5 Colo. Code Regs. § 1002-63.74
SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The provisions of Colorado Revised Statute sections 25-8-202(1)(c) and (2); 25-8-205(1)(b) to (d); and 25- 8-508 (1989 Repl. Vol. and 1992 Supp.) provide the specific statutory authority for this amendment to the Colorado Pretreatment Regulations adopted by the Commission. The Commission has also adopted, in compliance with Colorado Revised Statute section 24-4-103(4) (1988 Repl. Vol. and 1992 Supp.), the following Statement of Basis and Purpose.
BASIS AND PURPOSE
The Colorado Pretreatment Regulations were adopted by the Commission on April 5, 1988. These regulations represent a major component in the State's effort to secure delegation of the federal pretreatment program from EPA. Amendments to the regulations have been adopted on June 4, 1990 and on January 8, 1991. In both instances the amendments were intended to incorporate revisions which had been made to the federal pretreatment regulations into the Colorado Pretreatment Regulations. These previous amendments have also addressed issues raised by EPA as that agency has reviewed the State's draft delegation package.
The Water Quality Control Division provided EPA with a supplemental draft submittal in May, 1992. These current amendments to the regulations are intended to address those remaining issues identified in EPA's response to the 1992 submittal.
Section 4.3.10 is amended to require submittal of a POTW's Industrial Users list, or any additions or deletions to the list, as a portion of the POTW's annual pretreatment report.
A specific statement of state and federal provisions governing fraud and false statements as related to reporting requirements has been added to section 4.3.10 in lieu of a general reference to the state act. The federal act had not been previously cited relative to this section. Section 4.3.13 , formally (G)(2), contains an expanding reference to the federal provisions applicable to fraud and false statements.
Sections 4.3.11 allows the Division to require a POTW which has no approved local program to develop local limits. Previously the regulation allowed the Division to require local limit development only after instances of pass-through or interference had occurred. This amendment extends that authority so as to allow local limit development to be required in instances where reasonable potential for pass-through or interference exists.
EPA had raised a concern relative to the Division's ability to enforce local limits developed as a result of the mechanism described above. Section 4.3.11 is amended to stipulate that industrial users must comply with Division approved local limits and is intended to ensure that the Division can enforce directly against industrial users for violations of local limits. Section 4.3.11 is also amended to clarify that under 25-8-508, 25-8-103 (16.5), and section 4.3.9.D , the Division can enforce against Industrial Users for violations of pretreatment requirements and standards described in 4.3.11.A and B.
Section 4.3.12 identifies the procedures for review and approval of a Fundamentally Different Factor variance. This process involves review by both the Division and the Regional EPA office. Subsection (I) reproduces the portion of the federal regulation which sets forth the procedures governing EPA's portion of the review process. This section has been amended to identify the Regional Administrator or his delegate as the position within EPA responsible for the review and approval of Fundamentally Different Factor variances. A change relative to the position responsible for this function within EPA will no longer necessitate a concomitant amendment to the state regulation. Similar revisions have been incorporated at section 4.3.13 . This section addresses approval procedures for alternative sampling and analytical methods.
The provisions concerning Net/Gross adjustments to categorical discharge standards which appear at section 4.3.12 have been amended to include a stipulation that Net/Gross adjustments to categorical discharge limitations are available only when the categorical standard specifically provide for such adjustments.
Section 4.3.13 addresses monitoring and reporting requirements for industrial users. Subsection A identifies requirements for contents of Baseline Monitoring Reports including sampling protocols. These requirements correspond with the requirements which appear at section 403.12 of the federal regulation. However, the federal regulation is silent with respect to sampling techniques associated with monitoring undertaken to demonstrate continuing compliance. The state regulation incorporates requirements for ongoing monitoring in section 4.3.13 . The state requirements are consistent with federal policy concerning such sampling in that composite sampling is required when feasible. Grab samples are required for parameters where holding times or analytical requirements rule out composite sampling. This also is consistent with federal requirements (as described relative to monitoring associated with BMRs. The state regulation also allows grab samples in instances where the duration of the discharge is such that composite sampling is infeasible. Use of grab samples in these instances must now be approved by the Control Authority. This allowance is not inconsistent with the federal regulation which requires the use of composite samples "where feasible".
Requirements for the reporting of slug discharges contained in section 4.3.13 have been revised. The previous cross reference required notification only when a slug discharge resulted in pass-through or interference at the receiving POTW. Immediate notification would therefore not be possible because pass-through or interference could not be evaluated until the slug actually reached the POTW and impacted its operation. The revised language reflects the true intent of the notification requirement; the POTW must be immediately notified of any non-routine discharge which might potentially impact its operation.
Section 4.3.13 has been amended to clarify the circumstances under which a POTW or the Division may waive monitoring for a parameter.
A new section 4.3.13 has been added to require that an Industrial User submit any monitoring data accumulated for a regulated parameter, regardless of whether the data results from sampling undertaken more frequently than specified by the POTW or the Division.
Section 4.3.13 has been deleted. This section contained requirements for priority pollutant monitoring by selected Industrial Users and was intended to implement, in part, the Division's Interim Policy on Human Health Toxicity (December 10, 1987). That policy was intended to serve as the initial framework for implementation of the "Free from toxics" section of the Colorado Basic Standards and Methodologies (Section 3.1.11). The policy has been rescinded effective March 20, 1991 as a result of several actions by the Commission relative to biomonitoring rulemakings. The Commission has therefore determined that continued imposition of priority pollutant monitoring through the Pretreatment Regulations is inappropriate. It should be noted, however, that POTW's and the Division retain the authority to impose additional monitoring (over and above the minimum specified in the Categorical Pretreatment Standards) as specified at sections 4.3.11 , and 4.3.13(D)(3) of the regulations.
Section 4.3.40 , National Categorical Standards for Organic Chemicals Manufacturing has been deleted. These standards are superseded by the Categorical Standards for Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers, Section 4.3.51 . The standards which had appeared at 4.3.40 should have been deleted when the Commission adopted the Organic Chemical, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers standards but were inadvertently retained.
These amendments are also intended to correct several incorrect cross-references within the regulation and to correct a number of minor inconsistencies between the federal regulation and the Colorado Pretreatment Regulation.
These minor revisions are as follows:
Section 4.3.1 was amended so as to incorporate additional statutory authorities developed under section 25-8-508 of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act.
Section 4.3.5 , has been amended so as to conform with the requirements of the Colorado Administrative Procedures Act.
Sections 4.3.9 , 4.3.12 , 4.3.12 , 4.3.12 , 4.3.12(J)(2), 4.3.13(D)(1)(c) have been amended to correct inconsistencies between the state and federal regulations.
Sections 4.3.9 , 4.3.9 , 4.3.9 , 4.3.9 , 4.3.9 , 4.3.11(A), 4.3.11(F), 4.3.12(B)(7)(I), 4.3.13(D)(7), 4.3.13(D)(7)(e), 4.3.13(D)(8) and 4.3.52 (formally 4.3.53) have been amended to provide correct cross-refer ences within the regulation.
A comment was received during the Public Notice period concerning the intent of new language inserted at section 4.3.12.B . Section 4.3.12.B addresses requirements for administration of Fundamentally Different Factor variances. Factors which are eligible for consideration as part of a Fundamentally Different Factor variance request are identified at section 4.3.12.B . Previous to this amendment that section read "Non-water quality environmental impact of control treatment and technology." This amendment replaces the term "technology" with the phrase "of the user's raw waste load" . The amended language is consistent with that which appears in the federal pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 403. The intent of the section is to allow consideration of the impact of control and treatment of the categorical wastestream upon air emissions from the process, the quality of any residual sludges resulting from the process, or any other environmental impact beyond what could be considered to be water quality related.
5 CCR 1002-63.74