Basic Standards Implementation Work Group

March 8, 2004
Meeting Summary

Total Ammonia Table Value Standard for the Protection of Drinking Water Supplies

Barbara Biggs briefed the Work Group on the CH2MHILL Technical Memorandum regarding the basis for the existing TVS for total ammonia for drinking water supply. The existing TVS dates to the late 1960's and was retained by the Nitrogen Cycle Committee in the late 1970's due to concerns that ammonia levels higher than 0.5 mg/L were an indication of pollution and could affect drinking water treatability. The Tech Memo reviewed all of the documentation from US EPA, WHO, Canadian Health Ministry, etc. That research indicates no toxicological basis for the TVS. The Wastewater Utility Council pointed out that the existing TVS is not applied to any surface water in State and does not appear to have a scientific basis. The Council suggested the TVS either be deleted or a TVS based on prevention of taste and odor problems of 34 mg/L be adopted.

Sarah Johnson stated that she believed the existing TVS should simply be deleted. Paul Frohardt stated that the Division would review the matter further and determine if this issue will be included in its proposal for the hearing, or if another party would need to bring the proposal forward.

Vic Lucero expressed no concern with deleting the TVS for total ammonia and complimented CH2MHILL on the thoroughness of the Tech Memo.

Secondary Drinking Water Standards

This issue was raised primarily by the Littleton/Englewood WWTP. The Work Group attempted to discuss the issue in the absence of a L/E and agreed this issue could be discussed at a future meeting when L/E was present. Paul Frohard described the changes to the Basic Standards regarding this issue adopted in 2000. Sarah Johnson asked that L/E have discussions with the Division to clarify what the issues are.

Domestic Water Supply Point of Compliance

The Wastewater Utility Council raised this issue because (a) only the nitrate standard is subject to the point of compliance at the intake provision - and questions were raised as to whether or not this provision should apply to the other standards for the protection of drinking water supplies; and (b) in some instances, the surface water diversion is upstream from the actual drinking water intake and no decay of nitrate in this distance was considered.

Barbara Biggs also raised the issue of drinking water supply streams with no surface water diversion but ground water wells under the influence of surface water. Ms. Biggs raised the question as to whether or not a daily nitrate limit for nitrate is appropriate when the use is groundwater under the influence of surface water. Sarah Johnson responded that this is a good point, but it would have to be addressed on a site-specific basis based on the conditions of each of the groundwater wells. Sarah Johnson also clarified that the Division's proposal for the upcoming Rulemaking Hearing for Regulation 38 is based on the Division's records indicating the presence of public water supply wells under the influence of surface water, not on the State Engineer's records related to private wells.

Paul Frohardt asked that the Council prepare a specific proposal to address these issues in the Basic Standards before further discussion by the work group.

Water Effect Ratios

Jerry Raisch briefed the work group on the issues surrounding EPA's streamlined WER guidance for copper and implementation of those WER's in permits without the need to pursue a site-specific hearing. EPA has indicated that implementation of WER's in permits would require very detailed enabling provisions in the Basic Standards.

The questions become (a) is there a need; and (b) is timing an issue for most entities? It is EPA's position that if a state is going to adopt "performance basd standards" such as implementation of WER's directly in permits without a site-specific standards hearing, the State needs to include a detailed procedure in its regulations.

Mr. Raisch indicated he's not inclined to develop a formal proposal unless he hears from other parties who are interested in pursuing this alternative. Interested parties should contact Jerry Raisch at jwr@vrlaw.com.

Follow Up Discussion of Organics

Paul Frohardt briefed the work group on the issues surrounding the statewide organic chemical standards. Issues involve situations where the MCL for a chemical is significantly less stringent than a health-based standard and the effect of the revised standards as they relate to hazardous waste clean ups. There have also been concerns raised by CACI members. The Division will recommend to the WQCC that the May hearing on these chemicals be rescheduled to September to address the various concerns.

Sarah Johnson distributed a proposal from the Division for how to handle those chemicals where there is an MCL that is significantly different than a calculated health-based standard. That proposal is attached to this meeting summary.

There was extensive discussion of the Division's proposal. Peter Nichols questioned the proposal for groundwater and the designation of a specific date for application of less stringent limits on clean up activities. A representative of CACI responded that there were hundreds of ongoing cleanups in the State and changing the targeted standards for these organics chemicals affects how these clean ups go forward. Furthermore, there are limited analytical methodologies able to detect some chemicals at the level of health-based standards.

The two chemicals of primary concern are vinyl chloride and 1,4 dioxane. There is an MCL for vinyl chloride, so the Division's proposal would address that concern. The 1,4 dioxane issue is different because there is no MCL and EPA has targeted it for additional review. In this case, the Commission's Policy 96-2 would apply.

Paul Frohardt clarified that in order to proceed with a September rulemaking hearing, the Division's revised proposal would have to be finalized by the end of April for hearing notice approval at the May WQCC hearing.

Peter Nichols raised concerns with the Division's proposal related to groundwater and objected to delaying the RMH until September. He has a client that has property with probable 1,4 dioxane contamination that he has been trying to get cleaned up for 15 years. He objects to a further delay.

This issue will be discussed further at the March 22 work group meeting (9-Noon in the Sabin Room at CDPHE). It was also suggested that it would be appropriate to get an update on the status of the Division's draft guidance related to practical quantification limits (PQLs).

On the issue of use protected designations for antidegradation purposes, the Division expects to distribute an updated proposal by the end of March. Other parties that wish to make a proposal should e-mail those proposals to Paul Frohardt as soon as possible (paul.frohardt@state.co.us)

Attachment 1

Discussion Draft
Statewide Standards Option
March 4, 2004

Regulation #31

Water Supply

Chemical x: 0.02 to 10.0*

* Whenever a range of standards is listed and referenced to this footnote, the first number in the range is a strictly health-based value, based on the Commission’s established methodology for human health-based standards. The second number in the range is a maximum contaminant level, established under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, that has been determined to be an acceptable level of this chemical in public water supplies, taking treatability and laboratory detection limits into account. Control requirements, such as discharge permit effluent limitations, shall be written to attain a level of ambient water quality that is as close to the first number in the range as feasible, provided that no effluent limitation shall require an “end-of-pipe” discharge level more restrictive than the second number in the range. Water bodies will be considered in attainment of this standard, and not included on the Section 303(d) List, so long as the existing ambient quality does not exceed the second number in the range.

Regulation #41

Water Supply

Chemical x: 0.02 to 10.0*

* Whenever a range of standards is listed and referenced to this footnote, the first number in the range is a strictly health-based value, based on the Commission’s established methodology for human health-based standards. The second number in the range is a maximum contaminant level, established under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, that has been determined to be an acceptable level of this chemical in public water supplies, taking treatability and laboratory detection limits into account. The Commission intends that control requirements for this chemical be implemented to attain a level of ambient water quality that is as close to the first number in the range as feasible, provided that where existing ground water contamination exceeded the second number in the range as of September 14, 2004, clean-up levels shall be no more restrictive than the second number in the range, unless a more restrictive standard is established as the result of a site-specific rulemaking hearing. [Further proviso for cases where clean-up standards have already been established?]

Next Meeting:

March 22, 2004
9:00 a.m. to noon
Sabin Room

Proposed Schedule for Discussion of Issues
Updated March 8, 2004

Meeting Date	Topics
November 12, 2003 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sabin Room	Review of issues and priorities Discussion of work group process Scheduling of dates and topics for upcoming meetings.
December 9, 2003 9:00 a.m. to noon DRCOG	Statewide organic chemicals standards. Table value criteria for antimony (water + fish); arsenic (water supply; fish ingestion); uranium (water supply). Fecal coliform to e coli transition (time permitting).
January 13, 2004 9:00 a.m. to noon Sabin Room	Follow-up discussion regarding issues introduced at the previous meeting. Recreation classification issues: distinguishing basis for class 1a; creation of a "class 2 with class 1a standards" option; numeric clarity and narrative odor standards. Fecal coliform to e coli transition.
January 26, 2004 9:00 a.m. to noon DRCOG	Aquatic life classifications pilot project option (regulatory language; criteria for selecting pilot projects; guidance regarding information needed to support a pilot project proposal). "Net environmental benefit" provisions. [to be moved to some later meeting] Options for decoupling aquatic life class 2 and use-protected designations.
February 11, 2004 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sabin Room	Additional discussion regarding the following issues, and potentially other issues from earlier meetings that require more discussion: MCLs v. health-based standards, and related implementation issues. WQCD uranium proposal v. current basin-wide uranium standards. Fecal coliform to e coli transition. Numeric clarity standards for recreation use classifications.
February 23, 2004 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sabin Room	Follow-up discussion regarding issues from previous meetings? WQCD feedback re fecal coliform to e coli transition options. Revised table value criteria for ammonia. Revised table value criteria for cadmium.
March 8, 2004 9:00 a.m. to noon Sabin Room	Follow-up discussion regarding issues introduced at the previous meeting. Wastewater Utility Council issues: secondary drinking water standards; domestic water supply point of compliance; total ammonia standard. Water effect ratios through water quality standards v. discharge permits.
March 22, 2004 9:00 a.m. to noon Sabin Room	Follow-up discussion regarding issues introduced at the previous meeting. EPA issue regarding type (iii) temporary modifications. Follow-up discussion regarding statewide organic chemical standards revisions.
April 7, 2004 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sabin Room	Follow-up discussion regarding issues introduced at the previous meeting. Recreation classification options to address the previous “class 2 with class 1a standards” option and distinguishing default classifications.
April 19, 2004 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sabin Room	Follow-up discussion regarding aquatic life classifications pilot project option (regulatory language; criteria for selecting pilot projects; guidance regarding information needed to support a pilot project proposal). “Net environmental benefit” provisions.
May 5, 2004 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Carson Room	Follow-up discussion regarding issues introduced at the previous meeting. Possible revised temperature standards. Follow-up discussion regarding options for decoupling aquatic life class 2 and use-protected designations. Grand Junction’s mixing zone issue.
May 24, 2004 9:00 a.m. to noon Sabin Room	Potential "catch-up" meeting, to discuss issues from earlier meetings that require more discussion.
June 9, 2004 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sabin Room	To be determined.
July 8, 2004 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Cleere Room	To be determined.
July 26, 2004 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sabin Room	To be determined.
August 12, 2004 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Cleere Room	To be determined.
August 31, 2004 (tentative) 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sabin Room	To be determined.
September 14, 2004 (tentative) 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sabin Room	Follow-up discussion regarding fecal coliform to e coli transition options. Follow-up discussion regarding revised table value criteria for ammonia. Follow-up discussion regarding revised table value criteria for cadmium.
September 27, 2004 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Sabin Room	To be determined.
October 18, 2004 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sabin Room	To be determined.

Additional meeting dates will be scheduled as needed.

The issues regarding possible new table value criteria for copper and selenium will be scheduled for work group discussion only if and when EPA moves forward with proposed criteria for one or both of these parameters. The above table includes all of the other issues from the October 2003 Potential Issues List identified as "priority issues" and "other issues to explore", except for the correction of typographical and clerical errors. Possible discussion of the "lesser priority" issues from this list will be revisited as of March 2004.

If EPA’s Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria is finalized, work group members may identify additional issues relating to bacteria standards that would need to be scheduled for work group discussion.

As noted on the above table, it is assumed that most issues would be introduced at one work group meeting, where the Division and/or other interested persons would set forth proposals for revisions or identify principal options for revisions. The issues introduced at one work group meeting would then be discussed further at the following meeting, or other future meeting, after work group participants had had an opportunity to reflect on the proposals or options suggested.

The above schedule is intended as a starting point for work group discussions. Some of the above issues would likely be discussed further in work group meetings following October 2004, depending on how discussions progress.