From: Janice Snyder
Sent: Mon Feb 28 12:29:15 2011
To: ToxicsRuleMaking
Subject: Comments on upcoming DEQ toxics standards
Importance: Normal
To whom it may concern,
I would like to echo the sentiments of Oregon Toxics Alliance and Columbia Riverkeepers in urging the Oregon DEQ to support the new, healthier standards for fish consumption. Furthermore, we are in need of more stringent standards to lower current use pesticides in our water and our fish.
1. Adopting accurate toxics standards is a moral imperative. Eating fish from Oregon’s rivers, lakes, and streams is a way of life for tribal members and many Oregonians throughout the state. Turning a blind eye to the fact that Oregon’s water quality laws fail to protect people who regularly eat fish is simply unacceptable.
2. The DEQ must adopt toxic standards for current –use pesticides. Currently, the rules are designating reduction goals for legacy pesticides, but not for the pesticides that are heavily used throughout the state. Ask the DEQ to include glyphosate, atrazine, 2,4-D, Triclopyr and other herbicides that are causing a toxic burden in the environment. These chemicals are used in forestry, farming and state highway weed control. Herbicides could be reduced by adopting rules to limit run-off and sediment in Oregon’s streams and rivers. Contaminated sediment increases the toxic burden in fish; health standards based on fish consumption is, according to the DEQ, a primary focus of this rule.
3. The overwhelming weight of evidence supports adopting standards based on a fish consumption rate of 175 grams per day. Riverkeeper supports the joint recommendation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), CTUIR, and DEQ to adopt toxics standards based on the accurate fish consumption rate of 175 grams per day. Studies on fish consumption in Oregon support this rate, which protects the majority of fish consumers.
4. DEQ’s analysis and the state’s process for issuing pollution discharge permits does not support opponents’ claims that the proposed standards are unworkable in NPDES permits. For over two years, DEQ, EPA, CTUIR, and representatives of industry, municipalities, and NGOs worked in a collaborative process to develop implementation tools for the new toxics standards. DEQ’s analysis of the new standards demonstrates that the rulemaking package offers a workable process for issuing NPDES permits.
5. DEQ should not make variances easier to obtain for water quality standards that are not becoming more stringent. DEQ’s new variance rule, which allows the agency to issue variances without EQC approval, should only apply to standards that are becoming more stringent: the toxics standards for human health. Other standards, including Oregon’s temperature and bacteria standards, will not change as a result of this rulemaking. In turn, the EQC should not make variances easier to obtain for standards that aren’t becoming more stringent.
6. The proposed “Background Pollutant Concentration Allowance” does not square with the Clean Water Act. If adopted, Oregon would be the first state with a Background Pollutant Concentration Allowance for toxics. As EPA explained, this rule is not consistent with the Clean Water Act. Moreover, the rule is unnecessary given DEQ’s proposed revisions to the variance rule.
7. The EQC should not delay adopting the proposed toxics standards. However, the EQC should again direct DEQ to pursue rulemaking to reduce toxic pollution from nonpoint sources. Protecting people who regularly eat fish from Oregon’s rivers is long overdue. DEQ had many years to adopt accurate human health criteria. Oregon undertook a careful, lengthy rulemaking process. The time is now to adopt new standards. Unfortunately, DEQ’s rulemaking package does not go far enough in reducing toxic inputs from nonpoint sources. Moving forward, the EQC should again direct DEQ to improve nonpoint source regulation.
8. Oregon’s commitment to reducing toxics is compromised by DEQ’s decision to exempt stormwater permits from complying with the new standards. EPA recognizes stormwater discharges from cities, industrial sites, and construction sites as one of the leading causes of degraded water quality. Despite the overwhelming evidence on toxic inputs from stormwater, DEQ is not proposing to implement the new toxics standards in its NPDES permits for stormwater discharges. The EQC should: (1) request a briefing on DEQ’s stormwater program and whether the new standards will, in any respect, result in less toxic discharges from the state’s largest NPDES sector; and (2) direct DEQ to account for the new standards and require more stringent stormwater permits.
Thank you,
Janice Snyder
Portland, OR