Code of Colorado Regulations
1000 - Department of Public Health and Environment
1002 - Water Quality Control Commission (1002 Series)
5 CCR 1002-35 - REGULATION NO. 35 - CLASSIFICATIONS AND NUMERIC STANDARDS FOR GUNNISON AND LOWER DOLORES RIVER BASINS
Section 5 CCR 1002-35.21 - STATEMENT OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE (1995 Silver hearing)

Current through Register Vol. 47, No. 17, September 10, 2024

The provisions of C.R.S. 25-8-202 (1)(b), (2) and 25-8-204; provide the specific statutory authority for adoption of these regulatory amendments. The Commission also adopted in compliance with 24-4-103(4) C.R.S. the following statement of basis and purpose.

BASIS AND PURPOSE

The changes described below are being adopted simultaneously for surface water in all Colorado river basins.

This action implements revisions to the Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water adopted by the Commission in January, 1995. As part of a July, 1994 rulemaking hearing, the Commission considered the proposal of various parties to delete the chronic and chronic (trout) table values for silver in Table III of the Basic Standards. As a result of that hearing, the Commission found that the evidence demonstrated that ionic silver causes chronic toxicity to fish at levels below that established by the acute table values. It was undisputed that silver is present in Colorado streams and in the effluent of municipal and industrial dischargers in Colorado. The evidence also demonstrated that the removal of silver from wastewater can be costly. However, there was strongly conflicting scientific evidence regarding the degree to which silver does, or could in the absence of chronic standards, result in actual toxicity to aquatic life in Colorado surface waters. In particular, there was conflicting evidence regarding the degree to which the toxic effects of free silver are mitigated by reaction with soluble ligands to form less toxic compounds and by adsorption to particulates and sediments.

The Commission concluded that there is a need for additional analysis of the potential chronic toxicity of silver in streams in Colorado. The Commission encouraged the participants in that hearing, and any other interested parties, to work together to develop additional information that will help resolve the differences in scientific opinions that were presented in the hearing. The Commission believes that it should be possible to develop such information within the next three years.

In the meantime, the Commission decided as a matter of policy to take two actions. First, the chronic and chronic (trout) table values for silver have been repealed for the next three years. The Commission is now implementing this action by also repealing for the next three years, in this separate rulemaking hearing, all current chronic table value standards for silver previously established on surface waters in Colorado. Any acute silver standards and any site-specific silver standards not based on the chronic table values will remain in effect. The Commission intends that any discharge permits issued or renewed during this period will not include effluent limitations based on chronic table value standards, since such standards will not currently be in effect. In addition, at the request of any discharger, any such effluent limitations currently in permits should be deleted.

The second action taken by the Commission was the readoption of the chronic and chronic (trout) table values for silver, with a delayed effective date of three years from the effective date of final action. The Commission also is implementing this action by readopting chronic silver standards with a corresponding delayed effective date at the same time that such standards are deleted from the individual basins. The Commission has determined that this is an appropriate policy choice to encourage efforts to reduce or eliminate the current scientific uncertainty regarding in-stream silver toxicity, and to assure that Colorado aquatic life are protected from chronic silver toxicity if additional scientific information is not developed. If the current scientific uncertainty persists after three years, the Commission believes that it should be resolved by assuring protection of aquatic life.

In summary, in balancing the policy considerations resulting from the facts presented in the July 1994 rulemaking hearing and in this hearing, the Commission has chosen to provide relief for dischargers from the potential cost of treatment to meet chronic silver standards during the next three years, while also providing that such standards will again become effective after three years if additional scientific information does not shed further light on the need, or lack of need, for such standards.

Finally, the Division notes that arsenic is listed as a TVS standard in all cases where the Water Supply classification is not present. This is misleading since Table III in the Basic Standards lists an acute aquatic life criterion of 360 ug/l and a chronic criterion of 150 ug/l for arsenic, but a more restrictive agriculture criterion of 100 ug/l. It would be clearer to the reader of the basin standards if, for each instance where the standard "As(ac/ch)=TVS" appears, the standard "As=100(Trec)" is being inserted as a replacement. This change should make it clear that the agriculture protection standard would prevail in those instances where the more restrictive water supply use protective standard (50 ug/l) was not appropriate because that classification was absent.

The chemical symbol for antimony (Sb) was inadvertently left out of the "Tables" section which precedes the list of segments in each set of basin standards. The correction of this oversight will aid the reader in understanding the content of the segment standards. Also preceding the list of segment standards in each basin is a table showing the Table Value Standards for aquatic life protection which are then referred to as "TVS" in the segment listings. For cadmium, two equations for an acute table value standard should be shown, one for all aquatic life, and one where trout are present. A third equation for chronic table value should also be listed. The order of these three equations should be revised to first list the acute equation, next the acute (trout) equation, followed by the chronic equation. This change will also aid the reader in understanding the intent of the Table Value Standards.

PARTIES TO THE PUBLIC RULEMAKING HEARING JUNE 12, 1995