5 Colo. Code Regs. § 1002-61.27
The provisions of 25-8-202(1)(d) and (2); and 25-8-501 to 504 C.R.S. provide the specific statutory authority for the amendments to this regulation adopted by the Commission. The Commission also has adopted in compliance with 24-4-103(4) C.R.S., the following statement of Basis and Purpose.
BASIS AND PURPOSE:
These revisions are primarily to provide 1) conformity with the 1988 amendments to the Colorado Water Quality Control Act as contained in House Bill 1010; 2) conformity with the September 30, 1988 revisions of 3.1.0 (5 CCR 1002-8), the Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water; 3) typographical errors and insertions for clarification; and 4) conformity with SB 83. There are, however, three additional revisions which will be discussed in specific detail.
The revisions per H.B. 1010 consist of changing the period of permit public notice from 45 days to 30 days in 6.6.2 and 6.12.0. Changes per the Basic Standards occur in 6.6.2 to address public notice of antidegradation reviews and in 6.9.2 to address the title change and stream low flow values for permit limitation derivation. The revisions per SB 83 consist of deleting reference to variances on water quality standards in 6.13.0(3) and (5). For clarification of acute limitations for whole effluent toxicity 6.9.2(2)(h) was modified, consistent with provisions of 6.9.7.
Three changes of greater significance occur in 6.7.0(4), 6.8.0(3), 6.9.3(10) and 6.9.2(2)(i). The change to 6.7.0(4) and 6.8.0(3) will allow improved program efficiency and more timely permit issuance. Existing regulation dictates the permit effective date as 30 days after issuance. Thus for renewal permits which complete processing early, the Division has delayed issuance for an effective date of the day after existing permit expiration. The revision will allow the Division to issue renewal permits more than 30 days before existing permit expiration, while citing the renewal permit effective date as the day after existing permit expiration. All other aspects for stay requests and adjudicatory requests would remain unchanged. The section has also been revised to clarify that until a permit or amendment becomes effective, operation per the provisions of the permit or amendment is unauthorized.
The changes to 6.9.3(10) are for the purpose of clarifying that permit amendments are subject to the provision of 6.7.0, such as a 30-day effective period. A portion of the section is deleted as it was repetitive.
Section 6.9.2 is amended to delete the phrase "and distribution". This revision provides consistency with intake credits as allowed by 6.9.7(4)(a)(vi). The credit is applied after treatment but does not allow the introduction of metals in the distribution system. The introduction of metals to potable water in a distribution system is typically associated with corrosive waters, as indicated by indices such as the Langlier Saturation index and the Aggressive Index. Because of human health concerns with such potable waters, EPA is in the midst of promulgating regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act to control corrosivity. At present, draft regulations have been noticed and final regulations are expected in the fall of 1989. There is also concern about metals accumulation in domestic sewage sludges where corrosive waters exist. It should be noted that technology exists to control corrosivity and would be performed prior to distribution. This accumulation has the potential to reduce a sludge grade quality and thus limit its disposal alternatives and potentially increasing disposal costs. From the water quality standards standpoint, it is appropriate for permit effluent limitations to control pollutant additions to water. As the metals are added as a result of this use and such addition may impact the beneficial uses of the receiving stream, it is appropriate that such incremental increase be subject to compliance with established water quality standards.
Finally, comments were received from the Office of Regulatory Reform (ORR), expressing concern that several specific aspects of the regulation as proposed are "unnecessary", principally because they restate information contained in statute. The Commission agrees that such duplication should be avoided to the maximum degree practical, and has made most of the changes recommended by ORR. The one exception is the reference in Section 6.6.2 to the 30 day comment period for draft permits - a time period that also appears in statute. After consideration of this issue, the Commission has determined that this duplication cannot and should not be entirely eliminated. The Commission believes that providing one document that sets forth a complete and integrated description of the discharge permit process is beneficial to the public. Merely attaching a copy of the Act to the Commission rules, or selectively reprinting portions of the statute would not serve the same purpose.
Based upon comments provided at the hearing, and the Commission's general experience, it is apparent that members of the public who use the Commission's regulations - lawyers, technical personnel, and others - typically rely on the regulations as published in the Colorado Code of Regulations (CCR). The Secretary of State has informed the Commission that statutory material separate from regulations cannot be published in CCR. Requiring the public to constantly cross-reference two documents (the regulation and the statute) would be confusing and unnecessarily burdensome. Therefore, the Commission has determined that in this instance the limited type of duplication in question is in fact necessary.
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HEARING HELD ON JULY 10, 1989
5 CCR 1002-61.27