filing No Yes 123:2-16-12 Proposals.
Rescission Revised Filing No Yes 123:2-16-13 EDGE data collection.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-14 Joint venture.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-15 Commercially useful function.
Rescission Revised Filing No Yes 123:2-16-16 Monitoring waiver compliance.
7 Department of Administrative Services • Division of Human Resources
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/22/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/26/2020 Public Hearing: 7/24/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing No Yes 123:1-46-05 Leave donation program.
8 Department of Administrative Services • Division of Human Resources
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/8/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/11/2020 Public Hearing: 8/13/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing No No 123:1-34-11 Mandatory cost savings program.
9 Department of Aging •
Total Rules: 9 Original Filing Date: 6/30/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 7/1/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/3/2020 Public Hearing: 8/4/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Revised Filing Yes Yes 173-50-01 PACE: introduction and definitions.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 173-50-02 PACE: eligibility requirements.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 173-50-02 PACE: eligibility requirements.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 173-50-03 PACE: enrollment process.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 173-50-03 PACE: enrollment, plan of care, and reassessment.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 173-50-04 PACE: Voluntary disenrollment.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 173-50-04 PACE: voluntary disenrollment.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 173-50-05 PACE: involuntary disenrollment.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 173-50-05 PACE: involuntary disenrollment.
10 Department of Aging •
Total Rules: 5 Original Filing Date: 6/29/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 7/1/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/2/2020 Public Hearing: 8/4/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 5 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

ODA provider certification: requirements for providers to become, and to remain,

Amendment Revised Filing Yes Yes 173-39-02
certified.
Rescission Revised Filing Yes Yes 173-39-02.12 ODA provider certification: Social work counseling service.
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 173-39-02.12 ODA provider certification: Social work counseling service.
Amendment Revised Filing Yes Yes 173-39-02.23 ODA provider certification: out-of-home respite.
Amendment Revised Filing Yes Yes 173-39-03.5 ODA provider certification: military provisions.
11 Department of Aging •
Total Rules: 7 Original Filing Date: 6/29/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 7/1/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/2/2020 Public Hearing: 8/4/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Revised Filing No Yes 173-13-01 Introduction and definitions.
Rescission Revised Filing No Yes 173-13-02 Procedures for accessing confidential personal information.
New Rule Revised Filing No No 173-13-02 Confidential personal information: procedures for accessing CPI.
Amendment Revised Filing No Yes 173-13-03 Valid reasons for accessing confidential personal information.
Amendment Revised Filing No Yes 173-13-04 Confidentiality statutes and rules.
Restricting and logging access to confidential personal information in computerized
Rescission Revised Filing No Yes 173-13-05
personal information systems.
Confidential personal information: restricting and logging access to CPI in
New Rule Revised Filing No No 173-13-05
computerized personal information systems.
12 Department of Developmental Disabilities •
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/2/2020 Date of Refiled Filing: 8/7/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/6/2020 Public Hearing: 8/6/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities - intensive
New Rule Refiled Filing Yes No 5123-7-28
behavioral support rate add-on.
13 Department of Developmental Disabilities •
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 3/2/2020 Date of Refiled Filing: 8/7/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/6/2020 Public Hearing: 4/10/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Conducting meetings of the Ohio developmental disabilities council via interactive
New Rule Refiled Filing No No 5123-12-01
video conference or teleconference.
14 Department of Developmental Disabilities •
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/17/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/20/2020 Public Hearing: 8/17/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 5123-1-04 Community capital assistance funds - development of licensed residential facilities.

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 6 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

15 Department of Developmental Disabilities • Fiscal Administration and State-Operated Services and Supports
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/17/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/20/2020 Public Hearing: 8/17/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Community capital assistance funds for the development of licensed residential
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 5123:1-1-04
facilities.
16 Department of Job and Family Services • Apprenticeship Council
Total Rules: 13 Original Filing Date: 7/6/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/9/2020 Public Hearing: 8/12/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing No Yes 5101:11-1-01 Definitions.
Amendment Original Filing No Yes 5101:11-2-01 Ohio state apprenticeship council and the council office.
Amendment Original Filing No Yes 5101:11-2-02 Procedure for notice of public meetings.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 5101:11-3-01 Procedures for program registration and subsequent program changes.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 5101:11-3-02 Program requirements.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 5101:11-3-03 Reciprocity agreement.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 5101:11-3-04 De-registration of programs.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 5101:11-4-01 Selection of apprentices.
Amendment Original Filing No Yes 5101:11-4-02 Apprentice registration.
Amendment Original Filing No Yes 5101:11-4-03 Apprenticeship agreement contents.
New Rule Original Filing No No 5101:11-8-02 Hearings.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 5101:11-8-03 Reinstatement of program registration.
New Rule Original Filing No No 5101:11-9-01 Exemptions.
17 Department of Job and Family Services • Apprenticeship Council
Total Rules: 18 Original Filing Date: 7/6/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/9/2020 Public Hearing: 8/12/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 5101:11-5-01 Equal opportunity requirements.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 5101:11-5-01 Equal opportunity policy.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 5101:11-5-02 Affirmative action plan.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 5101:11-5-02 Steps to ensure equal opportunity.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 5101:11-6-01 Compliance reviews.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 5101:11-6-01 Affirmative action obligations.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 5101:11-6-02 Complaint process.
Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 7 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

New Rule Original Filing Yes No 5101:11-6-02 Planning requirements.

Rescission Original Filing No Yes 5101:11-6-03 Determinations of non-compliance.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 5101:11-6-03 Program activities.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 5101:11-7-01 De-registration of programs.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 5101:11-7-01 Compliance reviews.
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 5101:11-7-02 Hearings.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 5101:11-7-02 Complaint process.
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 5101:11-7-03 Reinstatement of program registration.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 5101:11-7-03 Compliance findings.
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 5101:11-8-01 Exemptions.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 5101:11-8-01 Response to findings of non-compliance.
18 Department of Job and Family Services • Division of Food Stamps
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/24/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/28/2020 Public Hearing:
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing No Yes 5101:4-5-03 Food assistance: establishing certification periods.
19 Department of Job and Family Services • Division of Food Stamps
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/17/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/20/2020 Public Hearing:
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Food assistance: personnel standards, bilingual staff and materials, records and
Amendment Original Filing No Yes 5101:4-1-05
reports.
20 Department of Job and Family Services • Division of Food Stamps
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/17/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/20/2020 Public Hearing: 8/18/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing No Yes 5101:4-3-34.1 Food assistance: work experience program overpayments.
21 Department of Job and Family Services • Division of Public Assistance
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/25/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/29/2020 Public Hearing: 7/29/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Ohio works first, and refugee cash assistance: verification and reporting
Amendment Original Filing No Yes 5101:1-2-20
requirements.
22 Department of Job and Family Services • Division of Social Services
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/26/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/30/2020 Public Hearing: 7/29/2020
Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 8 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment Original Filing No Yes 5101:2-33-02 PCSA requirement to participate in child protection oversight and evaluation.
23 Department of Job and Family Services • Division of Social Services
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/14/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/17/2020 Public Hearing: 8/18/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 5101:2-9-42 Qualified Residential Treatment Program (QRTP).
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/14/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 8/5/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/17/2020 Public Hearing: 8/18/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 5101:2-9-42 Qualified residential treatment program (QRTP).
24 Department of Job and Family Services • Division of Social Services
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/14/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/17/2020 Public Hearing: 8/18/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 5101:2-40-10 The Ohio kinship and adoption navigator (OhioKAN) program.
25 Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services •
Total Rules: 3 Original Filing Date: 7/14/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/17/2020 Public Hearing: 8/18/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 5122-29-09.1 Substance use disorder qualified residential treatment program (QRTP) for youth.
Amendment Original Filing Yes No 5122-30-31 Background investigations for employment.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 5122-30-32 Qualified residential treatment program (QRTP).
26 Department of Public Safety • Private Investigator Security Guard Services
Total Rules: 17 Original Filing Date: 6/26/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/30/2020 Public Hearing: 7/28/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-02 Reputation for integrity.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-03 Requirement of new license.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-04 License applications.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-07 Examinations.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-08 License.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-09 Registration of employees.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-10 Issuance of I.D. card to registrant.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-13 Publication and vehicle marking restrictions.

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 9 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-14 Advertisement identification.

Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-15 Notice of renewals.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-16 Renewal of registrations.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-17 Fees.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-18 Retained applicant fingerprint database enrollment.
Amendment Original Filing No Yes 4501:7-1-19 Disqualifying offenses.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-21 Process for veteran applications.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-22 Firearm bearer notation issuance and renewal.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-23 Firearm bearer prohibitions and disciplinary actions.
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/26/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 6/29/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/30/2020 Public Hearing: 7/28/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Revised Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-01 Definitions.
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/26/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 7/28/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/30/2020 Public Hearing: 7/28/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Revised Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-20 Notice of meeting.
27 Department of Taxation •
Total Rules: 9 Original Filing Date: 6/26/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/30/2020 Public Hearing:
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing No No 5703-7-02 Applications for personal income tax refunds.
New Rule Original Filing No No 5703-7-03 Documentation to Support a Taxpayer's Joint Filing and Residency Credits.
Option to filing of declaration of estimated income tax returns by farmers and
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 5703-7-04
fishermen.
Option to filing of declaration of estimated income tax returns by farmers and
New Rule Original Filing No No 5703-7-04
fishermen.
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 5703-7-06 Personal income tax form required for withholding purposes.
New Rule Original Filing No No 5703-7-06 Personal income tax form required for withholding purposes.
Amendment Original Filing No Yes 5703-7-07 Requirements for requesting inspection of income tax returns.
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 5703-7-08 Deduction of disability and survivorship benefits.
New Rule Original Filing No No 5703-7-08 Deduction of disability and survivorship benefits.
28 Department of Taxation •
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/2/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/5/2020 Public Hearing:
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 10 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

New Rule Original Filing No No 5703-7-01 Determination of NAICS Codes for the Ohio Business Income Deduction.
29 Ohio Casino Control Commission •
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/19/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/23/2020 Public Hearing: 7/23/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing Yes No 3772-50-08 Type-C skill-based amusement machine location licensure.
30 Ohio Casino Control Commission •
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/19/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/23/2020 Public Hearing: 7/23/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing No Yes 3772-1-06 Minimum licensure requirements.
31 Ohio Department of Medicaid •
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/13/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/16/2020 Public Hearing: 8/13/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 5160-3-58 Nursing facilities (NFs): quality indicators and quality payment rate.
32 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency •
Total Rules: 3 Original Filing Date: 10/30/2019 Date of Refiled Filing: 8/4/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/3/2020 Public Hearing: 12/4/2019
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Refiled Filing Yes Yes 3745-1-32 Ohio river standards.
Amendment Refiled Filing Yes Yes 3745-1-33 Water quality criteria for water supply use designations.
Amendment Refiled Filing Yes Yes 3745-1-34 Water quality criteria for the protection of human health [fish consumption].
33 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency •
Total Rules: 6 Original Filing Date: 7/6/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/9/2020 Public Hearing: 8/12/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-27-02 Permit to install.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-27-06 Sanitary landfill facility permit to install application.
Additional criteria for approval of sanitary landfill facility permit to install
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-27-07
applications.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-27-09 Sanitary landfill facility operating record.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-27-11 Final closure of a sanitary landfill facility.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-27-14 Post-closure care of sanitary landfill facilities.
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/6/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 7/16/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/9/2020 Public Hearing: 8/12/2020

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 11 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment Revised Filing Yes Yes 3745-27-05 Applicability and relation to other laws.
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/6/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 8/10/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/9/2020 Public Hearing: 8/12/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Revised Filing Yes Yes 3745-27-08 Sanitary landfill facility construction.
34 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency •
Total Rules: 18 Original Filing Date: 7/13/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/16/2020 Public Hearing: 8/17/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Special requirements for hazardous waste generated by conditionally exempt small
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-51-05
quantity generators.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-52-10 Applicability- generator standards.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-52-11 Hazardous waste determination.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-52-12 Generator identification numbers.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-52-34 Accumulation time of hazardous waste.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-52-41 Biennial report- generator standards.
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements for generators of between one hundred
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-52-44
and one thousand kilograms per month.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-52-50 Applicability- exports of hazardous waste to a foreign country.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-52-60 Imports of hazardous waste from a foreign country.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-53-12 Transfer facility requirements.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-53-20 Acceptance and handling of hazardous waste and the manifest system.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-54-12 Required notices.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-54-71 Use of manifest system.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-54-75 Biennial report.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-65-12 Required notices.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-65-71 Use of manifest system.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-65-75 Biennial report.
Special requirements for generators of between one hundred and one thousand
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-66-101
kilograms per month that accumulate hazardous waste in tanks.
35 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency •
Total Rules: 7 Original Filing Date: 7/13/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/16/2020 Public Hearing: 8/17/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 12 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

New Rule Original Filing Yes No 3745-50-02 Business confidentiality - hazardous waste management.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-50-04 Manifest copy submittal requirements for certain interstate waste shipments.
Applicability- electronic manifest system and user fee requirements to facilities that
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-50-05
receive state-only regulated waste shipments.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-50-10 Definitions and computation of time.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-50-11 Incorporated by reference.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-50-28 Procedures for case-by-case regulation of hazardous waste recycling activities.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-50-45 Special inclusions and exclusions for hazardous waste permits.
36 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency •
Total Rules: 8 Original Filing Date: 7/13/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/16/2020 Public Hearing: 8/17/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-51-01 Purpose and scope of Chapter 3745-51 of the Administrative Code.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-51-04 Exclusions.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-51-06 Requirements for recyclable materials.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-51-07 Residues of hazardous waste in empty containers.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-51-11 Criteria for listing hazardous waste.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-51-30 Lists of hazardous wastes - general.
Discarded commercial chemical products, off-specification species, container
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-51-33
residues, and spill residues thereof.
Conditional exclusion for used, broken CRTs and processed CRT glass undergoing
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-51-39
recycling.
37 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency •
Total Rules: 24 Original Filing Date: 7/13/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/16/2020 Public Hearing: 8/17/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 3745-52-01 Definitions - generator standards.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 3745-52-11 Hazardous waste determination and recordkeeping.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-13 Generator category determinations.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 3745-52-14 Conditions for exemption for very small quantity generators.
Satellite accumulation area requirements for small quantity generators and large
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 3745-52-15
quantity generators.
Conditions for exemption for small quantity generators that accumulate hazardous
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 3745-52-16
waste.

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 13 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

Conditions for exemption for large quantity generators that accumulate hazardous
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 3745-52-17
waste.
U.S. EPA identification numbers and re-notification for small quantity generators
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-18
and large quantity generators.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-20 Manifest - general requirements.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-24 Use of the electronic manifest.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-25 Electronic manifest signatures.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-32 Marking.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-35 Liquids in landfills prohibition.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-40 Recordkeeping.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 3745-52-41 Biennial report for large quantity generators.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-44 Recordkeeping for small quantity generators.
Applicability - transboundary movement of hazardous waste for recovery or
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-80
disposal.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-200 Definitions- university labs.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-201 Applicability- university labs.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-202 Use of the university lab rules is an option.
How an eligible academic entity indicates it will be subject to the university lab
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-203
rules.
How an eligible academic entity indicates it will withdraw from the university lab
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-204
rules.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-207 Training.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-208 Removing containers of unwanted material from the laboratory.
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/13/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 7/29/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/16/2020 Public Hearing: 8/17/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Conditions for exemption for large quantity generators that accumulate hazardous
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 3745-52-17
waste.
38 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency •
Total Rules: 24 Original Filing Date: 7/13/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/16/2020 Public Hearing: 8/17/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Where and when to make the hazardous waste determination and where to send
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-209
containers of unwanted material upon removal from the laboratory.
Making the hazardous waste determination in the laboratory before the unwanted
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-210
material is removed from the laboratory.

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 14 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-211 Making the hazardous waste determination at an on-site central accumulation area.
Making the hazardous waste determination at an on-site interim or permitted
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-212
treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-213 Laboratory clean-outs.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-214 Laboratory management plan.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-216 Non-laboratory hazardous waste generated at an eligible academic entity.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-230 Applicability - alternative standards for episodic generation.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-231 Definitions - alternative standards for episodic generation.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 3745-52-232 Conditions for generators that manage hazardous waste from an episodic event.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-233 Petition to manage one additional episodic event per calendar year.
Applicability - preparedness, prevention, and emergency procedures for large
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-250
quantity generators.
Maintenance and operation of facility - preparedness, prevention, and emergency
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-251
procedures for large quantity generators.
Required equipment - preparedness, prevention, and emergency procedures for
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-252
large quantity generators.
Testing and maintenance of equipment - preparedness, prevention, and
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-253
emergency procedures for large quantity generators.
Access to communications or alarm system - preparedness, prevention, and
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-254
emergency procedures for large quantity generators.
Required aisle space - preparedness, prevention, and emergency procedures for
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-255
large quantity generators.
Arrangements with local authorities - preparedness, prevention, and emergency
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-256
procedures for large quantity generators.
Purpose and implementation of contingency plan - preparedness, prevention, and
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-260
emergency procedures for large quantity generators.
Content of contingency plan - preparedness, prevention, and emergency
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-261
procedures for large quantity generators.
Copies of contingency plan - preparedness, prevention, and emergency
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-262
procedures for large quantity generators.
Amendment of contingency plan - preparedness, prevention, and emergency
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-263
procedures for large quantity generators.
Emergency coordinator - preparedness, prevention, and emergency procedures for
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-264
large quantity generators.
Emergency procedures - preparedness, prevention, and emergency procedures for
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-52-265
large quantity generators.
39 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency •
Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 15 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

Total Rules: 19 Original Filing Date: 7/13/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/16/2020 Public Hearing: 8/17/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-53-10 Applicability- transporter standards.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-53-11 U.S. EPA identification number- transporters.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 3745-53-12 Transfer facility requirements.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-53-20 The manifest system and acceptance and handling of hazardous waste.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-53-21 Compliance with the manifest.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-53-25 Electronic manifest signatures.
Purpose, scope, and applicability of Chapters 3745-54 to 3745-57 and 3745-205 of
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-54-01
the Administrative Code.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-54-12 Required notices.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-54-15 General inspection requirements.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-54-71 Use of manifest system.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-54-75 Biennial report.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-55-70 Applicability - use and management of containers.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-55-74 Inspections- containers.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-55-91 Assessment of existing tank systems integrity.
Purpose, scope, and applicability of Chapters 3745-65 to 3745-69 and 3745-256 of
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-65-01
the Administrative Code.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-65-12 Required notices.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-65-15 General inspection requirements.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-65-71 Use of manifest system.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-65-75 Biennial report.
40 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency •
Total Rules: 21 Original Filing Date: 7/13/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/16/2020 Public Hearing: 8/17/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-66-74 Inspections- containers.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-66-90 Applicability- tanks.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-66-93 Containment and detection of releases- tanks.
General operating requirements and applicability- chemical, physical, and
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-69-01
biological treatment.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-256-200 Applicability- military munitions.

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 16 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

Applicability and requirements- recyclable materials utilized for precious metal

Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-266-70
recovery.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-266-80 Applicability and requirements- spent lead-acid batteries being reclaimed.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-266-108 Small quantity on-site burner exemption.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-266-111 Standards for direct transfer.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-266-255 Re-entry of LLMW into regulation as a hazardous waste.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-266-500 Definitions - hazardous waste pharmaceuticals.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 3745-266-501 Applicability - hazardous waste pharmaceuticals.
Standards for healthcare facilities that manage non-creditable hazardous waste
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-266-502
pharmaceuticals.
Standards for healthcare facilities that manage potentially creditable hazardous
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-266-503
waste pharmaceuticals.
Healthcare facilities that are very small quantity generators for both hazardous
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-266-504
waste pharmaceuticals and non-pharmaceutical hazardous waste.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-266-505 Prohibition of sewering hazardous waste pharmaceuticals.
Conditional exemptions for hazardous waste pharmaceuticals that are also
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 3745-266-506 controlled substances and household waste pharmaceuticals collected in a take-
back event or program.
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-266-507 Residues of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals in empty containers.
Shipping non-creditable hazardous waste pharmaceuticals from a healthcare
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-266-508
facility or evaluated hazardous waste pharmaceuticals from a reverse distributor.
Shipping potentially creditable hazardous waste pharmaceuticals from a healthcare
New Rule Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-266-509
facility or a reverse distributor to a reverse distributor.
Standards for the management of potentially creditable hazardous waste
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 3745-266-510 pharmaceuticals and evaluated hazardous waste pharmaceuticals at reverse
distributors.
41 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency •
Total Rules: 10 Original Filing Date: 7/13/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/16/2020 Public Hearing: 8/17/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-270-01 Purpose, scope, and applicability - land disposal restrictions.
Testing, tracking, and recordkeeping requirements for generators, treaters, and
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-270-07
disposal facilities.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-270-50 Prohibitions on storage of restricted wastes.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-273-08 Applicability- household and conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-273-13 Waste management - standards for small quantity handlers of universal waste.

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 17 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-273-33 Waste management - standards for large quantity handlers of universal waste.
Tracking universal waste shipments- standards for large quantity handlers of
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-273-39
universal waste.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-273-62 Tracking universal waste shipments- standards for destination facilities.
Factors that the director will evaluate regarding petitions to include other wastes
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-273-81
under Chapter 3745-273 of the Administrative Code.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Exempt 3745-279-10 Applicability - recycled used oil management standards.
42 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency •
Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 6/17/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/21/2020 Public Hearing: 7/22/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-88-01 Definitions.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-88-02 Disadvantaged community loans.
43 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency •
Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 7/8/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/11/2020 Public Hearing: 8/13/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-27-90 Standards for solid waste management districts.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 3745-27-90 Standards for solid waste management districts.
44 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency •
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/25/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/29/2020 Public Hearing: 7/30/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Requirements for professional engineer certification of plans, specifications, and
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 3745-27-99
information.
45 Ohio Legislative Service Commission •
Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 6/29/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/2/2020 Public Hearing:
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 103-1-05 Distribution of rule drafting manual.
Amendment Original Filing No Yes 103-3-01 Duties of LSC director concerning codification of rules.
46 Ohio Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Athletic Trainers Board •
Total Rules: 40 Original Filing Date: 7/15/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/18/2020 Public Hearing: 8/19/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-61-01 Notice of meetings.

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 18 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-61-02 Method of public notice in adopting, amending, or rescinding rules.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-61-03 Definitions governing access to confidential personal information.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-61-04 Procedures for accessing confidential personal information.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-61-05 Valid reasons for accessing confidential personal information.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-61-06 Confidentiality statutes.
Restricting and logging access to confidential personal information in computerized
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-61-07
personal information systems.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-62-01 Definition of terms.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-62-02 Device-related and scope of practice definitions.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-63-01 Applications for initial licensure by examination.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-63-02 Licensure by endorsement.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-63-03 Educational programs.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-63-04 Certificate program requirements.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-63-05 Examinations.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-63-06 Temporary license application procedure.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-63-07 Certificate of license; display.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-63-08 Biennial renewal of license.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-63-09 Reinstatement of licensure.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-63-10 Reinstatement or reconsideration of denied/revoked license.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-63-11 Verification of licensure.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-63-12 Criminal records check.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-63-14 Foreign education licensure.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-64-01 Ethical and professional conduct.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-64-02 Proper use of credentials.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-64-03 Investigations.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-64-04 Denial and disciplinary action procedures.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-64-05 Notice of change of name, place of employment, e-mail, and mailing address.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-65-01 Continuing education requirements and reporting.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-65-02 Waivers for continuing education.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-66-01 Initial license fee.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-66-02 Temporary license fee.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-66-03 Reinstatement fee.
Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 19 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-66-04 License renewal fee.

New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-66-05 Fee to upgrade from temporary to full license.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-66-06 Fee to consolidate a license.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-66-07 License verification fee.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-66-08 Duplicate wall certificate fee.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-66-09 Fee for mailing lists.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-66-10 Fee for continuing education review.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4755-66-11 Waiver of fees.
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/15/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 7/29/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/18/2020 Public Hearing: 8/19/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 4755-62-01 Definition of terms.
47 Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund •
Total Rules: 4 Original Filing Date: 6/25/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/29/2020 Public Hearing:
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing No No 742-3-02 Definition and usage of terminal pay and salary in benefit and pension calculations.
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 742-5-03 Contributing service credit.
New Rule Original Filing No No 742-5-03 Contributing Service Credit.
Amendment Original Filing No No 742-5-07 Service credit purchases and transfers.
48 Ohio Public Defender Commission •
Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 6/30/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/3/2020 Public Hearing:
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing No No 120-1-09 Contracts with municipal corporations or villages.
Amendment Original Filing No No 120-1-10 Appointment systems and attorney qualifications.
49 Ohio Respiratory Care Board •
Total Rules: 8 Original Filing Date: 6/19/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/23/2020 Public Hearing: 7/23/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Waiver of licensing requirements pursuant to division (B) of section 4761.04 of the
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4761-5-01
Revised Code.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4761-5-04 License application procedure.
Amendment Original Filing Yes No 4761-6-01 Limited permit application procedure.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4761-7-04 Supervision.
Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 20 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

Amendment Original Filing Yes No 4761-9-01 Definition of respiratory care continuing education.
Amendment Original Filing Yes No 4761-9-05 Approved sources of RCCE.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4761-9-07 Auditing for compliance with RCCE requirements.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4761-10-03 Providing information to the board.
50 State Board of Orthotics, Prosthetics, and Pedorthics •
Total Rules: 28 Original Filing Date: 7/15/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/18/2020 Public Hearing: 8/19/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Public hearings on adoption, amendment, or rescission of rules: methods of public
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-1-01
notice.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-1-02 Notice of board meetings.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-2-01 Board organization.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-2-02 Personnel.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-2-03 Board records.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-3-01 Definition of terms.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-3-02 Device-related and scope of practice definitions.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-4-01 Approval of educational programs.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-5-01 The examinations.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-5-02 Admission to the examination.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-5-03 License application procedure.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-5-04 Limited reciprocity.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-5-05 Consideration of military experience, education, training and term of service.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-6-01 Temporary license application procedure.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-7-01 Original license documents.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-8-01 Renewal of license.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-9-01 Continuing education requirements and reporting (OPPCE).
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-9-02 Activities which meet the OPPCE requirements.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-9-03 OPPCE accrual deficiency and remediation.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-9-04 Extension of OPPCE reporting period for licensee called to active duty military.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-10-01 Ethical and professional conduct.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-10-02 Proper use of credentials.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-12-01 Fees.

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 21 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

Definitions for language in rules governing access to confidential personal

Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-13-01
information.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-13-02 Procedures for accessing confidential personal information.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-13-03 Valid reasons for accessing confidential personal information.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-13-04 Confidentiality statutes.
Restricting and logging access to confidential personal information in computerized
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4779-13-05
personal information systems.
51 State Board of Pharmacy • Terminal Distributors of Dangerous Drugs
Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 5/8/2020 Date of Refiled Filing: 7/24/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/23/2020 Public Hearing: 6/11/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
New Rule Refiled Filing Yes No 4729:5-5-20 Remote Outpatient Prescription Processing.
New Rule Refiled Filing Yes No 4729:5-9-02.14 Remote medication order processing.
52 State Board of Pharmacy • Terminal Distributors of Dangerous Drugs
Total Rules: 3 Original Filing Date: 7/8/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/11/2020 Public Hearing: 8/12/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing Yes No 4729:5-8-02 Licensure.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4729:5-8-03 Compliance.
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4729:5-8-03 Compliance.
53 State Chiropractic Board •
Total Rules: 6 Original Filing Date: 7/10/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/13/2020 Public Hearing: 8/17/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 4734-3-01 Personal information systems definitions.
New Rule Original Filing No No 4734-3-01 Confidential personal information.
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 4734-3-02 Procedures for accessing confidential personal information.
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 4734-3-03 Valid reasons for accessing confidential personal information.
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 4734-3-04 Confidentiality laws.
Restricting and logging access to confidential personal information in computerized
Rescission Original Filing No Yes 4734-3-05
personal information systems.
54 State Medical Board •
Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 6/19/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/23/2020 Public Hearing: 7/23/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 22 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4731-35-01 Consult Agreements.

New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4731-35-02 Standards for managing drug therapy.
Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 6/19/2020 Date of Refiled Filing: 8/14/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/13/2020 Public Hearing: 7/23/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
New Rule Refiled Filing Yes No 4731-35-01 Consult Agreements.
New Rule Refiled Filing Yes No 4731-35-02 Standards for managing drug therapy.
55 State Medical Board •
Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 6/19/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/23/2020 Public Hearing: 7/23/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing Yes No 4731-33-01 Definitions.
Standards and procedures for withdrawal management for drug or alcohol
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4731-33-02
addiction.
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/19/2020 Date of Refiled Filing: 8/14/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/13/2020 Public Hearing: 7/23/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Standards and procedures for withdrawal management for drug or alcohol
New Rule Refiled Filing Yes No 4731-33-02
addiction.
56 State Medical Board •
Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 6/19/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 7/16/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/23/2020 Public Hearing: 7/23/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Revised Filing Yes Yes 4731-11-01 Definitions.
Amendment Revised Filing Yes No 4731-11-14 Prescribing for subacute and chronic pain.
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/19/2020 Date of Refiled Filing: 8/14/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/13/2020 Public Hearing: 7/23/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Refiled Filing Yes Yes 4731-11-01 Definitions.
57 State Medical Board - Physician Assistant Licensing •
Total Rules: 8 Original Filing Date: 6/19/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/23/2020 Public Hearing: 7/23/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing Yes No 4730-1-06 Licensure as a physician assistant.
Amendment Original Filing Yes No 4730-1-07 Miscellaneous provisions.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4730-1-08 Physician assistant delegation of medical tasks and administration of drugs.
Amendment Original Filing Yes No 4730-2-04 Period of on-site supervision of physician-delegated prescriptive authority.

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 23 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

Amendment Original Filing Yes No 4730-2-05 Addition of valid prescriber number after initial licensure.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4730-2-06 Physician assistant formulary.
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4730-2-07 Standards for prescribing.
Standards and procedures for review of "Ohio Automated Rx Reporting
Amendment Original Filing Yes No 4730-2-10
System" (OARRS).
58 State Medical Board - Physician Assistant Licensing •
Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 6/19/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/23/2020 Public Hearing: 7/23/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing Yes No 4730-4-01 Definitions.
Standards and procedures for withdrawal management for drug or alcohol
New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4730-4-02
addiction.
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/19/2020 Date of Refiled Filing: 8/14/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 9/13/2020 Public Hearing: 7/23/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Standards and procedures for withdrawal management for drug or alcohol
New Rule Refiled Filing Yes No 4730-4-02
addiction.
59 Unemployment Compensation Review Commission •
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 5/22/2020 Date of Refiled Filing: 7/31/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/30/2020 Public Hearing: 7/1/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Refiled Filing No Yes 4146-5-08 Documents to be considered in telephone hearings.

To Be Refiled
60 Department of Aging •
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/29/2020 Date of To Be Refiled: 8/13/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: Public Hearing: 8/4/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment To Be Refiled Yes Yes 173-39-04 ODA provider certification: structural compliance reviews.
61 Department of Public Safety • Private Investigator Security Guard Services
Total Rules: 4 Original Filing Date: 6/26/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/30/2020 Public Hearing: 7/28/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-06 Required experience.
Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-11 Records.

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 24 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

Rescission Original Filing Yes Yes 4501:7-1-12 Uniforms.

New Rule Original Filing Yes No 4501:7-1-12 Uniforms, vehicles, and publications.
Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/26/2020 Date of Revised Filing: 7/27/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: 8/30/2020 Public Hearing: 7/28/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
New Rule Revised Filing Yes No 4501:7-1-11 Records.
62 Ohio Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Athletic Trainers Board •
Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 7/15/2020 Date of To Be Refiled: 7/20/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: Public Hearing: 8/19/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
New Rule To Be Refiled Yes No 4755-62-01 Definition of terms.
New Rule To Be Refiled Yes No 4755-62-02 Device-related and scope of practice definitions.
63 Power Siting Board •
Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 6/17/2020 Date of To Be Refiled: 7/20/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: Public Hearing:
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment To Be Refiled Yes No 4906-4-09 Regulations associated with wind farms.
New Rule To Be Refiled Yes No 4906-4-10 Notice and reports of incidents involving wind farm facilities.

Withdrawn
64 Department of Administrative Services • Division of EEO for Construction
Total Rules: 15 Original Filing Date: 7/10/2020 Date of Withdrawn Filing: 7/22/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: Public Hearing: 8/10/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
New Rule Withdrawn Filing Yes No 123:2-14-01 Definitions.
New Rule Withdrawn Filing Yes No 123:2-14-02 Certification criteria.
New Rule Withdrawn Filing Yes No 123:2-14-03 Recertification.
New Rule Withdrawn Filing Yes No 123:2-14-04 Expedited certification.
New Rule Withdrawn Filing Yes No 123:2-14-05 Joint venture.
New Rule Withdrawn Filing Yes No 123:2-14-06 Commercially useful function.
New Rule Withdrawn Filing Yes No 123:2-14-07 Revocation.
New Rule Withdrawn Filing Yes No 123:2-14-08 Adjudication hearings.
New Rule Withdrawn Filing No No 123:2-14-09 EDGE procurement goals.

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 25 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

New Rule Withdrawn Filing Yes No 123:2-14-10 Demonstration of good faith effort to include EDGE business participation.
New Rule Withdrawn Filing No No 123:2-14-11 Annual expenditure projection report.
New Rule Withdrawn Filing No No 123:2-14-12 Quarterly expenditure report.
New Rule Withdrawn Filing No No 123:2-14-13 EDGE participation goals in solicitations and contracts.
New Rule Withdrawn Filing No No 123:2-14-14 EDGE data collection.
New Rule Withdrawn Filing No No 123:2-14-15 Monitoring waiver compliance.
65 Department of Administrative Services • Division of EEO for Construction
Total Rules: 22 Original Filing Date: 7/10/2020 Date of Withdrawn Filing: 7/22/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: Public Hearing: 8/10/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Rescission Withdrawn Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-01 Application for certification as a minority business enterprise.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-02 Bid notifications and specifications concerning minority business enterprises.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-03 Minority set aside review board established.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-04 Application to the minority set aside review board.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-05 Minority set aside review board procedures for emergency contracts.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing Yes Yes 123:2-15-06 Minority set aside review board notice of meetings.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-01 Definitions.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-02 Certification criteria.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-03 Certification of business structure.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-04 Expedited certification.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-05 Recertification.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-06 Decertification and revocation.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-07 Adjudication hearings.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing No Yes 123:2-16-08 Edge participation goals.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-09 Demonstration of good faith effort to include EDGE business participation.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing No Yes 123:2-16-10 Annual expenditure projection report.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing No Yes 123:2-16-11 Quarterly expenditure report.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing No Yes 123:2-16-12 Proposals.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing No Yes 123:2-16-13 EDGE data collection.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-14 Joint venture.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing Yes Yes 123:2-16-15 Commercially useful function.
Rescission Withdrawn Filing No Yes 123:2-16-16 Monitoring waiver compliance.

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 26 • 8/17/2020
 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW
FINAL AGENDA 8/17/2020 - 1:30 P.M. FINAL AGENDA
Senate Finance Hearing Room (Finan Hearing Room)

66 Ohio Respiratory Care Board •

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 6/19/2020 Date of Withdrawn Filing: 8/5/2020 Jurisdiction Ends: Public Hearing: 7/23/2020
Rule Type Action CSI FYR Rule Number Rule Title
Amendment Withdrawn Filing Yes No 4761-9-04 Ohio respiratory care law and professional ethics course criteria.

Click on the rule number in blue above to view the rule in its entirety on the Register of Ohio website.

JCARR 77 South High Street • Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us • Page 27 • 8/17/2020