Code of Colorado Regulations
1000 - Department of Public Health and Environment
1002 - Water Quality Control Commission (1002 Series)
5 CCR 1002-63 - REGULATION NO. 63 - PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS
Section 5 CCR 1002-63.78 - STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE. SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE: (FEBRUARY, 1998 RULEMAKING)
The provisions of sections 25-8-202 and 25-8-401, C.R.S., provide the specific statutory authority for adoption of the attached regulatory amendments. The Commission also adopted, in compliance with section 24-4-103(4) C.R.S., the following statement of basis and purpose.
BASIS AND PURPOSE
After the triennial review of the Colorado Pretreatment Regulations in January 1997, areas were discovered where corrections of typographical errors, clarifications, and updates needed to be made. Changes involving more than clarifications or corrections of typographical errors were made to the following areas:
Section 63.7.J : The section gives a definition of "domestic wastewater" . The definition was shortened to include ".kitchen, bath and laundry wastes from residences' instead of from residences, industrial establishments or other places" . This change was made so that there will be no question that establishments such as industrial laundries, which are. a potential sources of toxic or otherwise harmful pollutants, will not be mistakenly considered domestic wastewater and excluded from the pretreatment regulations.
Section 63.9 : Since pretreatment is a preventative program, designation of an industrial user as significant should be done, if possible, before an industrial user causes environmental harm. This section was changed to make it clear that an industrial user can be considered significant based on its potential to have harmful impacts on the environment.
Section 63.10 : This section was changed so that unneeded information was not unnecessarily requested in pretreatment annual reports. This section is now consistent with the minimum federal requirements.
Section 63.13.D : This section, as previously written, was not technically sound. As written previously, grab samples could be taken in situations where grab samples were not actually representative of the discharge. The section was changed to simply state that samples have to be representative of the discharge. The section now also references sampling guidelines which were already present in Section 63.12.A(2)(e)(iii)-(vi).
Section 63.13.1 : The following sentence was added for clarity and to make the section more consistent with federal regulation: "If no claim is made at the time of the submission, the Director will make the information available to the public without further notice."
Section 63.53 : This section incorporates by reference pretreatment standards for new sources and pretreatment standards for existing sources which were promulgated in September 1993. Addition of these standards is required in order for the state pretreatment regulations to be at least as stringent as the federal regulation.
Changes Made After Public Notice:
General: Throughout the document, a @ symbol was inadvertently placed where a "(c)" symbol should have appeared. This typographical error was corrected.
Sections 63.3 and 63.7:
Comments were received from Metro Wastewater Reclamation District ("Metro") in a letter dated December 8, 1997 regarding the definition of "domestic wastewater". Metro expressed concern that: "Eliminating reference to all establishments except residences from the definition of domestic wastewater may subject commercial users to pretreatment program requirements even though they may discharge only domestic wastewater." The Division agrees that this point merits clarification of the definition of "domestic wastewater".
As a result of these comments, the definition of "domestic wastewater" was expanded so that domestic wastewater from non-residential buildings would be included. Consequently, the definition of "non-domestic wastewater" was also changed so that it would be compatible with the new definition of "domestic wastewater".
In addition, Section 63.3, "Applicability" was also revised to make it compatible with the new definition of domestic wastewater. Previously, the Applicability section stated that the pretreatment regulations pertain to "industries". However, there are many non-industrial entities which can discharge non-domestic wastewater which may be problematic to a POTW. For example, restaurants can cause obstructions of collection lines due to grease accumulation. Cooling tower blowdown from commercial, non-industrial buildings can and have interfered with POTW's sludge disposal options. Therefore, the "Applicability" section no longer refers to "industries" and instead refers to "industrial users" which is already defined in terms of domestic/non-domestic discharge.
Section 63.9(A) (2):
Comments from Metro noted a typographical error in this section. This has been corrected.
Section 63.10.A:
Metro suggested changes to this language that clarifies it and makes it more consistent with the federal language. Previous deviations from the federal language made no difference in the meaning of the regulation and thus the changes were made in the interest of clarification.
Section 63.13.D(5):
Metro commented that requiring a minimum of 4 grab samples for periodic compliance sampling for certain parameters (pH, cyanide, total phenols, oil & grease, sulfide and volatile organic compounds) is excessive. Metro suggested that the Division's Pretreatment Regulations should, instead, be consistent with the language proposed for 40 CFR Section 403.12(g)(3) & (4) by EPA in their May 30, 1997 letter to stakeholders. This letter states that, for these limited parameters, periodic compliance sampling shall be conducted at the frequency "necessary to assess and assure compliance...."
The Division's proposed requirement that all sampling must follow the guidelines of Section 63.13.A -(vi) does effectively require 4 grabs for periodic compliance monitoring for these parameters. This was an unintentional result of requiring adherence to those guidelines. The Division was primarily attempting to address issues of sample type (i.e., flow proportional vs. time proportional vs. grab samples) for metals and conventional pollutants. Although adoption of EPA's language may seem like a reasonable solution, the language is not yet finalized and is more extensive than is appropriate to include at this point in this rulemaking. Therefore the requirement for sampling to be consistent with Section 63.13.A -(vi) was struck and new language will be considered once the federal language is finalized.
