My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00585
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00585
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:52:08 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:41:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/23/1998
Description
Federal "Clean Water Action Plan" and EPA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making - Status Report
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />ANPRM Comments <br />December 8, 1998 <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />fractional tiers, EPA should make the Tier 3 concept one that has a practical <br />function in water quality management programs. <br /> <br />Mixina Zones <br /> <br />1. 1I1.E. Mixing Zones: <br /> <br />Colorado does not believe that it would be appropriate for EPA to adopt new, <br />detailed federal requirements regarding mixing zones. Rather, EPA's focus should <br />be on providing a broad narrative statement of mixing zone policy, while leaving the <br />details to be developed by states. For example, EPA could require states to <br />indicate the circumstances in which mixing zones are allowed and to specify the <br />state's procedures and criteria for establishing mixing zones. <br /> <br />Independent Application <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />III.G. Independent Application Policy: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Colorado does not believe that water quality management programs are well-served <br />by a strict and inflexible independent application policy. We agree with EPA's <br />current thinking that "it is important for there-to be flexibility to resolve instances of <br />disagreement between different forms of data and that perhaps mechanisms for <br />such flexibility can be clarified or improved." There is a substantial risk that an <br />inflexible independent application policy will discourage additional water quality <br />monitoring, such as biological assessments, by the regulated community. If <br />additional information can only result in additional controls, why would any such <br />entity undertake monitoring in addition to minimum requirements? Moreover, this <br />same disincentive to collecting additional information may lead important <br />constituencies to oppose expanded state resources devoted to water quality <br />monitoring. In view of the increasing needs for additional monitoring information <br />noted in our general comments above, such disincentives to increased monitoring <br />need to be avoided. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />III.G.3. Independent Application and NPDES Permitting: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />A strict independent application policy is not appropriate for the NPDES program. <br />The appropriate relationship between chemical-specific effluent limitations to <br />implement numerical water quality standards and whole effluent toxicity (WET) <br />testing requirements to implement the narrative "free from toxics" standard may vary <br />depending on site-specific circumstances. For example, factors that may influence <br />the appropriate conclusion in specific circumstances include (1) whether a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.