HomeMy WebLinkAbout11810RESOLUTION NO. 11810
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENT WATER QUALITY HEARINGS AND
WORKGROUP PROCESSES THROUGH 2010
WHEREAS, the City of Pueblo owns, operates and maintains a wastewater system
subject to the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act and the Colorado Water Quality
Control Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pueblo is directly impacted by Water Quality regulations in terms
of compliance and finances; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pueblo's Wastewater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit, that dictates normal operations, is periodically impacted by these
regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has scheduled
a list of public hearings and workgroup processes where affected parties are afforded the
opportunity to comment on proposals
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PUEBLO, that:
SECTION 1.
The Wastewater Department is hereby authorized to participate in the Colorado Department of
Public Health And Environment Water Quality Hearings and workgroup processes through
2010.
SECTION 2.
The City Manager is directed to file for party status on behalf of the City of Pueblo,
represented by the Wastewater Department and /or the City Attorney.
INTRODUCED: February 22, 2010
BY: Vera Ortegon
COUNCILPERSON
APPROVED:
RESIDENT CF CITY CC) UNCIL
ATTESTED BY:
GIB' Y CLERK
i
Background Paper for Proposed
RESOLUTION
AGENDA ITEM # M -6
DATE: February 22, 2010
DEPARTMENT: WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT
GENE MICHAEL, DIRECTOR
TITLE
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT WATER QUALITY HEARINGS AND WORKGROUP
PROCESSES THROUGH 2010
ISSUE
Should the City Council Authorize Participation in the Scheduled List of Public Hearings and
Workgroup Processes Where Affected Parties Are Afforded the Opportunity to Comment on
Proposals?
RECOMMENDATION
Approve this Resolution.
BACKGROUND
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment maintains a long -range schedule of
hearings that will be held before the Water Quality Control Commission. Each existing
regulation must be reviewed periodically, according to Section 25- 8- 202(f) of the Colorado
Water Quality Control Act, to solicit comments regarding whether particular regulations should
be retained, repealed or revised. A stakeholder workgroup process is used to assist the Water
Quality Control Division in developing workable rules on some issues. Water quality regulations
have direct impacts on Pueblo's ability to comply and on the cost of wastewater service. It is in
the best interest of the City to have City staff participate in the public process via stakeholder
workgroups and to provide testimony in rulemaking hearings in order to protect the City's rights.
A copy of scheduled hearings and workgroups for the remainder of 2010 is attached.
Wastewater Department staff will provide periodic updates to the City Council regarding public
process participation and receive direction from the City Council regarding policies.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no immediate financial impact to the City of Pueblo. Involvement in the public process
will help the City of Pueblo to identify proposed rules that may have a financial or legal impact in
the City, and allow City staff to influence the rulemaking process. This involvement in the public
process is expected to help Pueblo to control future wastewater treatment costs.
List of hearings, workgroups and organizations that the Wastewater
Department may be involved with February — December 2010
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CDPHE- Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
CDPS - Colorado Discharge Permit System (Colorado's version of the NPDES program)
Division, WQCD - Water Quality Control Division, which is under the CDPHE.
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
NPDES- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Section 402 of the CWA)
USGS - United States Geological Survey
WQCC- Water Quality Control Commission
WRF - Water Reclamation Facility
1) Major hearings at CDPHE
➢ Basic Standards Rulemaking Hearing —June 7, 2010
o Party status and submittals on issues of interest for Pueblo will be needed.
Prehearing statements and rebuttal statements will probably be necessary on
several issues prior to the hearing.
o The Basic Standards Regulation establishes statewide water quality
standards and implementation processes that are the foundation for the
classification of Colorado's surface waters. Changes made to the Basic
Standards regulation during the June 2010 will be adopted in the Arkansas
River Basin in June 2013.
o Primary Issues
Nutrients comprise a very complex issue that has not been resolved as
yet but the workgroup process will continue through 2010. This portion
of the hearing has been delayed by the Division until June 2011;
therefore all basin hearings have been delayed by one year to allow time
to add this major hearing to the Commissions schedule.
• These standards presently are being developed for point sources
only and Colorado continues moving forward with a controversial
approach even though there is only a minimal correlation between
phosphorus and chlorophyll a.
• A significant portion of the phosphorus is from nonpoint sources.
• This issue could require extensive studies, hearing proposals,
and possibly litigation for lack of control on nonpoint
sources.
• The State of Colorado is not implementing any control
programs to deal with nonpoint sources. For example, the
primary source of nutrients is from agricultural practices that
are not regulated. Permitted facilities will be required to
spend millions to remove phosphorus and possibly nitrogen
to extremely low levels. USGS has developed a report for
EPA that shows Colorado is <1% of the loading to the Gulf
of Mexico hypoxia zone and that agriculture is the source of
88% of the phosphorus and 75% of the nitrogen. Only
approximately 10% of the <1% impacting the Gulf of
Mexico hypoxia zone is due to urban impacts. The impact of
the millions of dollars spent by permitted facilities to meet
stringent standards will be negligible.
■ It will be necessary to do studies, alternatives analyses, participate in
hearings, and possibly join in litigation.
•8 Antidegradation
• Designating river segments within Pueblo County as reviewable
streams could result in significantly more stringent standards and
potentially require additional treatment. Expansion of the existing
plant or addition of new a wastewater treatment plant would entail
strict new requirements.
• Comments may need to be prepared identifying legal options or
precedent in other states that may assist with developing changes
that could be proposed for adoption into the Colorado Basic
Standards Regulation, which would recognize that habitat
limitations in warm water class 2 aquatic life streams limit the value
of making them reviewable.
❖ Temperature
• Temperature standards currently in place could require the WRF to
cool the effluent to eliminate warming of the stream in the winter
and possibly the summer months if the river is exceeding the
maximum weekly average temperature that is allowed. The cost
would be extreme.
• If additional standards for thermal shock are adopted at the 2010
Basic Standard Hearing the potential of exceeding the standards
would be increased significantly, especially in winter months.
• This could require participation in studies, hearing documents,
studies to determine methods of treatment and possibly litigation.
❖ Temporary Modifications and Discharger Specific Variance
• Addition of another type of temporary modification and/or
discharger specific variance policy would be beneficial for Pueblo.
This would provide the state with additional regulatory tools that
could provide flexibility to deal with natural conditions, such as
selenium.
Pueblo may need to support the Division efforts to adopt these items
and offer comments to optimize the flexibility for use.
2) Potentially minor hearings at CDPHE depending on proposals
➢ Section 303(d) list, Regulation #93 and #94
o Rule Making— February 8, 2010
• Party status was not necessary
• Action was not taken on the Lower Arkansas segment la that will
impact the WRF but we well observe the decisions made on
Fountain Creek. These decisions could impact the Lower Arkansas
in future hearings.
➢ Biosolids Regulation # 64
o Rule Making— February 8, 2010
■ Minimal changes were proposed by the Division. No comment was
necessary.
➢ Section 305(b) Report
o Administrative Action Hearing —March 9, 2010
■ Will review and suggest revisions as necessary when the document
is made available by the Division.
➢ Sediment Guidance, Policy 98 -1
o Administrative Action Hearing —April 12, 2010
■ Will review changes suggested by the Division and comment as
necessary.
Temporary Modifications
• Written Comment Rulemaking —July 12, 2010
• To adjust the expiration dates of temporary modifications for all basins to
align with new dates for the basin wide rulemaking hearings scheduled for
those regulations.
■ Will observe but probably will not be necessary to take any action
other than possibly supporting the Divisions action.
Comment on water pollution problems in Colorado
• Public Informational Hearing —October 12, 2010
• May provide comment if water quality issues necessitate. Will attend to
determine if comments are made by other parties that may affect segments
near Pueblo.
➢ Design Criteria, Policy 96 -1
o Administrative Action Hearing —October 13, 2010
■ Party Status and submittals may be necessary depending on the
changes proposed by the Division. No workgroup process is
planned at this time.
➢ Aquatic Life, Policy
o Administrative Action Hearing —October 13, 2010
• Significant changes in the way the State of Colorado determines the
aquatic life designations are being developed.
• The most stringent water quality standards are associated with
aquatic life uses.
• These changes could potentially require comments, studies,
proposals and participation in hearings to determine the appropriate
aquatic life designation.
• Pueblo will need to determine the need for site specific studies to
develop the proper standards to protect the species found in this
segment rather than the full list of species that could occur in similar
waters across the state.
3) Workgroups supported by the Water Quality Forum:
"The mission of the Water Quality Forum is `to achieve solutions to Colorado water
quality issues through communication and understanding, balancing use and
protection of the resource'. One of the principal tools used by the Forum to
accomplish this mission is multiple stakeholder `work groups' established to address
specific priority issues or topics."
➢ Nutrient/Aquatic Life Workgroup
• The primary goal of the work group is to discuss issues that may be
addressed in the rulemaking hearings, to provide input to the Water Quality
Control Division as it develops its proposals for these hearings and to
provide information to others who may wish to develop proposals.
• Refer to issues listed as potential hearing issues for the Basic Standards
Regulation Hearing in section 1). Comments and/or suggested changes may
be needed at each workgroup meeting. Typically these workgroup meetings
occur monthly.
➢ Permit Implementation Workgroup
o This workgroup is an extension of the Regulation 61 Colorado Discharge
Permit System Regulation Workgroup that evaluated the need for changes
to Regulation 61 for the February 2009 rulemaking hearing. This regulation
applies to all operations discharging to waters of the State from a point
source.
o The primary focus is to evaluate the Divisions policies and business
practices for discharge permits. Recommendations for ways to improve
transparency in the permitting process and development of guidance for
implantation of regulatory changes into permits will be provided to the
Water Quality Forum retreat July 2009. Priority issues will be addressed by
a workgroup to revise policies with the CDPHE Permits Unit.
o Comments may be necessary to present issues relevant to Pueblo and to
support comments of other facilities on issues that may affect Pueblo in the
future.
➢ Site Application Guidance Workgroup
o This workgroup is an extension of the Site Application Regulation #22
Hearing to adapt the changes to the regulation into the Division Site
Application guidance. This regulation applies to new construction and
modifications made to water reclamation facilities and sewer systems.
o Comments may be necessary to present issues relevant to Pueblo and to
support comments of other facilities on issues that may affect Pueblo in the
future.
➢ Whole Effluent Toxicity Workgroup
o The Division has received significant pressure from EPA to adopt sublethal
endpoints.
o Comments and/or proposals will need to include extensive legal
interpretation of numerous EPA court cases to determine the appropriate
implementation protocol for the State of Colorado.
o Potentially legal action may be necessary if appropriate implementation of
Whole Effluent Toxicity procedures is not adopted by the Division.
4) Wastewater CDPS Permit negotiations
➢ The WRF permit is on administrative extension. The majority of the issues have
been resolved and the only major remaining issue is the division's determination on
how selenium is going to be implemented in the permit to be in compliance with
the Commission ruling. The Division has been working on our permit and
potentially may send it to public notice in February 2010.
5) Colorado Wastewater Utility Council (Nancy Keller is currently serving as Director)
Presentations by CDPHE, consultants, legal representative, and other organizations
provide valuable information on issues that may affect Pueblo. Pueblo may need to
take a verbal or written position.
➢ The group process allowing for the combining of funds to perform joint studies and
research provides the basis for statewide testimony and written comments to help
develop scientifically based water quality standards, reducing the cost to Pueblo.
➢ Input on draft documents will need to be provided to the Council prior to submittal
of the Council's comments to the Division or submittal of hearing documents to the
Commission.
➢ Educate and mentor other wastewater facilities through the Council's mentoring
program.
6) Fountain Creek Watershed District Technical Advisory Committee (Nancy Keller
is currently serving as the Water Quality Technical Expert)
➢ The Fountain Creek Watershed District Board has two advisory committees which
are fully staffed, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizens Advisory
Group (CAG). The function of the TAC is similar to a planning commission,
providing technical guidance to the Board on the projects and the CAG has a
broader perspective, bringing their views to the table based on the citizens they
represent. The TAC will review projects for water quality, impacts of land use on
drainage patterns, rates and volumes of flow, erosion, sedimentation and flooding
impacts; using the Strategic Plan and Corps Study as a foundation for that review.
➢ This is an extremely important function in addressing nonpoint source pollution
issues on Fountain Creek.
7) Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) — (Nancy Keller is currently Director
for the State of Colorado)
➢ Track Federal legislation and provide input to the Wastewater Director on issues
that have a potential impact on Pueblo.
➢ Track Federal regulatory changes and provide input to the Wastewater Director on
issues that have a potential impact on Pueblo.
➢ Assist with letters and documentation submitted to federal agencies to address
issues on regulation and legislation with special emphasis on impacts to western
arid states.