|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
|
|
Maine Wastewater February 2001
Currently,
all privately owned and publicly owned wastewater treatment plants
in Maine have site-specific discharge limits for mercury.
These interim limits are based on existing conditions at each
plant in the Spring of 2000, and are set at extremely low levels, in
parts per trillion (nanograms per Liter). In 2001, the Maine
Legislature is considering
a proposal from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) to set a statewide specific limit for mercury of 0.2 parts per
trillion parts of water, which is bellow the level that laboratories
can measure with any degree of certainty.
The
DEP’s proposal incorporates the controversial United States
Environmental Protection Agency “fish tissue residue” standard
that is based on a study of two fish eating populations; one in the
Seychelles Islands and one in the Faro Islands. The proposed
statewide Maine limit would be lower than any of Maine’s
permittees could reasonably achieve under current conditions.
There is no known technology for achieving such a low level
in discharges of this size (volume).
Technologies that may get wastewater treatment plants'
discharges into the single nanograms per Liter range are estimated
to cost municipal taxpayers and ratepayers from $10 million[1]
-$100 million[2]
dollars per pound of mercury removed.
MWWCA
members are dismayed to know that even if all wastewater treatment
plants stopped discharging wastewater to Maine's rivers today, it
would still be unsafe for people to eat the fish in Maine's rivers
tomorrow. That is because more than 90% of the mercury found in
Maine's waters comes from air pollution[3].
Thus, the MWWCA vigorously supports and encourages our
congressional delegates’ work to control mercury air pollution,
including Congressman Tom Allen’s sponsorship of H.R.2667,
The Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act of 1999 and H.R.
2980, The Clean Power Plant Act of 1999.
Nearly
all controllable amounts of mercury from traditional industry have
been addressed, as a result of national effluent standards and
municipal pretreatment programs. Now, most mercury in municipal
wastewater comes from non-traditional industry (dentists, hospitals)
and from domestic, or household,
However,
to make source reduction work, there is a need for both federal and
state assistance, especially in the areas of public policy and
public education. Up
to 138 parts per trillion of the mercury coming into wastewater
treatment plants originates in private households, mostly from
dental amalgam deterioration, but also from many common household
products.[4]
Therefore, MWWCA enthusiastically applauds and supports
Senator Susan Collins’ proposal[5]
for a nationwide ban on mercury fever thermometers that includes a
comprehensive plan for reducing or eliminating many other mercury
added products. MWWCA
encourages this kind of dynamic federal leadership which gets out
the message that consumers can significantly reduce mercury in the
environment by making informed choices.
On
a national level, a lot of public resources are being used to
identify and contain the sources of the mercury that is discharged
from wastewater treatment plants.
Yet, these extraordinary efforts cannot by themselves result
in the lifting of fish advisories or in a measurable reduction of
the threat to public health or wildlife.
In order to succeed, our nation’s leaders must also assure
that there are simultaneous efforts to identify and remove sources
of mercury in our homes and businesses, and to significantly curtail
mercury emissions from utility and waste combustors.
Therefore, MWWCA asks our Congressional delegates to continue
their support of a concerted national policy for removing toxic
mercury from the environment. This national policy should include:
If
you have questions about MWWCA's position on the Control of Mercury
in the Environment or other issues involving clean water, please
contact us: Vivian
Matkivich c/o
Lewiston-Auburn 535
Lincoln Street Telephone:
(207) 782-0917 Footnotes [1] Reash, Robin J., Loeffelman, Paul H., Hollback, John E., Tiell, Jennifer and Martin, Gary. “Now You Can Choose: Treat Mercury in Water at $10 Million Per Pound or Take Ohio EPA’s Statewide Variance with Pollution Minimization”, Environmental Regulation and Permitting, Spring 1998, pgs. 29 - 38. [2] “Economic Impacts of EPA’s Draft Final TMDL Rule San Francisco Bay Case Study” July 6, 2000. [3] Northeast States and Eastern Canadian Provinces “Mercury Study; A Framework for Action” February 1998, pg. VIII-30. [4] Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies “Evaluation of Domestic Sources of Mercury” August 2000, p. 3. [5] “A BILL to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to reduce the quantity of mercury in the environment by limiting use of mercury fever thermometers and improving collection, recycling, and disposal of mercury, and for other purposes.” February 15, 2001
Job
Bank
|
Equipment For Sale
|
Maine Legislature
Send mail
to
administration with questions
or comments about this web site.
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
|
|
Top