WSR 99-04-034

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY


[ Filed January 26, 1999, 2:10 p.m. ]

The Department of Ecology, in compliance with Executive Order 97-02, hereby gives notice of the opportunity to comment1 on the following rules: Chapter 173-325 WAC, Low-level radioactive waste disposal and chapter 173-326 WAC, Commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal-site use permits.

1 Comments received are for the purpose of this rule review and will not be considered a petition under RCW 34.05.330.

All comments must be received, in writing, by March 17, 1999 and addressed to: Jerry Thielen, Agency Rules Coordinator, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, fax (360) 407-6989, e-mail jthi461@ecy.wa.gov.

Comments should specifically address the following elements of the rule:

NEED

Is this rule necessary to comply with statutes that authorize it?
Is this rule obsolete, duplicative, or ambiguous to a degree that warrants repeal or revision?
Have laws or circumstances changed so that the rule should be amended or repealed?
Is the rule necessary to protect or safeguard the health, welfare, or safety of Washington's citizens?
EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY

Is this rule providing results that it was originally designed to achieve in a reasonable manner?
Are there regulatory alternatives or new technologies that could more effectively or efficiently achieve the same objectives?
CLARITY

Is this rule written and organized in a clear and concise manner so that it can be readily understood by those to whom it applies?
INTENT AND STATUTORY AUTHORITY

Is this rule consistent with the legislative intent of the statutes that authorize it?
Is this rule based upon sufficient statutory authority?
Is there a need to develop a more specific legislative authorization in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Washington's citizens?
COORDINATION

Could additional consultation and coordination with other governmental jurisdictions and state agencies with similar regulatory authority eliminate or reduce duplication and inconsistency?
COST

Have qualitative and quantitative benefits of the rule been considered to relation to its costs?
FAIRNESS

Does this rule result in equitable treatment of those required to comply with it?
Should it be modified to eliminate or minimize any disproportionate impacts on the regulated community?
Should it be strengthened to provide additional protection?

Washington State Code Reviser's Office