From: Rep Bentz

Sent: Wed Feb 09 10:10:19 2011

To: ToxicsRuleMaking

Subject: Attn: Andrea Matzke

Importance: Normal

To whom it may concern:

I would urge you to stop the Department of Environmental Quality’s efforts to regulate what they call 114 toxic elements in proposed rules they are promulgating. The meeting I attended did not list these toxic elements. What I did find in the presentation is that the proposed criteria for these levels was based on erroneous data. That data was gathered by seven meetings of Native American tribes, two in the Puget Sound Area. In these meetings, the Indians were asked how much fish and shellfish they ate. The assumption was that certain groups of Indians eat more fish that other Oregonians and that rules need to be made to limit the amount of toxins in fish for those who eat the most fish. The amount eaten by these Indians was said to be eight ounces, twenty three times a month. Then the toxins in this presumed amount were multiplied by ten to be the minimum amount allowed in the proposed rules for any of the proposed elements in any body of water in Oregon.

The problems I could see were:

1. The toxic elements were not listed, nor was there any research showing that these toxins had a direct adverse effect of the health of the Indian Tribes in Oregon.

2. The amount of fish and shellfish were asked, not observed. As a nurse, I know that what and how much people say they eat, differs from what the measured and observed amount of food that is eaten.

2. Puget Sound is not in Oregon. Two of the meetings were with Indians in the Puget Sound. Are we trying to regulate what toxins are in the Ocean? Puget Sound is exposed to the Pacific Ocean. This data should be thrown out, as it has nothing to do with even the resident Indian tribes eating a lot of fish in Oregon.

3. Different fish concentrate substances differently, and not all fish eaten by Oregonians come from fresh waters in Oregon. Tuna usually comes from Asia. Tilapia and Salmon are often farm raised. There is limited shellfish growing in the fresh waters of Oregon. I can only think of crayfish, and mussels( and some crab at inlets to the Ocean).

4.There was no rationale given as to why the large amount of fish supposedly eaten by Indians was multiplied by ten to control the toxic limits in all bodies of water in Oregon.

5. There was no answer to the repeated requests of the estimates of cost this would cost Oregonians from the five people who came from the state for this meeting.

6. Any variance from the proposed rules would require monitoring and the evaluation by costly experts and require paperwork on the part of cities and businesses. No time limits for variances were in the rules.

7. The agriculture persons did not want additional rules over what they were complying with through the Department of Agriculture. These rules would mean overlapping agencies.

8, There seemed to be no input to the Department of Environmental Quality on the work Oregonians have already made on T.M.D.L’s and naturally occurring substances.

9. At the time when there is a lack of jobs in Oregon, extreme environmentalists are proposing harsh restrictions of many substances that will cost citizens, ranches, businesses and forestry more money to function in Oregon, based on faulty data.

Sincerely,

Judith Kirby

Ontario, Oregon