Human Health Toxic Pollutants Rulemaking

From: Mark Milne

Sent: Fri Mar 18 11:33:22 2011

To: ToxicsRuleMaking

Subject: Human Health Toxic Pollutants Rulemaking

Importance: Normal

Andrea Matzke March 18, 2011

Toxics Coordinator

Water Quality Division

Department of Environmental Quality

811 SW 6th Ave.

Portland, OR 97204

Phone: 503-229-5518

FAX: 503-229-6037

Re: Toxics Rule Making

I believe my recent oral comments may be misinterpreted; at least they were by the local paper. The City of Pendleton is not opposed to the increase in the fish consumption rate. We support the reduction of toxics in the environment. We support the goals of the EQC and DEQ. We also think you are looking at the wrong end of the horse.

Municipal wastewater facilities with NPDES permits are pollution reduction facilities. If the toxics are found at a wastewater plant it is likely that they are being produced or used up stream. Many of the toxics of concern fall into categories like pesticides, herbicides, combustion by products, industrial chemicals and legacy pollutants, all of these categories have homes that have nothing to do with a NPDES permit holder. The City of Pendleton reduces the pollution of 17,500 people including much of CTUIR. We are not the generators of the toxics that we all are trying to reduce. The focus should be up stream of the wastewater treatment plant before the toxics are mixed with millions of gallons of water.

Compounding of Conservative Estimates

Has the toxics data been reviewed to see how many conservative estimates will be used in producing the new toxics limits? My understanding of the mercury limit is the most sensitive population (pregnant and children) was used, a level of no effect was determined and a safety factor of 10 was added. Couple this with a fish consumption rate from the 95^th percentile that is most likely adult males and the new standards would be overly protective. This is not to say protection is bad but the money spent to meet the higher level of protection might be better spent on more productive health initiatives.

Cooperation

There are many agricultural chemicals on the toxics list, herbicides and pesticides, and the cooperation from DOA relies on the use of “Area Plans”. These plans don’t seem to have any teeth. Couple that with the fact DOA can’t find the money to track herbicides and pesticides and it becomes apparent that the only partner in this program is the NPDES permit holder. A fee per pound of pesticide sold so DOA can afford to track pesticides would be a good start toward making DOA a full partner.

Money

All this costs money, money to make a reduction plan or money to request a waiver. Could this money be better spent on other water quality improvements? How many items on the toxics list have a reasonable chance for reduction at the permit holder level? Up-stream is where pollution reduction is most likely and I would rather pay DEQ a fee to look at Oregon wide up-stream options than a consultant to get a waiver.

Thank you for your time,

Mark Milne

Wastewater Superintendent

City of Pendleton