HomeMy WebLinkAbout20122059.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: EXPRESSION OF OPPOSITION TO THE STATE OF COLORADO WATER QUALITY
CONTROL DIVISION'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ARSENIC HUMAN
HEALTH BASED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,Colorado,pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County,Colorado,and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2012, the State of Colorado Water Quality Control Division
notified stakeholders, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein, of a
rulemaking hearing scheduled for April 8, 2013, to consider revisions to the arsenic human
health based water quality standard regulations,and
WHEREAS,the June 15,2012,notification contains proposed revised arsenic standards
and a timeline for consideration of such proposals,and
WHEREAS,the proposed timeline for consideration of the proposed revisions may not
allow an adequate opportunity for stakeholders to fully evaluate the proposals and possible
alternatives to the proposals,and
WHEREAS,the method used to establish the proposed technologically feasible level of
treatment may be inapplicable to wastewater treatment facilities,and
WHEREAS, the proposed establishment of an arsenic standard equal to the
technologically feasible level would create unreasonable and impractical operating expectations
for treatment facilities,and
WHEREAS,the proposed standards create concern over the ability of stakeholders to
reliably and consistently meet the laboratory detection limits necessary to demonstrate
compliance,and
WHEREAS, the timing and scope for implementation of the proposed changes is
unrealistic, especially in light of stakeholders' efforts to comply with the recently approved
nutrient requirements.
(1.Z_, 13011, 2012-2059
-L 1 BC0043
EXPRESSION OF OPPOSITION TO THE STATE OF COLORADO WATER QUALITY
CONTROL DIVISION'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ARSENIC HUMAN HEALTH
BASED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
PAGE 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners of
Weld County, Colorado, hereby opposes the changes being proposed to the arsenic human
health based water quality standard regulations by the State of Colorado Water Quality Control
Division.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 6th day of August, A.D., 2012.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: 7, : G " , . 1 � _ P r
Sean P. Co y, it
at-
Weld County Clerk to the c a� Sean
P.
` Garcia, Pro-Tem
Deputy Cler to the Boa'►' E 1
t er
APPROVED AS TOP RM:
David E. Long
C unty Attorney �tlur�s v-
Dou s Radema her
Date of signature: eSa
2012-2059
BC0043
Attachment to
EXHIBIT A
•
STATE OF COLORADO
John W.y1ickenlooper,Governor
Christopher E.Urbina,MD,MPH �c F„C%
Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Ne '6
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado ,;
4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory Services Division `i 876•
Denver,Colorado 80248-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. tags
Phone(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 80230-6928 Colorado Department
Located in Glendale,Colorado (303)692-3090 of Public Health
hap://www.cdphe.state.co.us and Environment
To: Arsenic Stakeholders
From: Water Quality Control Division
Date: 6/15/2012
Re: Preliminary Proposal for Revised Statewide Arsenic Standards Rulemaking Hearing
Introduction
The Water Quality Control Commission("WQCC")has scheduled a rulemaking hearing for
consideration of revisions to the arsenic human-health-based water quality standards contained in
Colorado's water quality standards for groundwater(Regulation #41) and surface water(Regulations
#31 through#38) for April 8,2013.The intention is to revise the table value criteria in Regulation#31
and#41 and to adopt the new table values, as appropriate, as standards in all the individual surface water
segments with human-health-based arsenic standards.
This preliminary proposal for arsenic human-health-based water quality criteria and standards is
intended to foster discussion among stakeholders and the Water Quality Control Division("Division")
prior to a formal Notice for Public Rulemaking Hearing. Parties to the rulemaking may propose
alternative statewide and/or site-specific arsenic standards for consideration at the April 8, 2013 hearing.
Preliminary Proposal for Revised Arsenic Standards
The Division's preliminary proposal is similar to the"hybrid MCLG/MCL criteria"previously adopted
by the WQCC. The hybrid criteria have two numbers: the lower number is the human-health-based
standard(the MCLG I) and the second number is the MCL2 separated by a hyphen.
I Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) -The level of a contaminant in drinking water below
which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-
enforceable public health goals. The MCLG is calculated using published human-health risk factors.
2 Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)- The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking
water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and
taking cost into consideration. MCLs are enforceable standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
NFRWQPA page 28
Attachment#!
Preliminary Proposal for Revised Statewide Arsenic Standards Rulemakina Rearinv
In this proposal for arsenic,the first number is a human-health-based arsenic standard calculated using
WQCC Policy 96-2 and published human-health risk factors. The second number in the hybrid standard
is the technologically feasible level, rather than the arsenic MCL.
The Division is proposing this unique approach for arsenic standards because arsenic has special
considerations that warrant this departure from the standard approach. First, the health impacts are
significant from low levels of arsenic. Second, the MCL for arsenic,which became effective for all
public water systems in January 2006,is based on economic and treatment considerations that are not
necessarily relevant to the human-health based water quality criteria normally adopted by the
Commission. Third, the protective health levels (calculated using WQCC Policy 96-2) are below what is
considered to be reasonable and feasible treatment levels. Because of this third factor, the Division
proposes to extend the hybrid approach to the"Water+Fish"and"Fish Ingestion"arsenic criteria,
which historically have not received the hybrid treatment, because there is no SDWA equivalent that
incorporates bioaccumulative effects. Table 1 presents the human-health risk factors and values for the
current values and the preliminary proposal.
Table I: Human-health based risk factors for Arsenic (see WQCC Policy 96-2) and calculated values
Abbreviation in Current Criteria Preliminary Proposal
Policy 96-2
Cancer Slope(kg-day/mg) ql' 1.75 1.5'
Incremental lifetime Cancer ILCR 1 in 1,000,000 1 in 1,000,000
Risk Factor _
Daily Water Consumption 2 2
(L/day)
Daily Fish Intake(kg/day) DFC 0.0175 0.0175
Bio-concentration Factor(L/kg) BCF 1 14°
Inorganic in Tissue I/O Frac 30 I 30
_ Calculated Values from Policy 96-2
Domestic Water Supply value (ug/L)using Equation
1-2 in Policy 96-2 0.02 0.02
Water+Fish value(ug/L)using Equation 2-2 in 0.02 0.02
Policy 96-2 _
Fish Ingestion value(ug/L)using Equation 31-2 in
Policy 96-2 7.6 0.6
Tecbnoloaically feasible level
In attempting to determine a level that current day treatment technology can reasonably and feasibly
achieve, the Division reviewed national studies, EPA guidance documents, and Colorado-specific
domestic wastewater treatment plant influent and effluent arsenic data. The Division found that
Adsorptive Media(AM)and Ion Exchange (IX)treatment technologies can provide a consistent level of
'Revised information from EPA's Integrated Risk Information System.
°Based on State of Oregon Environmental Quality Commission revised water quality criteria for arsenic,April 2011.
2
NFRWQPA page 29 9
Attachment tN
Preliminary Proposal for Revised Statewide Arsenic Standards Rulemakin,Hearin,
arsenic treatment and are considered the best reasonable alternatives for providing arsenic removals to
technologically feasible arsenic treatment levels. The Division finds that a technology-based limit of 2
µg/L would be readily achievable utilizing AM and IX technology.
The basis for the technologically feasible level is discussed in greater detail in the Basis for
Development of Technologically Feasible Arsenic Treatment Levels, which will be posted on the Water
Quality Forum website.
Implementation
As with other hybrid standards, it is the Division's intention that control requirements, such as discharge
permit effluent limitations,would be established using the first number in the range as the ambient water
quality target,provided that no effluent limitation shall require an "end-of-pipe"discharge level more
restrictive than the second number in the range. Water bodies would 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 for most situations.
Proposed Arsenic Criteria
Table 1: Proposed preliminary arsenic standards for surface water uses Regulation No. 31.
Use Proposed Arsenic Criteria(ug/I)
Domestic Water-Supply 0.02-2.0(187(30-day)
Water+Fish 0.02 -2.0118)
Fish Ingestion 0.6-2.0118)
(18)Technologically feasible level.
Table 2: Proposed preliminary arsenic standard Domestic Water Supply in Regulation No. 41.
TABLE I
Domestic Water Supply—Human Health Standards
Parameter Standard'
Arsenic(As)' 0.002 -0.0 big/l
Footnote 14: Discussion Topic
Footnote 14,shown below,directs the implementation of the domestic water supply use arsenic
standards for surface water. EPA formally disapproved Footnote 14 in December, 2011. The EPA
disapproval action can be found on the WQCC's website. The Division is currently not proposing any
alteration to the footnote at the time of this preliminary proposal for the April 8, 2013 rulemaking
hearing, but,rather, desires input from the stakeholders regarding the footnote. Options for resolving the
EPA standards disapproval for Footnote 14 will be discussed at the stakeholder meetings for this
rulemaking.
(14)The arsenic limit shall be calculated to meet the relevant standard in accordance with
the provisions of Section 31.10 of this regulation unless:
3
NFRWQPA page 30 lig,
Attachment tr
Preliminary Proposal for Revised Statewide Arsenic Standards Rulemaklnv Hearin
• a.The permittee provides documentation that a reasonable level of inquiry demonstrates
that there is no actual domestic water supply use of the waters in question or of
hydrologically connected ground water,or
b.The arsenic concentration at the point of intake to the domestic water supply will not
exceed the standard as demonstrated through modeling or other scientifically supportable
analysis.
Attachments
Appendix A to this memo shows the preliminary proposal as it will likely appear in the Notice for Public
Rulemaking for Regulation No. 31. Also, examples to stream segments based upon the preliminary
proposal that may be incorporated in Regulations No. 32 through 38 and Regulation#41 are shown in
Appendix A.
Basis for Development of Technologically Feasible Arsenic Treatment Levels
Schedule
• July 17, 2012 Stakeholder meeting to discuss Division's preliminary draft proposal, from 2—4
pm, Sabin Conference Room,CDPHE
• August 17, 2012 Stakeholder written comments on preliminary draft due to the Division
• September 20,2012 Stakeholder meeting to discuss a revised proposal, from 2—4 pm, Room
CIA,CDPHE
• November 15,2012 Formal proposals for April Rulemaking due to WQCC office(this would
include any stakeholder-initiated proposals for site-specific standards.)
• early January 2013 Evidence due in support of proposals for rulemaking
• April 8, 2013 Rulemaking Hearing
Contacts
The Division's preliminary draft proposal and accompanying documents will be posted on the Colorado
Water Quality Forum's website(www.CWQF.org,under a new workgroup button called"Arsenic") on
June 15. If you have trouble accessing that draft, or have questions about this effort, please call or email
us.
• Sarah Johnson 303/692-3609(sarah.johnson@state.co.us)
• Andrew Ross 303/692-3395 (andrew.ross@state.co.us)
4
NFRWQPA page 31
at
E •
'
l :i-
2
\ —
; e _
IT.CC
I.
90
P.
F.m\ -
\ � ® . j
% 333
F—
\ \LW \ c —
! / _
§ - 6 1/40 C \
O \ \ og
/ \ ;
C. \ / < o , \
) ) §
cn / 7 ;
i. k § \ @
\ / k § �
\ \ k \ \
1- / _
\
en ta U a
\ \ &
E
7.5
t
% y = .0< < 7
§C C
_ � —
\ < 30
.O
a
a
c '
o '
E >� N
U < L r
Q W ou
<<
Y
Z F2LiO a
f
C
1
m yN N NNj �° wo to
u > > 2F NfY11 FNN1-
' ZFNNF Lo II ��. nt_i�ZZ Iii
X L u V U II u * V Y II 11 U
9 igi' k O-E--3u �85.g
a YrIIN 3g<<Nc zlYi<<N`
a
C
a Y ii iwil
r g 4,7Ey L
•Y 171 Lt .no 8o cosmc. I.�p o�pL N§tj NO.b
y Q � II U> O^ ili � ILI II V tili
Q w 2:611 8 'in-IYYyU�U 55��fi£fiy
U 2 Z'Y]fc2`ZS2f Z'1f]f2"'6Ix LS TiGZ` S
LL LL 1 S Y Y 3 3 LL d 6 E S Z LL LL 6
3
w
a y V cn
FyJ _ F y - • L
u O TI L' > C> G F V N
K �l C
< C F..N F N>N>LF XF LH_ k 4.c. FNzF
ri z aC111 U'� F U IbbI UY �{- � U*
6 F A0.52-. t � rm2.R'" r I��IIti5�a
0 vwweOO3 fr=—*!QQ =, 'C4000000
To I <iuuuuu «3uGGuu a «u0ouuu
o _ o
o Ogj •-
a N OI j
6 co��3 a on Qi on Opp on lol of 'QN' I>i
g�"o"o Ol ��g$ . a o zi °
u Ulm ZGN \ Ulm NlD z(SN r.
E ` a0,
c
• 61. Zm•- 0, o
- c
L C z IIpo a IIg0 \ SGC <
6 E c11 .n C uoo,o G $oqo '0 0
° �8 -°8 s �
H = z t =�fiz y •=xxz
A zooU bo zoo° y $UUU 0
72 'tl
< P of .. Uc ' o .t U r g
0 0 ` niit
�?eQ 03 0Enqti ≥ ,a� ome4 C Voles_' 0 yh .l E e Ex a V C dO=U Q �dIU
m rpil a
o a rdi _ rdoaw 3 roocw
2 0
o
U Ey 'u o ' w V8
o .o q Y'- N . N
3 W <'a3< " < <o1
U
Cr U
u et
f, . 30 s 3
3 0
0
L cL M
O C d C
V .
E t. &9
ac°
t S z h u y P
q YVq F O u �si O O ;1. 8 LCFm6
w c SU`` (-)3c2 u � X � ` ;2Y
tu c op p 9+a } b (73;II
y a �
v c 2:1 2 s E 8 ! .a. a o g 1p- g
D F ° E a
F O o i3 �a o till o Ra,k
K u m h �,_ C a 4woo 3ta
'/� C F co .t ` r COUTYfX
0 tl s3 tl a tl y <- LL
a w °$ S u a
Q
Hello