DOCSLIB.ORG

319Gfinalsubmittalr.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
319Gfinalsubmittalr.Pdf UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY In re: Clean Water Act § 319(g) Petition of the ) States of Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, ) New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the ) No. ________ Commonwealth of Massachusetts ) ) CLEAN WATER ACT § 319(g) PETITION The States of Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Petitioning States), pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1329(g), hereby petition the Administrator to convene an Interstate Management Conference (Conference) of all states contributing significant nonpoint source mercury pollution to the Petitioning States’ waters. “The purpose of such Conference shall be to develop an agreement among such States to reduce the level of pollution…resulting from nonpoint sources and to improve the water quality…” It is the Petitioning States’ goal for the conference to meet designated uses and water quality standards for mercury within their region through the implementation of plant-specific Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) limits for mercury by EPA under Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act. MACT is expected to control power plant emissions by 90 percent using cost-effective and available technologies. 1. The Petitioning States’ waters, fish and other fauna are highly contaminated with mercury. Mercury, particularly methylmercury – the form of mercury found in fish – is an extremely potent neurotoxin. Infants, children, pregnant women, and women of child-bearing age are most at risk from this widespread poison. 2. Each of the Petitioning States has Clean Water Act (CWA) designated uses of fishing and fish consumption for most of their waters. Mercury pollution prevents compliance with these designated uses and with water quality criteria implementing these uses. Consequently, each of the Petitioning States has issued advisories limiting the types and amounts of fish that can be eaten, which constitutes an impairment of waters under Sec. 303(d) of the CWA. 3. Each of the Petitioning States has water quality criteria for mercury in water and/or in fish that, in part, implement water quality standards consistent with Sec. 303(a) of the CWA. Further, states are required under Sec. 303(d) of the CWA to develop Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analyses for all impaired waters. Hence, in fulfilling these legal requirements of the CWA, each Petitioning State is subject to the Northeast Regional Mercury TMDL (TMDL) for mercury impairments in inland waters, which was approved by EPA on December 20, 2007. 4. The TMDL identified mercury from atmospheric deposition as the primary cause of the impairment. Compliance with the TMDL requires a 74 to 91 percent reduction in fish tissue mercury concentrations. For the Petitioning States to meet the reduction targets of the regional mercury TMDL, atmospheric deposition of mercury in the Petitioning States will have to be reduced by at least 98 percent relative to 1998 levels. An interim goal of reducing the deposition of mercury by at least 75 percent by 2010 has been established. The TMDL goals will 2 be reevaluated at that time to assure its full implementation and compliance. A copy of the TMDL and EPA’s approval document are attached as Exhibits A and B. 5. According to a March 2008 Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) study, based on data from 2002, U.S. sources contribute approximately 30 percent of the atmospheric mercury deposition in the Northeast region. In-region sources contribute approximately one-half of the atmospheric mercury deposition from U.S. sources within the Petitioning States, although individual state contributions vary. Approximately 48 percent of the Petitioning States’ atmospheric mercury deposition from U.S. sources originates from states outside of the region. The out-of-region states with the most significant contributions (and each state’s portion of the deposition attributable to U.S. sources in 2002)∗ are: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (21.7%) State of New Jersey (5.6%) State of Ohio (5.5%) State of West Virginia (3.9%) State of Maryland (3.7%) State of Michigan (2.0%) Commonwealth of Virginia (1.5%) State of Indiana (1.3%) State of Kentucky (1.2%) ∗ Percentages listed in this paragraph and in paragraphs 21, 26, 31, 36, 41, 46, and 51, are based on 2002 data and refer to the portion of atmospheric mercury deposition from U.S. sources that each state contributes to deposition in the region or a particular state. 3 State of North Carolina (1.1%) State of Illinois (0.9%) Other studies are consistent with the findings of this report in terms of the amount and relative importance of atmospheric mercury deposition to the Petitioning-State region from out-of-region sources in the U.S. A copy of the March 2008 NESCAUM Report is attached as Exhibit C. 6. Each Petitioning State has and is implementing stringent programs to control and eliminate in-state sources of mercury pollution to meet TMDL requirements. But because out-of-region mercury significantly contributes to mercury pollution in the Petitioning States, the Petitioning States’ programs alone cannot bring the Petitioning States into compliance with water quality standards and the regional TMDL. The Conference of the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG-ECP) is an organization of the governors of the six New England states and the premiers of the five Eastern Canadian provinces. The governors and premiers collaborate on regional issues and take action on policy areas including the environment, energy, economic development, trade, security, and ocean issues. In 1998, a regional Mercury Action Plan (MAP) developed by representatives of the states and provinces was approved by the NEG-ECP. The MAP identifies steps to address those aspects of the mercury problem in the region that are within the region’s control or influence and sets an overall regional goal to virtually eliminate the discharge of anthropogenic mercury into the environment to ensure that serious or irreversible damage attributable to these sources is not 4 inflicted upon human health and the environment. The MAP set forth goals of 50 percent reduction of regional mercury emissions by 2003, and 75 percent reduction by 2010. In 2003, it was reported that the goal of 50 percent had been exceeded with reductions achieved amounting to approximately 55 percent. When considering only the New England states plus New York State, the emissions reduction in the same time period was approximately 70 percent. This overall reduction was primarily due to an 87 percent reduction in emissions from municipal waste combustors (MWCs), a 97 percent reduction in emissions from medical waste incinerators (MWIs), and a 100 percent reduction in emissions from chlor-alkali facilities. 7. Out-of-region U.S. sources of atmospheric mercury contribute significantly to, and share responsibility for, the toxic mercury in the Petitioning States’ fish and wildlife, and the potential effects on the humans who consume them. The significant mercury pollution from out-of-region sources contributes to both violations of State water quality standards and EPA’s methylmercury fish tissue criterion, and must be significantly reduced to meet the regional TMDL. 8. EPA classifies atmospheric deposition as nonpoint source water pollution. See http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/qa.html (atmospheric deposition is nonpoint source pollution). 9. The sources of atmospheric mercury deposition fall within § 319, 33 U.S.C. § 1329. 5 10. Therefore, the Petitioning States are not meeting CWA requirements regarding mercury as a result, in whole or in part, of nonpoint sources from other States. 11. Further, the CWA’s fundamental goal of “fishable” waters, and the Petitioning States’ designated uses of fishing and fish consumption are not being met, at least in part, because of significant nonpoint mercury pollution from other States originating from atmospheric emissions transported to and deposited within the Petitioning States. 12. Section 319(g)(1) provides that: (1) if any portion of navigable waters, in a State which is implementing an approved 319 plan (2) “is not meeting applicable water quality standards or the goals and requirements of this chapter” (3) “as a result, in whole or in part, of pollution from nonpoint sources in another State,” (4) “such [receiving] State may petition the Administrator to convene, and the Administrator shall convene, a management conference of all States which contribute significant pollution resulting from nonpoint sources to such portion.” The Conference’s purpose “shall” be to forge an agreement to reduce the sources of nonpoint source pollution from the source state(s). 13. The Administrator’s duty is not discretionary, but mandatory. Section 319(g) repeatedly uses the word “shall.” The Administrator must convene a Conference, and the Conference’s purpose is clearly established. 14. Each Petitioning State has an approved § 319 plan covering portions of its navigable waters, including portions impaired by mercury pollution. 6 15. The Northeast Regional Mercury TMDL relied on a regional fish tissue mercury database compiled from agencies and organizations in the participating states. The dataset contains mercury measurements for 64 freshwater fish species with yellow perch and brook trout being the most prevalent species. For the purpose of the TMDL, length-standardized mercury concentrations were calculated for four species: smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, walleye, and yellow perch. The standard length and mean and 90th percentile mercury concentrations for standard length fish are shown in the table below. For all fish species, mean and 90th percentile concentrations exceed EPA’s recommended methylmercury fish tissue criterion of 0.3 mg/kg. Standard Lengths and Mercury Concentrations of Selected Freshwater Fish Species in the Northeast Species Standard Mean Hg 90th percentile Hg Length Concentration Concentration (cm) (mg/kg) at (mg/kg) at Standard Standard Length Length* Smallmouth bass 32 0.69 1.14 (Micropterus dolomieu) Largemouth bass 36 0.61 1.05 (Micropterus salmoides) Yellow perch 20 0.38 0.69 (Perca flavenscens) Walleye (Sander 45 0.60 0.93 vitreus) 16.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lost Lake/ Knops Pond Groton, MA Resource Management Plan
    Lost Lake/ Knops Pond Groton, MA Resource Management Plan Dsa\ “A lake is the landscape’s most beautiful and expressive feature. It is earth’s eye; looking into which the beholder measures the depth of his own nature.” Henry David Thoreau Prepared by: Groton Lakes Association Revision 4.01 August 12, 2012 Table of Contents Part 1- Overview, Identification and Inventories ................................................................ 3 Overview & Executive Summary ....................................................................................... 3 Lake Identification .............................................................................................................. 3 Inventory of Physical Conditions........................................................................................ 6 Species and Wildlife Habitat Inventory ............................................................................ 13 Inventory of Structures ..................................................................................................... 16 Human Use Activity Inventory ......................................................................................... 16 Part 2- Action Plan ............................................................................................................ 17 Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 17 Weed Management ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Northeast Regional Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load
    DRAFT Northeast Regional Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Maine Department of Environmental Protection Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission April 2007 DRAFT Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................................ii Tables ..........................................................................................................................................................iv Figures.........................................................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................................v Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................vi Abbreviations ...........................................................................................................................................xiii Definition of Terms..................................................................................................................................xvi
    [Show full text]
  • Quaboag and Quacumqausit
    Total Maximum Daily Loads of Total Phosphorus for Quaboag & Quacumquasit Ponds COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS STEPHEN R. PRITCHARD, SECRETARY MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ROBERT W. GOLLEDGE Jr., COMMISSIONER BUREAU OF RESOURCE PROTECTION MARY GRIFFIN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DIVISION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GLENN HAAS, DIRECTOR Total Maximum Daily Loads of Total Phosphorus for Quaboag & Quacumquasit Ponds DEP, DWM TMDL Final Report MA36130-2005-1 CN 216.1 May 16, 2006 Location of Quaboag & Quacumquasit Pond within Chicopee Basin in Massachusetts. NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY Limited copies of this report are available at no cost by written request to: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Division of Watershed Management 627 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 This report is also available from DEP’s home page on the World Wide Web at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/tmdls.htm A complete list of reports published since 1963 is updated annually and printed in July. This report, entitled, “Publications of the Massachusetts Division of Watershed Management – Watershed Planning Program, 1963- (current year)”, is also available by writing to the DWM in Worcester. DISCLAIMER References to trade names, commercial products, manufacturers, or distributors in this report constituted neither endorsement nor recommendations by the Division of Watershed Management for use. Front Cover Photograph of the flow gate at Quacumquasit Pond, East Brookfield. Total Maximum Daily Load of Total Phosphorus for Quaboag and Quacumquasit Ponds 2 Executive Summary The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is responsible for monitoring the waters of the Commonwealth, identifying those waters that are impaired, and developing a plan to bring them back into compliance with the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts Freshwater Beaches [2018]: Water Quality Data for Public and Semi-Public Beaches
    Massachusetts Freshwater Beaches [2018]: Water quality data for public and semi-public beaches The table below summarizes testing and posting information for each freshwater beach in Massachusetts. Under the state regulations, freshwater beaches must test for either E. coli or Enterococci. Most beaches do not have to post after each exceedance, provided that (1) they take an immediate resample and (2) that resample does not exceed the standard. Thus, a beach may have an exceedance but no days posted. Conversely, a beach may have days posted, but no exceedances, if it was posted for a reason other than a bacterial exceedance (e.g. rainfall, a cyanobacterial harmful algae bloom, or another hazard such as limited visibility due to poor water clarity). Single Minimum Maximum Testing Days Community Beach Name Tests Indicator Sample Exceedance Exceedance Frequency Posted Exceedances (cfu/100mL) (cfu/100mL) Abington Island Grove Beach Weekly 12 E. coli 3 236 312 3 Acton NARA Beach Weekly 16 E. coli Agawam Robinson Pond Beach (DCR) Weekly 15 Enterococci Amesbury Camp Bauercrest Weekly 10 E. coli Amesbury Glen Devin Condominiums Weekly 11 E. coli 2 261 1553 14 Amesbury Lake Attitash - A.L.S.I.A. Weekly 11 E. coli Amesbury Lake Gardner Weekly 11 E. coli 1 261 261 7 Amesbury Tuxbury RV Resort Lagoon Weekly 11 E. coli Amherst Puffers Pond (North) Weekly 17 E. coli 4 240 1986.3 8 Amherst Puffers Pond (South) Weekly 18 E. coli 4 285.1 1986.3 8 Andover Camp Maude Eaton (1) Weekly 11 E. Coli Andover Camp Maude Eaton (2) Weekly 11 E.
    [Show full text]
  • OUR MISSION DCR’S Universal Access Program Is Dedicated to Providing Outdoor Recreation Opportunities in Massachusetts State Parks for Visitors of All Abilities
    DCR UAP Program Schedule Summer/FallAccess News 2019Page 1 OUR MISSION DCR’s Universal Access Program is dedicated to providing outdoor recreation opportunities in Massachusetts State Parks for visitors of all abilities. Accessibility is achieved through site improvements, specialized adaptive recreation equipment, and accessible recreation programs. Pre-registration is required for all programs. To pre-register, contact the providing organization. Get into the activity sooner by bringing your release form filled out: mass.gov/dcr/universal-access/release Our structured programs feature adaptive equipment, professional staff, and instruction and support. Friends, family, and companions are welcome to take part in our programs alongside participants with disabilities. Visit our website to keep up-to-date with our activities! mass.gov/dcr/universal-access Donations welcome! DCR’s Conservation Trust and Urban Parks Trust Fund accepts contributions to support and enhance outdoor recreation in Massachusetts for people of all abilities. Your tax-deductible donation will help provide access to our parks. Ask us about matching funds! To learn more, visit: mass.gov/dcr/universal-access/donate Checks should be made out to The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, noting that the funds are for the Universal Access Program (UAP), and sent to: DCR’s Universal Access Program P.O. Box 484 Amherst, MA 01004 Access News Page 2 Hiking program that travels around the state! Take a gentle hike with Stavros Outdoor Access. Date Location Adaptive equipment and staff assistance provided. June 20 George’s Island, Bring a lunch and enjoy nature activities, Boston Harbor scavenger hunts, letterboxing, and more. June 27 Great Brook Farm State Park, Carlisle Cost: $3/person, $12/family, $25/group July 11 Walden Pond State Reservation, Concord July 18 Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston County
    M e 113 1 43 3 36 rr 3 Georgetown/ im 45 Shawsheen 42 131333 111 a 53 Rowley 35 ck 38 Village State Forest Willowdale Dunstable 3 Tyngsborough Collinsville 41 2 93 Merrimack State Forest 6 113 2 1 College 3 3 6 Boxford Lowell/Dracut/ Dracut 40/ 2 3 5 Pepperell 34 113 Tyngsboro 1 3 44 97 113 3 3 110 2 Andover 2 State Forest 1 52 Bradley Palmer 111 River 8 39 125 State Park 1 Massapoag 2 43 Boxford Topsfield LEGEND North Chelmsford 133 4 7 2 Asbury 2 Pond 3 State Forest 119 Rich 2 Grove ExpresswayState ParkInterchange 33 2 LowellGreater38 495 Boston1 28and Cambridge 2 4 2 32 51 91 495 Airport 42 40 31 Wamesit 114 3 Hamilton 2 2 2 37 Interstate Visitor 2 2 Harold Parker 2 Groton 40 10 i Information 34 2 Tewksbury 3 State Forest 3 1 Densely 33 Center 36 Populated 35 3A Middleton 3 97 3 Wenham 3 6 3 2 Area Rest Stop with 29 2 50 35 Wenham oll Road 62 111 3 Knops Rest Rooms Lake Primary T 4 2 Shirley Pond Forge i North Highway Westford Chelms- 41 2 62 3 49 3 Beverly 20 2 Exit # Village 38 Reading Airport 21 19 18 5 202 Information 6 ford 40 5 2 2A Long K 2 129 48 3 Kiosk32 110 27 22 128 Pond Forge 6 39 2 rrleyley U.S.119 Route 4 2 Danvers Ayer Pond 3 3 28 kkee 90 4 Ferry (seasonal) 5 Billerica 47 Distance3 31 28 1 23 Secondary 4 Great Brook Farm 2Ain Miles 225 SCALE 24 HHoo Highway State Park 1 Wilmington 2 4 46 2 110 Bridge 2 30 Nashoba 3 BeverlBeverlyy Ferry (yearValley round) 8 27 3A 38 Lynnfield 1 25 2 Littleton 75 1 centimeter = 3.8 kilometers 129 Ski Area 3 3 28 111 Reading 95 26 114 Fort State495 Carlisle 0 3.8Pinehurst km 62 41 3 State119
    [Show full text]
  • WEST NEWBURY TRAINING FIELD Where Newbury Men Trained for the Revolutionary War and West Newbury Men Trained for the Civil War ANNUAL STATEMENT of the RECEIPTS
    WEST NEWBURY TRAINING FIELD Where Newbury men trained for the Revolutionary War and West Newbury men trained for the Civil War ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES OF THE Together with the Reports of the School Committee, Board of Engineers, Trustees of the Public Library, Assessors, Auditor, Treasurer and Collector and the Statistics of the Town Clerk. Printed by ~ NEWBURYPORT P11Ess, INc. lln )mlemnrhnn Harold T. Daley January 8, 1911 December 9, 1977 Selectman Assessor Board of Public Welfare Board of Health 1936-1938 Selectman Assessor Board of Public Welfare Board of Health 1951-1956 Member of First Water Board 1936 DIRECTORY OF TOWN OFFICERS BOARD OF SELECTMEN Stephen F. Burke, Jr., Chairman, 1978 Ann S. Reilly, 1979 Albert E. Elwell, 1980 BOARD OF PUBLIC HEAL TH Albert E. Elwell, Chairman, 1980 Stephen F. Burke, Jr., 1978 Ann S. Reilly, 1979 BOARD OF ASSESSORS Dorothea B. Crowley, Chairman, 1978 George E. Schofield, 1979 Steven W. Cashman, 1980 MODERATOR William A. Cook, 1979 TOWN TREASURER AND TAX COLLECTOR Norman H. Hobson, 1979 TOWN CLERK Norman H. Hobson, 1980 SCHOOL COMMITTEE William P. Bannister, Chairman, 1980 Louis A. Porcelli, 1978 Wayne G. Maglione, 1979 Barbara M. Wells, 1979 Gunter Waehling, 1980 BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS Charles D. Courtemanche, Chairman, 1979 Edward Vansickle, 1978 David Jennell, 1980 CONSTABLES Charles b. Courtemanche, 1980 Wilbert H. Thompson, 1980 Eugene M. Willis, Jr., 1980 BOARD OF TRUSTEES G.A.R. MEMORIAL LIBRARY David D. Hindle, Chairman, 1979 Ann S. Lape, Recording Secretary, 1978 J. Jackson George, 1979 Philip J. Crowley, 1980 Hugh F. Cawley, 1978 Sarkis M.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing Regulations, 2020-2021, Available Online, from Your License Distributor, Or Any DNR Service Center
    Wisconsin Fishing.. it's fun and easy! To use this pamphlet, follow these 5 easy steps: Restrictions: Be familiar with What's New on page 4 and the License Requirements 1 and Statewide Fishing Restrictions on pages 8-11. Trout fishing: If you plan to fish for trout, please see the separate inland trout 2 regulations booklet, Guide to Wisconsin Trout Fishing Regulations, 2020-2021, available online, from your license distributor, or any DNR Service Center. Special regulations: Check for special regulations on the water you will be fishing 3 in the section entitled Special Regulations-Listed by County beginning on page 28. Great Lakes, Winnebago System Waters, and Boundary Waters: If you are 4 planning to fish on the Great Lakes, their tributaries, Winnebago System waters or waters bordering other states, check the appropriate tables on pages 64–76. Statewide rules: If the water you will be fishing is not found in theSpecial Regulations- 5 Listed by County and is not a Great Lake, Winnebago system, or boundary water, statewide rules apply. See the regulation table for General Inland Waters on pages 62–63 for seasons, length and bag limits, listed by species. ** This pamphlet is an interpretive summary of Wisconsin’s fishing laws and regulations. For complete fishing laws and regulations, including those that are implemented after the publica- tion of this pamphlet, consult the Wisconsin State Statutes Chapter 29 or the Administrative Code of the Department of Natural Resources. Consult the legislative website - http://docs. legis.wi.gov - for more information. For the most up-to-date version of this pamphlet, go to dnr.wi.gov search words, “fishing regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • RV Sites in the United States Location Map 110-Mile Park Map 35 Mile
    RV sites in the United States This GPS POI file is available here: https://poidirectory.com/poifiles/united_states/accommodation/RV_MH-US.html Location Map 110-Mile Park Map 35 Mile Camp Map 370 Lakeside Park Map 5 Star RV Map 566 Piney Creek Horse Camp Map 7 Oaks RV Park Map 8th and Bridge RV Map A AAA RV Map A and A Mesa Verde RV Map A H Hogue Map A H Stephens Historic Park Map A J Jolly County Park Map A Mountain Top RV Map A-Bar-A RV/CG Map A. W. Jack Morgan County Par Map A.W. Marion State Park Map Abbeville RV Park Map Abbott Map Abbott Creek (Abbott Butte) Map Abilene State Park Map Abita Springs RV Resort (Oce Map Abram Rutt City Park Map Acadia National Parks Map Acadiana Park Map Ace RV Park Map Ackerman Map Ackley Creek Co Park Map Ackley Lake State Park Map Acorn East Map Acorn Valley Map Acorn West Map Ada Lake Map Adam County Fairgrounds Map Adams City CG Map Adams County Regional Park Map Adams Fork Map Page 1 Location Map Adams Grove Map Adelaide Map Adirondack Gateway Campgroun Map Admiralty RV and Resort Map Adolph Thomae Jr. County Par Map Adrian City CG Map Aerie Crag Map Aeroplane Mesa Map Afton Canyon Map Afton Landing Map Agate Beach Map Agnew Meadows Map Agricenter RV Park Map Agua Caliente County Park Map Agua Piedra Map Aguirre Spring Map Ahart Map Ahtanum State Forest Map Aiken State Park Map Aikens Creek West Map Ainsworth State Park Map Airplane Flat Map Airport Flat Map Airport Lake Park Map Airport Park Map Aitkin Co Campground Map Ajax Country Livin' I-49 RV Map Ajo Arena Map Ajo Community Golf Course Map
    [Show full text]
  • Selectmen Deny Planning Board's Request to Consult with Town Attorney
    OUR PURPLE PROMISE We Only Charge • Pro Pics • Full Service 1.5% • Open Houses of Sale Price • MLS *Does Not include Buyer’s Agent Commission *Minimums Apply* gopurpleporch.com 1-508-439-7068 Located in Sturbridge Free by request to residents of Charlton, Charlton City and Charlton Depot SEND YOUR NEWS AND PICS TO [email protected] Friday, March 1, 2019 Selectmen deny planning board’s request to consult with town attorney BY JASON BLEAU Patricia Rydlak appeared interest. manner that could result in the assist them in the case. VILLAGER CORRESPONDENT before selectmen on Tuesday, The Open Meeting Law vio- Board of Selectmen standing in This is only the latest chap- Feb. 19 discussing a request for lations are connected to the violation the laws as well. The ter in an ongoing controversy CHARLTON – The Charlton the use of Town Council to help ongoing debate concerning the Planning Board expressed con- involving Valley Green Grow Board of Selectmen has denied the Planning Board address proposed Valley Green Grow cerns about a lack of legal rep- that has seen the Planning legal assistance to the town’s Open Meeting Law complaints project for Charlton Orchard, resentation in early February, Board and Board of Selectmen Planning Board as officials revealing that the board had an initiative that has grown as the deadline for a response to at odds and citizens debating work to resolve open meeting been denied legal represen- into a town-wide controversy the court approached, and also whether the proposed mari- law violation complaints, as tation. Rydlak said that the and led VGG to file an appeal urged the Board of Selectmen juana cultivation project can well as respond to the ongo- Planning Board was turned in Superior Court after the to meeting with the Planning or should be allowed on the ing litigation concerning the down because the town’s Planning Board denied them Board to discuss how to pro- Charlton Orchard property.
    [Show full text]
  • MDPH Beaches Annual Report 2008
    Marine and Freshwater Beach Testing in Massachusetts Annual Report: 2008 Season Massachusetts Department of Public Health Bureau of Environmental Health Environmental Toxicology Program http://www.mass.gov/dph/topics/beaches.htm July 2009 PART ONE: THE MDPH/BEH BEACHES PROJECT 3 I. Overview ......................................................................................................5 II. Background ..................................................................................................6 A. Beach Water Quality & Health: the need for testing......................................................... 6 B. Establishment of the MDPH/BEHP Beaches Project ....................................................... 6 III. Beach Water Quality Monitoring...................................................................8 A. Sample collection..............................................................................................................8 B. Sample analysis................................................................................................................9 1. The MDPH contract laboratory program ...................................................................... 9 2. The use of indicators .................................................................................................... 9 3. Enterococci................................................................................................................... 10 4. E. coli...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mercury Pollution in Massachusetts' Waters
    Photo: Supe87, Under license from Shutterstock.com from Supe87, Under license Photo: ToXIC WATERWAYS Mercury Pollution in Massachusetts’ Waters Lauren Randall Environment Massachusetts Research & Policy Center December 2011 Executive Summary Coal-fired power plants are the single larg- Human Services advises that all chil- est source of mercury pollution in the Unit- dren under twelve, pregnant women, ed States. Emissions from these plants even- women who may become pregnant, tually make their way into Massachusetts’ and nursing mothers not consume any waterways, contaminating fish and wildlife. fish from Massachusetts’ waterways. Many of Massachusetts’ waterways are un- der advisory because of mercury contami- Mercury pollution threatens public nation. Eating contaminated fish is the main health source of human exposure to mercury. • Eating contaminated fish is the main Mercury pollution poses enormous public source of human exposure to mercury. health threats. Mercury exposure during • Mercury is a potent neurotoxicant. In critical periods of brain development can the first two years of a child’s life, mer- contribute to irreversible deficits in verbal cury exposure can lead to irreversible skills, damage to attention and motor con- deficits in attention and motor control, trol, and reduced IQ. damage to verbal skills, and reduced IQ. • While adults are at lower risk of neu- In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection rological impairment than children, Agency (EPA) developed and proposed the evidence shows that a low-level dose first national standards limiting mercury and of mercury from fish consumption in other toxic air pollution from existing coal- adults can lead to defects similar to and oil-fired power plants.
    [Show full text]