5 Colo. Code Regs. § 1002-61.48
The provisions of sections 25-8-202, 25-8-401, 25-8-501.1, and 25-8-504, C.R.S., provide the specific statutory authority for the amendments to this regulation adopted by the Commission. The Commission has also adopted, in compliance with section 24-4-103(4), C.R.S., the following statement of basis and purpose.
BASIS AND PURPOSE:
Amendment 14, approved by Colorado voters on November 3, 1998, adds a new section 25-8-501.1 to the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, and amends section 25-8-504. These provisions establish a new requirement that an individual discharge permit be obtained by any person who operates, constructs, or expands a "housed commercial swine feeding operation." In this rulemaking hearing, the Commission adopted revisions to the Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations to implement these new requirements. In addition, corresponding revisions were adopted for the Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation, Regulation #81 (5 CCR 1002-81) to avoid regulatory overlap.
On February 9, 1999, the Commission took final action on a subset of the issues raised in the rulemaking hearing, specifically the proposed new definitions in section 61.2 . This Statement of Basis and Purpose describes the remainder of the Commission's actions as a result of this rulemaking, as finalized on March 9, 1999.
In general, the Commission adopted regulatory provisions that closely track the language of Amendment 14, which already spells out many of the details of the new permitting requirements for housed commercial swine feeding operations. Additional detail and clarifications have been added where appropriate to establish a practical, efficient and predictable system for the implementation of these new requirements.
Amendment 14 requires that the Commission, on or before March 31, 1999, promulgate "rules necessary to ensure the issuance and effective administration of permits under this section by July 1, 1999." Section 25-8-501.1(4), C.R.S. In order to comply with this ambitious deadline, the Commission established a permitting structure that requires submission of initial permit applications by existing facilities by April 15, 1999, and contemplates issuance of the first round of permits to existing facilities by July 1, 1999. Although the April 15 deadline is little more than two weeks after the legal effective date of these new regulatory provisions, the Commission understands that the application forms for existing facilities will be available shortly after the Commission has taken final action in this rulemaking and approximately one month before this deadline. The permits issued prior to July 1 will establish an initial set of requirements for existing housed commercial swine feeding operations, to assure that the mandates of Amendment 14 are satisfied.
The Commission established separate deadlines for existing facilities to submit construction, operations, and swine waste management plans, financial assurance plans, and monitoring plans. The rationale for the timing of each of these documents is summarized below. The Commission has included in the regulation an opportunity for public review and comment on each of the plans submitted by existing operations. Because the provisions of the plans will become binding on permittees once approved by the Division, prior to actual amendment of the operations' permits, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to allow public input at this point in the process. At any time after the permittee submits some or all of these documents, the Division may reopen the permit issued to a facility to incorporate elements of the plan as permit requirements as appropriate. The permit modification process will provide an additional opportunity for public input relative to permit requirements to implement the provisions of the plans.
New facilities must submit permit applications 180 days prior to beginning construction of facilities for such operations. The Commission included an option for a permit application for a new facility to be submitted closer to the commencement of construction, with the approval of the Division following a pre-application meeting. This flexibility is intended to accommodate considerations such as the timing of financing of a new operation. However, the Commission left this option to the Division's discretion, due to its need to assure the completeness of a facility's planning and information development efforts prior to formal application submission, in order to be able to determine that it will be able to complete the formal permit processing in a shorter time period. This determination will also need to take into account the realities of the Division's workload at any given time. New facilities must submit construction, operations and swine waste management plans, financial assurance plans, and monitoring plans with the permit application. This timing will allow the Division to include all necessary requirements for new facilities to comply with Amendment 14 in the initial permit, so that all site-specific fine-tuning to meet the regulatory requirements occurs before operations begin.
In accordance with section 25-8-501.1(7), C.R.S. the Commission has established an annual permit fee of 20 cents per animal for swine at each housed commercial swine feeding operation covered by a separate permit, to offset the costs of administering the housed commercial swine feeding operation program. The Commission believes that it is reasonable to impose a fee on the number of animals at each separately permitted operation, even if the same animals were subject to a fee when housed at a separate operation during a different stage of the life cycle, since there are additional administrative and oversight costs associated with each permitted operation. The Commission has excluded unweaned swine in determining the number of animals on which a fee is to be based, in view of evidence regarding standard agricultural industry practice of not counting piglets separately from the sow until they are weaned. In view of the anticipated workload to implement the extensive requirements of Amendment 14, it appears that the funds generated by this fee plus additional resources will be needed to implement the water quality protection aspects of the program.
Testimony presented during the hearing described existing family farms that have added housed swine feeding operations within the last several years. Some of these operations are not themselves capable of housing 800,000 pounds of swine, but are considered to be under common or affiliated ownership or management (1) solely because of their membership in an agricultural cooperative that itself qualifies as a housed commercial swine feeding operation, or (2) because the operation contracts to produce swine for an affiliated agricultural cooperative. The Commission concluded in the Statement of Basis and Purpose accompanying the February 1999 adoption of definitions to implement Amendment 14 that such operations meet the statutory definition of "common or affiliated ownership or management." The Commission recognizes, though, that these operations face a substantial financial and management challenge to come into compliance with the requirements of Amendment 14, especially considering the cumulative air and water quality requirements. Therefore, the Commission provided an initial four-year deferral period for the existing cooperative members and contract producers that meet the definition of a housed commercial swine feeding operation.
During this initial deferral period, the Commission intends that the Division will work with the operations covered by this deferral and other interested persons to assess whether, how and in what circumstances a deferral should be extended for some or all of these facilities. The Commission intends to conduct a new rulemaking hearing prior to the expiration of the initial deferral period to consider potential changes to the regulation based on the results of the Division's assessment. This assessment of potential revisions to the regulation should consider appropriate criteria for a longer-term deferral for some operations, taking into consideration the extent of potential risk to water quality and the economic burden of compliance with these regulations. It should also consider potential information requirements for operations that seek to be covered by the longer-term deferral.
Existing facilities must submit construction plans with the initial permit application. Since these plans will reflect structures already in place, the regulation allows existing facilities until July 1, 2000 to make any necessary changes to assure that the facility design and construction and water quality setback requirements of the regulation are met. The water quality setback requirements established are not extremely restrictive, and the Commission believes that they generally reflect minimum reasonable separations necessary to assure water quality protection. However, the Commission included a variance provision in the regulation for existing structures at existing facilities, to account for circumstances where a particular permittee may be able to demonstrate that its facilities or structures do not pose a risk to water quality even though the setback requirements are not met. The Commission believes that this provision is appropriate since existing facilities have fewer options for modification of their operations, so long as protection of water quality is still documented. The Commission determined as a matter of policy that it is reasonable to expect all new operations to meet the setback requirements, since they are able to plan for such compliance in advance.
The Commission selected the specific construction requirements established in the regulation for all facilities to reflect the best available waste management practices. For swine feeding process wastewater collection systems, conveyance systems, and impoundments, the Commission chose a 1 x 106 cm/sec maximum seepage rate, consistent with the existing requirements for other confined animal feeding operations and for wastewater impoundments regulated under the "ground water" provisions of the discharge permit regulations. The Commission does not believe that any convincing justification has been presented to establish a more stringent requirement for housed commercial swine feeding operations.
The regulation requires submission of information regarding the 100-year floodplain, which is needed to determine compliance with the floodplain setback requirement. Where the floodplain has not already been identified and designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the owner or operator will need to provide adequate technical information for a floodplain evaluation. The floodplain rules adopted by the CWCB establish standards that can be used to determine information that would be considered adequate for this purpose.
The regulation requires submittal of an operations plan for existing facilities by July 1, 1999, and a swine waste management plan by September 30, 1999. Because these plans provide the primary information to assure compliance with the requirements of Amendment 14, including application of wastes to land at an agronomic rate, it is important that these plans be submitted expeditiously. However, the Commission determined that it would not be realistic for such plans to be submitted, reviewed and approved in time to meet the July 1, 1999, deadline for the issuance of permits. Accordingly, the initial permits will include general requirements to assure that the major provisions of Amendment 14 are met, including a requirement limiting land application to the agronomic rate. These requirements will then be fine-tuned as appropriate through incorporation in the permit of aspects of the subsequently approved site-specific operations and swine waste management plans.
In order to assure that implementation of the statutory provisions occurs as expeditiously as practical, the Commission has added a requirement that existing facilities submit "readily available information" regarding existing swine waste management practices with the initial permit application. The Commission believes that it is reasonable to expect that all facilities will have some level of documentation available regarding these practices. Operations established since 1992 that meet the definition of a "concentrated animal feeding operation" under the Commission's current Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation were already required to have a "manure and process wastewater management plan" in place.
The operation and maintenance requirements established are all targeted at protection of water quality and are intended to reflect the best available waste management practices. There was considerable disagreement among parties to the hearing as to whether land application of manure or swine feeding process wastewater should be prohibited in certain circumstances, such as when the ground is frozen. The Commission adopted provisions intended to avoid land application that will adversely impact water quality, without establishing blanket prohibitions that would not allow utilization of common and accepted agricultural practices, such as applying some fertilizer after the conclusion of a growing season. The regulation does include a blanket prohibition of some activities that are not considered common and accepted agricultural practices, such as application to lands that are saturated or covered with snow, or where ponding is occurring. The Commission also decided that land application of residual solids and swine feeding process wastewater (A) more than thirty days before and after the normal growing season for the crop in question, or (B) outside of the period from March 1 through October 31, whichever is less restrictive, should be prohibited in the absence of a site-specific analysis, since such application is not standard agricultural practice. To address this concern, any such application must be included In approved odor management, swine waste management, and monitoring plans. The specific provisions adopted are based on recommendations from experts at Colorado State University. The Commission notes that Amendment 14, in the definition of "agronomic rate of application", specifically recognizes the expertise of Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Service.
The swine waste management land application requirements established are also targeted at protection of water quality and are intended to reflect the best available waste management practices. Several specific provisions included in the regulation establish an operational definition for compliance with the agronomic rate requirement. In establishing these requirements, the Commission relied heavily on input from experts at Colorado State University. The comments submitted raised questions regarding several of these requirements.
There was disagreement in the testimony provided as to whether the provision limiting application when the cumulative soil nitrate-nitrogen level in the two one-foot increments monitored below the root zone exceeds a specified level is appropriate. The Commission believes that this provision is reasonable, especially since it is not stated as an absolute prohibition, but only as a restriction that applies unless the Division has approved a swine waste management plan that it determines will not result in an increase in the levels of nutrients below the root zone. The specific level stated in the regulation (160 pounds per acre) is a representative agronomic rate for a range of crops. If nutrients exceeding this level are present below the root zone, a problem exists that needs to be addressed by more conservative site-specific planning.
Some hearing participants also raised questions about the provision in earlier drafts of the proposed regulation that would have limited further land application if the soil nitrate-nitrogen level in any one-foot increment below the root zone exceeds a comparative concentration based on previous site conditions by greater than five milligrams per kilogram. In particular, they argued that five milligrams per kilogram is not enough of a difference to avoid confusion with natural variability. Although the Commission believes that the evidence submitted demonstrates that this difference is reliable to differentiate from natural variability with good sampling techniques the Commission decided that it was not appropriate to establish a regulatory restriction at a difference of five milligrams per kilogram in view of the large number of samples that would be required from each field to achieve a reliable result. The Commission has retained a provision that requires land application to be ceased if soil nitrate-nitrogen levels below the root zone exceed the comparative concentration by ten milligrams per kilogram, until the Division has approved a revised swine waste management plan. An opportunity is provided for confirmation sampling after an initial exceedance, to assure that results are accurate before requiring that land application cease. The Commission believes that this combination of provisions provides a reasonable set of checks to help assure that the agronomic rate requirement is being met.
Concerns were raised by some parties as to whether the provision limiting land application if sodium bicarbonate extractable phosphorus in the top one foot of soil exceeds 100 mg/kg was stringent enough to avoid surface runoff with excessive phosphorus levels. The Commission believes that this provision is appropriate, since it is consistent with recommendations by experts from Colorado State University and with a similar requirement established in the Colorado Biosolids Regulation.
One of the provisions that is intended to assure protection of water quality is a set of cumulative loading limits for several metals. These limits are the same as those adopted for the land application of biosolids (municipal wastewater treatment plant sludge) under current federal requirements. The regulation requires an initial screening of residual solids and swine feeding process wastewater to determine if any of these constituents is present at significant levels. If not, there is no requirement that ongoing monitoring for these constituents occur. In order to avoid unnecessary requirements, the Commission has included language providing for a waiver of the monitoring requirements for metals if the permittee demonstrates that there is no reasonable potential for contamination from particular metals at the permitted facility.
The Commission also received a proposal that requirements for disinfection or other pretreatment controls for pathogenic organisms be established in the regulation. The Commission has declined to do so at this time. No substantial evidence was submitted to indicate that pathogens in residual solids and swine feeding process wastewater applied in compliance with this regulation pose a significant human health risk. In the absence of such evidence, the Commission does not believe that it is appropriate to establish an additional set of requirements for housed commercial swine feeding operations based solely on the fact that the potential for such a risk has not been disproved. The Commission also notes that other requirements included in the regulation, such as setbacks and monitoring for biological indicator parameters, provide protection against human health risks.
A number of comments addressed the requirements related to off-site land application of swine waste, i.e. application on lands not owned by the housed commercial swine feeding operation. For example, some producers proposed that the responsibility for assuring compliance with an agronomic rate of application should be on the third party that is applying the waste. However, the statute specifically puts the responsibility on the "owner or operator" of a housed commercial swine feeding operation to assure that "no solid or liquid waste generated by it shall be applied to land by any person" (emphasis added) in a manner that exceeds the agronomic rate.
Concern was also expressed regarding the provisions requiring assurance of Division access to third party lands where application occurs. The Commission believes that such access is essential to successful implementation of this program. The Commission has included three provisions to address this concern: a requirement that permittees notify off-site landowners of the Division's authority to enter and inspect premises, a requirement that new agreements (entered into after March 30, 1999) with landowners provide a right of entry to the Division, and a requirement that the permittee cease land application on any off-site lands to which the Division is denied entry. The Commission believes that these provisions reasonably balance the concern of not mandating changes to existing contracts with off-site landowners; with the concern of assuring the Division's ability to effectively administer this program.
A number of comments recommended that the Commission should limit the application of irrigation water to lands where swine waste is applied. The Commission declined to include this type of limitation in the regulation. The rate of application of water has some impact on whether an agronomic rate will be met. However, the Commission believes that the regulation includes adequate provisions (such as those discussed above, as well as preparation of and compliance with the swine waste management plan itself) to assure that an operation is complying with the agronomic rate requirement Moreover, the Commission's authority to directly regulate the quantity of water applied to lands pursuant to Colorado water rights is strictly limited by the provisions of section 25-8-104, C.R.S. As a matter of policy, the Commission chose to rely on other provisions to implement Amendment 14, rather than attempt to regulate water quantity management.
As noted above in the discussion of definitions, the Commission added a provision exempting "non-land-application facilities" from the requirement to submit a swine waste management plan, to avoid unnecessary regulation of facilities that are not land applying wastes. The Commission has included provisions requiring that such operations submit documentation with their permit applications that they meet the definition of a non-land-application facility.
Section 25-8-501.1(4)(d) requires housed commercial swine feeding operations to "provide financial assurance for the final closure of [such facilities], the conduct of any necessary post closure activities, the undertaking of any corrective action made necessary by migration of contaminants from the... operation into the soil and groundwater, or cleanup of any spill or breach." To implement this requirement, the regulation requires all housed commercial swine feeding operations to provide financial assurance for closure and post-closure activities. Calculation of the required amount of financial assurance is to be based on hiring a third party to close the operation, assuming that the operation is operating at the maximum capacity anticipated during the permit term.
The regulation requires that financial assurance for corrective actions be provided only if the Division determines that existing conditions at an operation create a reasonable potential to cause contamination, as defined in the regulation. The Commission believes that this approach is more reasonable than requiring all operations to provide financial assurance for some hypothetical corrective action before any need for a specific corrective action is identified.
While recognizing the need for posting of financial assurances, the Commission is aware of the potentially significant costs associated with this requirement and does not intend that it create an undue financial burden upon producers. The amount of required financial assurances will, of course, be a case-by-case determination based upon site-specific factors, with specific reference to the reasonable potential for risk to surface and/or ground water presented by a given operation. In the case of properly managed operations, the amount posted as financial assurances to meet closure, post-closure, and corrective action requirements may be fairly small. It is not the intent of the Commission that closure and post-closure activities extend beyond those necessary to ensure that any remaining regulated waste product does not pose a measurable risk to ground water or surface water.
The regulation lists acceptable forms of financial assurance, but also allows the use of other mechanisms approved by the Division. The Commission attempted to preserve flexibility in implementing these requirements by not being extremely prescriptive in the regulation as to the specific instruments to be used, but has included a general requirement that all financial assurance instruments include wording approved by the Division to ensure that financial assurance remains adequate. The Commission intends that in determining appropriate wording the Division will draw on language from existing financial assurance requirements for other environmental programs.
The regulation requires that new facilities submit a financial assurance plan with their permit application, and that existing facilities submit their financial assurance plan at the same time as the site-specific monitoring plan, as discussed below. Permittees must provide the required financial assurance within 90 days of the Division's approval of the financial assurance plan. The regulation mandates an annual update of financial assurance for a facility, although the Division can also require an adjustment at any time that it determines that the current financial assurance is insufficient. No financial assurance update is required for years in which there have been no material changes in relevant aspects of the operation and cumulative inflation since the last update does not exceed five percent. The Commission rejected proposals that financial assurance updates be required only every five years, because of its concern that financial resource needs related to closure and post-closure could change substantially during that time period. A requirement for annual updates is common in financial assurance requirements for other environmental programs. The provision stating that no update is required if there have not been material changes or significant inflation should avoid the need for unnecessary updates.
The regulation also sets forth provisions regarding release from financial assurance requirements and potential forfeiture of financial assurance instruments. A default minimum three-year period is established for the Division to retain a portion of the financial assurance following closure, to provide for post-closure requirements. However, flexibility has been included for the Division to determine on a case-specific basis that a shorter period of time is appropriate. The Division may also release portions of any financial assurance required for corrective actions when it concludes that parts of the corrective action have been satisfactorily completed, in order to reduce the costs of maintaining financial assurance to permittees. Each of these elements has been modeled on existing financial assurance programs related to other environmental protection requirements. The Commission believes that each of these elements is necessary to assure a workable program that meets the purposes of the statutory provisions.
The regulation includes initial monitoring and reporting requirements for existing facilities, to satisfy the requirements of section 25-8-501.1(6), C.R.S. The regulation also requires existing operations to submit a site-specific monitoring plan by December 31, 1999. New operations must submit such a plan with their permit application. The Commission determined that the submission of these plans is appropriate to allow for fine-tuning of site-specific monitoring efforts, rather than rely in the long run on a fixed set of monitoring requirements for all facilities. At the same time, the initial monitoring requirements contained in the regulation will assure that adequate information to meet the requirements of Amendment 14 is developed prior to the review and approval of the site-specific plans.
The regulation requires the development of baseline information regarding both the levels of nitrogen in soils and the levels of various constituents in residual solids and swine feeding process wastewater. This information is necessary to assess potential impacts of the operation over time. The regulation also requires a redetermination of a "comparative concentration" of nitrate-nitrogen in soils below the root zone annually, to assess whether land application activities are resulting in nitrogen moving past the root zone in any year.
One of the issues that received extensive consideration in the rulemaking process is the specification of required depths for soil monitoring. Based on input from the parties and the recommendations of experts from Colorado State University, the Commission established a set of requirements that it believes are reasonable and appropriate to assure long-term protection of water quality without imposing undue expense and burden on permittees.
Another concern expressed during this rulemaking was how the statutory requirement for quarterly monitoring would be interpreted. The Commission included language to clarify that this frequency is not required when it would not be practical due to physical conditions (such as frozen or saturated ground) or when it is likely to result in excessive crop damage. The Commission believes that it is appropriate to apply the statutory requirement for quarterly monitoring in this manner to assure that it is not applied in a way that is unreasonable, counter-productive or overly burdensome. The Commission also provided flexibility to tailor the intensity of monitoring to site-specific circumstances based on the frequency of land application and the quantity of nutrients applied relative to the agronomic rate. The Commission believes that this is appropriate to assure that monitoring practices are cost-effective and well-tailored to individual operations,
Another type of reporting requirement established in the regulation is the requirement to report "any spill or contamination. "The Commission has clarified the application of this requirement by providing that "de minimis" spills need not be reported if the permittee has proposed and the Division has approved a site-specific interpretation of "de minimis" for the operation in question. While the Commission recognizes that certain small spills need not be reported if they pose no reasonable potential for an adverse impact on water quality, it does not appear feasible to establish a blanket definition of "de minimis."
Amendment 14 establishes specific requirements applicable to housed commercial swine feeding operations located on State Land Board trust lands. Section 25-8-501.1(4)(f). Specifically, the construction, operations and waste management plans for such facilities "shall not permit the degradation of the physical attributes or value" of such lands. To implement this provision, the Commission has established requirements that operations on state lands (1) not degrade soil below the root zone or state waters above background or baseline quality, as applicable, (2) assure that swine waste process wastewater collection systems, conveyance systems and impoundments meet a 1 x 107 maximum seepage rate, and (3) provide for site closure that includes revegetation to prevent erosion.
Each of these additional requirements is imposed to assure protection of water quality on state lands. The corresponding monitoring and financial assurance requirements adopted should help ensure that these requirements are met. For new operations on state lands, background is to be determined based on soil and ground water conditions that have not been impacted by such operations. For existing operations on state lands, baseline conditions are to be determined based on soil and ground water conditions present as of the effective date of these new regulatory provisions. The purpose for this distinction is to avoid an application of new requirements to existing conditions that may be extremely difficult to alter. The Commission does not believe that Amendment 14 requires remediation of existing soil contamination. However, this determination of existing baseline conditions will be used to prohibit further degradation of soils or ground water quality. For example, any worsening of ground water quality that occurred following the determination of baseline conditions would be a violation of the regulation, even if caused by the migration of contamination already present in soils at the time that this program is established.
The regulation requires the Division to provide the State Land Board an opportunity to review and comment on all plans submitted for operations on state trust lands, and prohibits; Division approval of a plan if the State Land Board determines that the plan would permit the degradation of the physical attributes or value of any state trust lands. The Commission believes that this should assure that this new program does not impinge on the State Land Board's constitutional role with respect to state trust lands.
Amendment 14 establishes both water quality and air quality protection requirements. In developing the new water quality discharge permit regulations for housed commercial swine feeding operations, the Commission attempted to coordinate these requirements to the maximum degree possible with the new requirements being developed by the Air Quality Control Commission. Such coordination will best serve the interests of the regulated community, the general public, and the implementing agencies. In particular, the Commission adopted definitions that are also proposed as part of the new air quality regulations for housed commercial swine feeding operations and established application deadlines consistent with those proposed for air quality, to maximize coordination of permit application review and permit issuance.
Concern was expressed by a number of parties to the hearing regarding the costs of complying with the new requirements established for housed commercial swine feeding operations. A wide range of potential cost estimates was provided. The Commission attempted to adopt regulatory requirements that are as economically reasonable as possible, consistent with the many very specific requirements of Amendment 14. Where the statute provides room for flexibility, the Commission included flexibility with respect to implementation of specific aspects of the program, to the degree that it believes is consistent with meeting the intent expressed in the legislative declaration of Amendment 14, and keeping in mind the need to establish a program that will be feasible for the Water Quality Control Division to implement with the available resources. The Commission does not believe that the proposal from some parties to include a general waiver provision that would apply to all aspects of the housed commercial swine feeding operations program is appropriate, in view of the many explicit requirements in the statute.
The Commission declined to adopt proposals from several parties to include additional provisions in the regulation concerning enforcement of the Amendment 14 requirements. The Commission has not included provisions governing the Water Quality Control Division's exercise of its enforcement discretion in any other regulations, and does not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to take a different approach here. These matters are appropriately left to the judgment of the Division on a case-by-case basis. The Commission has also not included a requested "notice of intent to sue" provision in the regulation, with respect to the provision in Amendment 14 allowing civil actions for enforcement to be brought by any person who may be adversely affected by a housed commercial swine feeding operation. This statutory provision is self-implementing. As an administrative agency, the Commission is without authority to impose procedures related to the filing or conduct of district court actions.
Finally, the Commission notes its understanding and intent that the Water Quality Control Division will coordinate with local health agencies in the implementation of the housed commercial swine feeding operation permit program, to the greatest extent feasible in view of resources available to both state and local governments. Although the Commission does not believe it is necessary or appropriate to attempt to specify the details of this relationship in the regulation, the Commission believes that such a cooperative effort will strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of this program. In particular, the Commission encourages the Division to seek local health agency assistance in implementation efforts in the field, such as conducting inspections for purposes of compliance assurance or in response to site-specific complaints.
PARTIES TO THE RULEMAKING HEARING
5 CCR 1002-61.48