5 Colo. Code Regs. § 1002-11.56
The provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes, section 25-1.5-202, provides specific statutory authority for adoption of these regulatory amendments. The Commission also adopted, in compliance with section 24-4-103(4), CRS, the following statement of basis and purpose.
BASIS AND PURPOSE
The Water Quality Control Commission (the "Commission") has adopted a revised version of the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations (CPDWR), 5 CCR 1002 -11 with the objective of improving clarity and readability. The revised version replaces the CPDWR 5 CCR 1003-1 effective November 30, 2010 which has been repealed in this rulemaking. The changes to the CPDWR are not substantive and are not intended to create any new or different requirements for public water systems. The revisions are intended to make the CPDWR easier to understand, comply with, and implement. Additionally, public health is better served by regulations that are clear and as easy to read and understand as possible.
This rulemaking was in response to longstanding issues with interpretation and comprehension of the previous regulations. It also is in response to and complies with a State executive order regarding improving regulations and regulatory review. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper's Executive Order D 2012-002 - Regulatory Efficiency Reviews orders that "agencies shall consider whether each rule:
As a result, the Commission simplified and clarified the language of the CPDWR by applying acknowledged plain language and reader expectation principles, including: shorter sentences, active voice, consistent terms, and proper definitions, among other useful tools. In the revisions the Commission applied the use of the terms "must" and "shall" in different and purposeful ways. "Must" means a person or thing is required to meet a condition for a consequence to apply and is used in regards to requirements the supplier is required to comply with. "Shall" means a person has duty to do something and is used in regards to Department action. These writing style changes make the CPDWR more transparent and easier to consistently interpret. While it was the Commission's intent not to change the substantive meaning of the regulations in this rulemaking, in cases where there was ambiguity the revised language reflects the Commission's interpretation of the previous regulations based on EPA guidance documents and the experience of the Commission and its staff.
In an effort to provide clarity and accuracy the following revisions were also made:
- Removed outdated requirements
- Added missing references
- Corrected or removed obsolete references
- Removed obsolete dates
- Corrected spelling and typographical errors
The Commission maintained the overall structure of the CPDWR which is organized in multiple sections by rule. The previous version of the CPDWR contained articles that covered multiple rules. The revised CPDWR was renumbered to be consistent with other Commission regulations. This revision creates shorter, more focused sections which in turn allow readers to more easily comprehend the content of each section. Certain articles and content were eliminated by directly referencing federal language (i.e., BATs and analytical methods). As a result, the total page count has been reduced by nearly 20 percent.
Within each rule, the Commission reorganized the requirements in a logical and chronological order. This new structure is consistent throughout the revised CPDWR so that readers can easily discern applicable requirements.
These amendments to the CPWDR were developed in consultation with stakeholders. Stakeholders were provided multiple opportunities to express comments and concerns regarding the drafts of these revisions. These revisions have addressed all of those comments. An advisory group of diverse stakeholder volunteers assisted in detailed reviews of all the language adopted in these revisions.
Colorado Springs Utilities ("Utilities") raised legitimate issues related to the Cross-Connection Control Rule in its Responsive Prehearing Statement to this rulemaking. The Water Quality Control Division ("Division") was only able to resolve some of Utilities' concerns because many of the issues raised by Utilities were outside of the scope of this rulemaking. As such, the Commission is providing this information in order to clarify its intended interpretation of the Cross-Connection Control Rule until it is revised in a future rulemaking hearing:
- The definition of Cross-Connection does not apply to cross-connections inside a consumer's water system. In the CPDWR "Cross-Connection" is defined as any connection that could allow flow that does not meet drinking water standards into the public water system from either a consumer's water system, a pipe, or a plumbing fixture. Any connections that do not connect directly to the public water system and therefore could not allow water to flow into the public water system, do not fall within this definition.
- The CPDWR have requirements that apply to all cross-connections, and additional specific requirements that apply only to service cross connections. This distinction was often overlooked and as result a definition was added for Service Cross Connection to make the distinction more evident. The CPDWR requires the supplier to comply with both the requirements of sections 11.37 and 11.37 . The requirements of section 11.37 apply to all types of cross-connections, whereas the requirements of section 11.37 apply only to service cross connections.
- The Division has explained its expectations on how cross connections should be controlled in its guidance "Water Quality Control Division, Quick Guide to Non-Community Public Water System Cross-Connection Control." The guidance explains, "[t]o ensure the device is consistent with the degree of hazard[,] [t]he Department expects that cross-connections be controlled with: air gaps, reduced pressure zone assemblies (RPZ,), pressure vacuum breakers (device shall not be subject to back pressure), double check valve assemblies (in instances where there is not adequate drainage for a RPZ or is subject to flooding or where retro fits create an unreasonable burden) or where the device is installed in accordance with the local jurisdictional plumbing code. The Department highly recommends that devices should be either ASSE or USC-FCCC&HR certified."
- The supplier has various options to ensure that control device testing is conducted annually. Several communities have met this requirement by supplier-provided testing, billing the customer for testing, or termination of water service in the event of failure to test, as examples.
The Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations are amended as follows:
All requirements from the November 30, 2010 CPDWR have been repealed.
The requirements in these revisions are intended to be a complete and accurate replacement for the requirements of the previous 2010 CPDWR.
In order for the State of Colorado to maintain primacy over implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Commission must adopt regulations that are no less stringent than the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. The intent of this rulemaking was to not diminish stringency, especially concerning any provisions that are adopted to maintain primacy
In the past, the Commission has also adopted Colorado-specific requirements. It is the intent of the Commission that the revisions adopted in this rulemaking did not diminish the stringency of these Colorado-specific provisions.
If it is determined in the future that there has been a diminishment in stringency or other unintended substantive change, the Commission is prepared to amend the regulations in a timely manner to meet the intent of this rulemaking.
PARTIES TO THE RULEMAKING
5 CCR 1002-11.56