Basic Standards Implementation Work Group

November 13, 2003
Meeting Summary

Triennial Review Work Group

Paul Frohardt opened the meeting with a description of the Basic Standards, the rulemaking process, and the issues that were identified as priorities by the Water Quality Control Commission at the Issues Scoping Hearing. This process does not preclude other parties from bringing forward proposals on their own, but the Commission may consider whether or not an issue should have been discussed by the work group prior to a proposal coming forward.

Robert Sakata will serve as the Hearing Chair for the RMH in July 2005, and plans to participate in the work group.

The majority of the meeting was devoted to an initial review of issues to be addressed.

Paul explained that EPA’s new and updated criteria for organic compounds will be addressed in May 2004 in a RMH for this regulation and Reg. 41, Basic Standards for Ground Water. This will include changes to the fish ingestion standards and the water + fish ingestion standards to reflect EPA's revised human health criteria, as well as other updates to the organic chemical standards. Addressing the dispute between the State and EPA concerning the Class C carcinogen standards will be included in this RMH. The State's human health based standards policy, which is intended to be descriptive of how human health-based standards are developed, will be reviewed in a December 8, 2003 Informational Hearing. The Division will propose clarifications in the current document, but doesn't expect to propose any substantive changes in that policy at this time.

With regard to new EPA criteria for constituents other than the organics, those new criteria documents that are available prior to the RMH (i.e., ammonia, cadmium, etc) will be considered. If new criteria are available for other constituents, such as copper or selenium, they may also be considered.

Potential recreation issues were discussed. There were a number of questions raised concerning the issue of numeric standards for clarity and odor. These were difficult to address in the absence of Sarah Johnson. Pat Nelson raised a question concerning EPA's updated guidance on implementation of bacteriological standards - if this guidance is available prior to the RMH, would additional changes to the Rec classifications and standards be considered? Dave Moon indicated the guidance is expected to be available by the end of 2003, and Paul Frohardt suggested that if that guidance is released, work group members should read the document and bring forward ideas for revisions to the standards and classifications.

It is expected that the transition from fecal coliform to E.coli standards to protect recreation uses will be completed in the July 2005 rulemaking.

Aquatic life use classifications - the Division is proposing "minor" changes to the Basic Standards to allow pilot projects to implement the results of the aquatic life use classification discussion in the 309 Study. At the same time, the aquatic life work group will continue to meet and work on the issue of expected condition and recommended guidelines for pilot project studies. Net environmental benefit concepts will be developed separately from this effort. Tad Foster suggested that the concept of a "no fish" aquatic life use classification be considered during this RMH to facilitate the development and adoption of new criteria for such segments. Some members of the group felt that addressing the expected condition discussion in the aquatic life work group was appropriate; the other 309 Study issues might be more appropriately discussed in this work group. Barb Horn raised the issue that in discussing the concept of pilot projects, it will be important to address both the technical issues and the policy issues - the latter including defining what it is that you want to get out of pilot projects.

Temperature standards - the group agreed this was a topic that should be discussed further by the work group. EPA's concerns surround the fact that while Colorado has numeric criteria, the State doesn't have any definition of an averaging period or implementation. The group also agreed that the existing footnote to the numeric standards is unclear. Bob McConnell stated that temperature standards had been an issue in development of the 2002 303(d) list and is becoming an issue in the development of the 2004 303(d) list.

Denver Environmental Health raised an issue concerning the fish ingestion standard for arsenic, but no representative was present to discuss that issue with the group.

Grand Junction believes that the existing mixing zone regulations do not fully support certain provisions of the mixing zone guidance. Paul Frohardt asked that Grand Junction perhaps try to frame their proposal in writing for consideration by the work group.

Dave Moon updated the group on EPA's current activities related to new national, fish flesh criteria for selenium, the status of the ESA consultation concerning California's selenium standard, and potential development of a selenium standard to protect wildlife.

The aquatic life class 2 use classification and use protected designations for antidegradation purposes has been identified by the Commissionas an issue that needs to be addressed. Paul Frohardt described the history behind Colorado's current assumption that stream segments that were aquatic life class 2 could be assumed to not have water quality better than necessary to protect designated uses. Jerry Raisch urged the group to limit this discussion to developing revised criteria for determining which segments should be classified as use protected. Paul emphasized that this was an opportunity to be creative in defining other criteria for use-protected designations. Pilot projects could also be crafted to include site-specific criteria for use-protected designations.

The Wastewater Utility Council issues were discussed. Charles Caudill described the inconsistent nature of Colorado's application of the secondary drinking water standards (they are guidance for drinking water providers, but enforceable stream standard for POTWs), and the fact that the point of compliance for drinking water supply standards is often inconsistent (some standards are applied at the point of intake and others applied in the stream). The Council was asked to bring a proposal forward for consideration by the group. Barbara Biggs explained the Council's concern with the existing basic standard for total ammonia for the protection of drinking water supplies. This is a standard that has been in existence for a long time, but is currently not applied to any stream segment in the State. The WWUC requests that the work group discuss the need to continue this standard since it currently isn't being applied. In the alternative, if the standard is retained, the Council would like to discuss alternatives to the existing 0.5 mg/L total ammonia standard.

The work group then discussed lesser priority issues, including EPA's revised mercury criteria, modifications to the aluminum criteria, and changes to improve regulatory clarity. The Commission also indicated its intent that at this time no changes to the basic standards be considered in the July 2005 rulemaking hearing with regard to sodium absorption levels, salinity standards, and additional issues related to antidegradation.

Dave Moon suggested the work group consider changes to clarify how temporary modifications based on uncertainty are to be resolved. He also suggested that the State consider additional clarification/modification of the DO standard. Paul Frohardt indicated these items had not been flagged as a priority. If a work group participant, including EPA, wants to bring up an issue, they should prepare a written proposal and bring it to the group for discussion.

The work group reached at least tentative consensus that rather than development of a number of subgroups, specific topics would be identified for each meeting, and work group participants could attend based on their level of interest.

The work group proceeded to discuss the schedule set forth in the agenda for today's meeting and topics for the next meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, December 9, from 9:00 a.m. to Noon in the first floor board room at DRCOG. This meeting will focus on the human health based standards proposals for organic chemicals, antimony, arsenic and uranium. Completion of the transition from a fecal coliform rec standard to an E.coli standard will be discussed if time permits. That meeting will also include a discussion of topics for future meetings.