Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-06-20 City Council
City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL- = ............... ATTN:POLICY & SERVICES FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE:JUNE 20, 2000 CMR:272:00 TITLE:POLICY TO SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE MERCURY AND DIOXIN RELEASES TO THE ENVIRONMENT REPORT IN BRIEF Mercury and dioxins are highly toxic substances that persist for long periods in the environment, where they bioaccumulate in living tissues. Both mercury and dioxins are listed by regulatory agencies as impairing the San Francisco Bay water quality. In order to facilitate interdepartmental collaboration and to indicate the City’s level of commitment to reducing environmental releases of mercury and dioxins, staff is recommending that City Council approve a mercury and dioxin elimination policy. A previous version of the policy was removed from a March 2000 Council meeting agenda due to concerns presented by the Communities for a Better Environment (CBE). Staff reviewed CBE’s concerns and modified the policy. The language changes clarify staff intent and do not represent a change in approach. Further, staff developed implementation plans for the Fiscal Year, 2000-01. Each plan presents tasks to reduce municipal sources, industrial and commercial sources, and residential sources. CMR:272:00 Page 1 of 5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached mercury and dioxin elimination policy as the first step towards achieving a long-term goal of eliminating mercury and dioxin releases to the environment. BACKGROUND On December 13, 1999, staff submitted to City Council a policy to substantially reduce mercury and dioxin releases to the environment (CMR:441:99). -Prior to this submission, Environmental Compliance staff (ECD) presented the proposed policy to affected City departments, local industrial and commercial leaders, and environmental leaders. All comments received were supportive of the City’s commitment to this issue. The report was referred to and unanimously approved by the Policy and Services Committee on February 8, 2000. Subsequently, Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) submitted a comment letter..to Mayor Liz Kniss and the City Council. The letter was forwarded to staff for review (Attachment A). As a result of CBE’s concern, the policy .was removed from the March 27, 2000 City Council meeting agenda to give staff time to consider the comments. DISCUSSION On May 10, 2000, staff met with CBE and other environmental stakeholders. The group voiced six concerns, all with respect to dioxin elimination. Each of these concerns is described below, with staff response. Based on the feedback, staff revised the proposed policy statement and is presenting it as an attachment to this report, with strike-outs and underlines to indicate the changes from the previous proposal. The language revisions clarify the City’s approach to dioxin elimination and do not represent a change in approach. 1. Pollution prevention is preferred over end-of-pipe treatment The City of Palo Alto has always agreed with the position that pollution prevention is preferred over end-of-pipe treatment. There is no intent in the policy to change this position. In the revised policy, this intent is clarified. The City’s strategy is to conduct source-by-source pollution prevention and elimination. A source-by-source approach has the overall effect of a near-term reduction in dioxin, culminating with the ultimate goal of overall elimination. 2. Prioritizati0n of sources The environmental stakeholders expressed concern over the last sentence in the second paragraph of the originally proposed policy: "Both strategies will place higher priority. on measures that reduce and eliminate sources having the greatest adverse impact on human and environmental health and/or which are most cost-effective to implement." CBE inferred that an arduous prioritization process would occur prior to actual implementation of source elimination. It noied that, for dioxin, there is not sufficient data CMR:272:00 Page 2 of 5 available to determine which sources have the greatest impact on human and’ environmental health, and any policy that would seek to clarify this prior to implementation would be inefficient and impractical.. City staff will implement pollution prevention source-by-source, focusing on cost- effective and preventable sources. This is now reflected in the first paragraph of the policy. Due to possible misinterpretations of the statement in paragraph two and some redundancy in the policy text, staff deleted it from the policy. 3. The timeline for dioxin elimination Regarding the timeline for achieving elimination, CBE emphasized the need to eliminate dioxin as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the actual timeline for dioxin elimination is uncertain due to factors beyond Palo Alto’s sole control. While there are substantial environmental and health reasons to expedite the elimination of dioxin sources, the problem is complex and includes sources for which there are no good or known alternatives. Given that reality, it would be inappropriate for Palo Alto to present to residents an unrealistic expectation of immediate dioxin elimination. With the adoption of this policy, Palo Alto will identify and eliminate preventable dioxin sources on the fastest practical timeline. Because staff is committed to the concept of total elimination of dioxin and mercury, the phrase "reduce, and eventually eliminate" in the previously proposed policy was changed to simply "eliminate." To address the issue of timeline, staff revised the policy to indicate that "scheduling of specific actions will focus on the most cost-effective and preventable sources first." 4. Small business incentive program CBE suggested that the City of Palo Alto implement a program to assist small businesses in obtaining assistance for eliminating dioxin. Staff is not aware of small businesses in Palo Alto generating dioxin and therefore no such assistance is necessary. If staff becomes aware of barriers to small businesses in the elimination of dioxin sources, the City will consider an incentive program, as has been done for other pollutant sources. 5. Relative importance of local dioxin sources CBE disagrees with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) with respect to the relative importance of local dioxin sources. The City of Palo Alto recognizes the on-going debate regarding the quantification of local dioxin sources. Staff " will continue to rely on the BAAQMD for local emission estimates. Its data is the best available for this region, particularly in the absence of local estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection .Agency (EPA). However, .it is important to note that regardless of which data source might .be used, such emission estimates are not driving the City of Palo Alt0’s dioxin program. Pollution prevention activities will continue to be conducted for all preventable sources. CMR:272:00 Page 3 of 5 In order to facilitate interdepartmental collaboration and to indicate the City’s level of commitment to reducing environmental releases of mercury and dioxins, .staff recommends that City Council approye a. revised mercury and dioxin elimination policy (Attachment B), which is shown with strikeouts and underlining in the first paragraph, to indicate the minor changes from the original policy proposed bystaff in December 1999. RESOURCE IMPACT Implementation of this policy is. not expected to immediately impact fiscal resources. The Public Works ECD staff will take the lead in reviewing source control and pollution prevention options, teaming with work units within the City’s Administrative Services, Utilities, and Fire Departments and other Public Works divisions to ensure that environmental and resource implications are fully considered for specific programs under consideration. Actions that have significant resource impacts will be brought back to City Council for approval. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommended policy does not represent any change to existing City policies. A mercury and dioxin elimination policy will complement and reinforce several Comprehensive Plan policies. TIMELINE The implementation plans were originally developed by ECD as part of the "Clean Bay Plan 2000" submitted to the U.S.. EPA and the San Francisco Bay .Regiona! Water Quality Control Board in March 2000 (CMR 204:00,. Attachment C).Staff implementation of the policy is summarized in Attachments D and E. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Communities for a Better Environment Comment Letter Proposed Mercury and Dioxin Elimination Policy CMR:204:00 Mercury Elimination Policy Summarization Dioxin Elimination Policy Summarization PREPARED BY: Stephanie Hughes, Manager, Source Control Programs DEPARTMENT HEAD: ,/Q " r GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works ~MR:272:00 P~ge 4 of 5 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EIVffLY HARRISON -"- Assistant City Manager CMR:272:00 Page 5 of 5 Mayor Kniss and City Council members’ March 1, 2000 Page two a nationally recognizeA environmental injustice, The U.S. EPA has designated dioxin among.the very highest priority pollution problems in Bay~ The State Water Resources Control Board’s Pollutant Policy Document directs regional water boards to develop plans that will eliminate the discharge of dioxlns to the Bay-Ddta by this year. Without discussing this information, the Shaft report introduces dioxin elimination as a ,’long- term", or "eventual" goal. , The Council should specifically be aware of a serious error in the staff report where it states: "Primary local sources of dioxins appear to be residential wood burning and motor vehicles, particularly diesel-ftteled motor vehlcles." There are at least four scientific reasons why this conclusion should be rejected: ¯ The U.8, EPA makes the opposite estimate based on a large national data base, and has rejected the conclusion that vehicles and fircplace,s are known to release more dioxin than industries iu the Bay Area (s¢ attached EPA letter). ¯ The original author of the estimate that vehicles and fireplaces cause most Bay Area dioxin pollution (the Bay Area Air Qt~ality Management Distiiet) admitt~ in a meeting of experts during Oakland’s policy process that this estimate is not based on any Bay Area measurements of residential wood fires or vehicles. ¯ Bay Area measurements of industrial sources and the environment reveal a pol- lution gradient with higher dioxin levels near industrial sources and lower dioxin levels in residential areas far from thos~ sources, ¯ Certain industrial process~ ,are, in fact, 1.h~ root sources of at least some diox- ins emitted by vd~icles and residential wood fires. Our broad concern is for the Council to b~ apprised of what R known about dioxlns. We. have found that when this information is shared openly, a consensus hns emerged that we know enough now to eliminate the generation of dioxin at its root sources, wherever possible. The remainder of this letter attempts to summariz¢ much of this information, then sets forth specific rationale for what ws b~lieve is a r~asonable suggestion to modify the proposed policy and move forward together for zero dioxin. ~B_q_~ground on di_p...xin pollution of fishing in ,San Fra0eiseo.~.B_.a_y The San Francisco Bay~Delta is the largest enclosed estuary in the western coati- neural U,S. The Bay was a good resource for indigcndus Califomlans m~d a major com- mercial fisl~ing center in past generations. Today the Bay’s shoreline and piers arc fished by many hundreds of people who share their catch with friends and family. Most Bay anglers are people of color, and somt~ of them report eating Bay-caught fish daffy, "Dioxin" refers to a group of chemicals with a common mechanism of toxicity. This group includes seven polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, ten dibcnzofurans, doyen polychlorinated biphonyls (PCBs), and some similar chemicals that contain bromine and/or chlorine atoms. In fact, a major reason for naming this group "dioxins" is the ncc.d to account for their cumulative toxieiiy, All the chemicals in this group cause toxi- city by interfering witl~ a spcclfic protein in the cells of humans and other animals, dis- rupting normal gone expression. Becaus~ there are dozens of these chemicals in the Mayor Kaafss and City Council members Mat~:h i, 2000 Page thr~e ¯ environment, and each one can act together with the o~ors in our coils, a true measure- ment of their health hazards must me~ur~ the combined effects of all ti~e, se chemicals. For most purposes, the total amount of dioxin pollutidn and its potential to cause health effects in the environment is measured as the TCDD equivalents ("TEQ") of the chlorinated dioxins.~ Those chemicals have no industrialuse, but are trace by-products of various industrial activities w~ieh involve chlorine. Although pro-industrial dioxin pollution waz essentially nonexistent, dioxlns have become ubiquitous trace contaminants following industrit’dization, partly because the..~ chemicals are extremely long lasting in the environment. Once generated, dioxins quickly ~ttach to tiny particles in aqueous, gaseous and solid wastes, and mix far into tim environment on the wtnd.~ and cun~nts, These discharges build up over time in the s0il anti mud of drainages, and sot’no of this dioxin is later swept by rain runoff into water bod]os, A dramatic mid-century increase in U.S, dioxin contalrfination correlates with incre.asi~g industrial production and use of chlorine, while levels in non-industrial regions of the world remain lower than U,S, levels, and levels in Sweden dropped mea- surably following the partial prcventlon of ongoing industrial releases in that country. All people are now exposed to dioxins, In addition to their widespread dispersal and p~rsistence in the environment, these chemicals concentrate drastically up the food chain, Most human exposut~ to dioxin is from animal products in the food supply. Dioxins are among the most toxic and most researched environmental pollutants, Billions of dollars have been spent studying these chemicals. Chronic exposure to tiny ,.unotmts of dioxins can cause effects on the reproductive, developmental, endocrine, immune and nervous systems. (A list of dioxin effects is attached.) Even general popu- l~ti0n dioxin exposures approach or exceed levels that may cause diabetes, endometrio- sis,. a range of childhood learning problems, or reduced resistance to infection in humans and other animals. The besi studied dioxin is classified by’the International Agency for Research on Cantor as a known human carcinogen. The U.$, Environmental Protection Agency has estiruated that as little as one picogram (a trillionth of a gram) of daily di.ox- in exposure may cause a person to exceed the lowest cancer risk threshold?- Subsistence anglers are disproportionately exposed to dioxin by using San ¯ Francisco B.ay for food, and their children deafly face exposures above levels predicted to be toxic. There is ten times mo~ dioxin inBay fish eaten regularly by anglers than I TCDD equivalents have be~n developed for ;2fl chlorinatM dioxins to me,,sure their cumulative toxicity. ’l’he~e che~ticald common toxicity mechanism is du~ to their similar molecular ~tructu~es, which have ohlofinu atom.~ at similar locations. The amount of toxicity added by each chemical is predicted by its dmaxiet~l structure and confirmed by direct ¢xperlm~nts. This evidence forms th~ ba.~is for the used tapproach which ~ssigns each Individual dioxin a pott~ncy fltctor relative to the othcr~, multiplies this factor with its coaeeratration, and etdd.s fl~ese "TCDD equivalertt~." Other ~imilar cimmtcals, such as poly- brornlnt~ted diphenyl ~ther,~ m~d polychlorinated aapthalen~s, also cause dioxin-lik~ toxicity (which adds further to the, dioxin heallh throat), and TCDD equlval,nts are being developed for som~ of lhcs.o cals as well. "l’h~ term ’q’CDD equlvalent~" is ,,ometlmes abbreviated as "TEQ." 2 lJase$ on lifetime exposurt~ to 0.006 pie0grmn per kilogram of body weight poe day and the policy judg- ment that it is "~tccep ’tabl," for each environmental pollution risk to cause one cancer in a million people. Mayor Kniss and City Council members March’ I, 2000 Page four in ~he most contaminated store-bought foods. In the womb and during breast feeding, developing children am exposed to 10-’50 times more dioxln per.pound of body weight titan adults, and this ©xposur~ increases with increased parental expo- sures. Reviewing these issues, the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council found that dioxin pollution of San Francisco Bay "results in environmental injustice,’’~ Cumulalivt~ pollution from dozens. of known indastrlal dioxin sources con- tributes significantly to ~outamination of San F~aneisco B.ay, Fish tested from the Bay region.contain much more dioxin than fish from a rural lake 100 miles to the no~ah, and this e~annot be explained by dioxin fallout from the span’so or nonexis- tent sources i.n the ocean that is upwind " most of the yea~; Further, dtoxin levels in Bay Area storm water runoff reveal a gradi- ent of increasing pollution nearer to known industrial sources, indicating that these sources Influence regional dioxin levels, Finally, though the regional data on dioxin in sediment are limited to a few samples, dioxin levels in ambient sediment ~nd at a Centre Costa County oil refinery also follow thls same pollution gradient pointh~g to industiial dioxin sourees.~ These fish, runoff and sediment pollution gradients are shova~ in figures 1, 2,’and 3. 1, Dioxin in fish 160 kin: Pacific Ocean dioxin, 9,5-10 fl~ran & PCB TEQ in ~h" (parts p~r trillion) k¥~’,,.*~, o~2, Die:tin in Bay A~a 4D ~o o .Datd an RWQ~, 1995; and ’San Pr~clsco 3, Dioxln in Bay Area sediment (TEQ of dloxigv and furans) Eliminating dioxin pollution is a top priority in the Bay Area. Municipal gov- ernments in Oakland and San Francisco have found that "[a] strategy that eliminates th~ production of dioxin is the only viable course in protecting public health" and Rcfleery ’ eanol Fr~cl~ea 0.7 to rivetss Rezolution approved by the National 12nviromnental Justice Advisory Council, a f~dernl advisory com- nxttteo to the U.S. 12nvJronmontal Protection Agency, init~ May 31-lune 3, 1998 m~ting in Oakland, ~A, 4 B~od on these data, direct source measurements, and process analyses, it is now cle~-that certain oil refinery processes are a newly uncovered dioxin source, and m’v among the significant root sources of dioxin pnllut~on in the B~y A~ea. Mayor Kniss and City Council members March I, 2000 Pag~ asked water quality officials to effect this phase out as soon as possible.5 The State Water Resources Control Board has established a goal "to eliminate the discharge of thc.se compounds to waters of the Bay-Delta by the yo~x 2000" and dirrcted its regional beams to develop plans to eliminate dioxins,6 Nine Bay Area Members of congress urged Governor Gray.Davis "to use the science that is available now to prevent pollu- tion and protect health by developing a specific, enforceable strategy to phase out dioxin discharges into the Bay.’’v The Environmental Protection Agency formally gave dioxin violations of water quality standards throughout San Francisco Bay its highestpriority under Clean Water Act section 303(d), specifically because of.health threats to subsis- tence anglers,a ./].aekgroun_d on3~reventabbt root causes or ’oxdjg.M.0~ollu.ti.on !n the_re, on. Dioxin can be eliminated at Bay Area sources by m~ orderly app~-oaeh based on objective, independently verifiabl~ measurements made with currently availabl~ scientif- ic tools. Since dioxins (and their precursors such as chlorine) can be measured, the root sources that create dioxins as by-products can be identified, Since cases where the ere- ation of dioxin w~s eliminated at a source am documented (e.g., eliminating chlorine 4, Dioxin #ourc~s idenafi~d n’ear from th~ process, or stopping waste ineiner-San Fmndsco Bay ation in favor of pollution prevention and recycling), it is known that identified root ~ Mayor Kniss and City Council members March 1, 2000 Page six cd elsewhere, or (in most cases) by both of these commonly accepted methods for dlox- in sourc~ identification. CBE’s dioxin pollution prevention action inventory fanes these sources based on t~xisting data to Confirm a preventable root cause of dioxins creation at the source. Nearest to Pale Alto, sewage sludge incinerators and a cement kiln are priority-two sources for immediate prevention, and source testing is needed at other nearby sources.9 !mpetu~fo ._ . _ _r 0thor local, dtoxin coheres. ~E ~nd our partn~ nt ~o Ca}ifornia Dioxin Exposure Alliance inifiMly requested the lo~al policies ~dopted by O~land and San Francisco in 1999, We hMped to d~velop poli~i~s and those ~opted by Berkeley in 1999 Matin Coutity this year, ~d succeeded in suggesV inga crucial adjustment in ~AG’s policy. Wldle our goal ia flxcs~ efforts hm~ been improved ~md environmental justlc~, our prima~ objective in these c’fforts is a policy of tree pollution prevention, There are two fundamentally different approaches to dioxin pollution. One allows di0xins to be created, tries to capture dioxins from smoke stacks and discharge pipes, ine~,itably does not pre- v~nt 100% of the pollution, and then attempks to assess the future effects of each ongoing source to set priorities for farther action. The other approach - as discussed above -finds the root causes creat- ing dioxins, then finds ways to produce goods and s~rvices while preventing the creation of these toxic by-products, For purposes of discussion, these, are tel:created below as the ’end-of-pipe’ approach and the ’pollution prevention’ approach, respectively., In the real world at a pollution Scarce, these approaches ar~ mutually exclusive. The ond-of-p~p~ opproach allows at least ,ome more dioxin release Dioxln pollution prevention actioninventory for San .Francisco Bay: Pr~omy one sources - * ~ev~ ~, oil rofine~, ~ehmond . Intog~t~ Envko~n~l Sysle~, O~lantl " ~,¢o Co~, $FAR 0il refine~, "E~on ~. USA oil refine~, BeMcia ~o~y ~o souses ,American Bra~s ~d l~oa founds, Oakland *C.C.~. S~it~ Dht. inc~orators, .Bvergt~n Oil, Inc. m-refine~, ,Kfiscr Cem,at ~,p. c~m~nt ~ln, Cupe~ino ,Pale ~to sewage sh~dgo tn~ne~tm ’S~ Mat~ ~ewage s~udg~ incinerator .Shall Oil Co, oil refiae~, Mat~inez .U.S, Pipe gray iron foundS, Union L~ty .~nzatex St~ D~ms ~rnace, San Francisco -P~s in el~dc~indus~a~ eqpL, Bay *Shall Oil ~ botlcr/lnein~ors, Pdo~y [hree soumes .Boli~a Metech stop P~ fuma~, Gilmy .~ont~n~ M~agemem So.ice, Hayward ,Custom Alloy Scrap S~es, O~and .~g Refi~ng P~ furnace, S~ba .General Electric scr~p Wire t~., OaM~d .G~ Power $yst~s borers, C.~, County .Mic~ Met~IH~Co~. P~ rum,, San Jose.My~ Dm~ ~mae¢, ~el~mond .P~ifia ~cc~e Motor Co, wire ~., OaMand..St~dard Structures In~., Win~or .Di~el fuel. S~ Fr~cisco Bay .R~siaential wood ~r~, Bay ~ea-wide .Remit Eft, ~. ~, w. ~mL, E, Pale ~to .Dew Chemicg ~, o~, chem. ~g.. Pi~burg All da~ and analyslx ~hls inv~nto~ ir bated on a~ In from a source (even though the Bay cannot accept [ c~r, ~9~s ~p~rt ’on ~,. needler z2,, oto~V~ ~! updatedas ofZr2000. Availabtefrom eBB. o He, re are sorae examples of how these objectively set prloritie.q are set based on existing data. At many oil reri~t~ries, dloxln production is confimmd by direct men.antmeats in on-sit~ processes, root causes of dioxin creation are identified, and significant r~iea.scs, to the Bay an~ confirmed by on-site measuremnnLs as well. Dioxin elimination strategies for those sources can be detinexl now. Conversety, in the ease.~ of rosid,ntial wood burnh~g and diesel vehicles, tl~¢re are no Bay Area me, asurcmonts of dloxin releast~, and the prevcnta~t9 root enu~es o~ dioxin creation are n& specifically confirmed (txeept for Sources elso- wht~ro; e.g., dioxin is confirmed in diesel fuol l~aving rtfineri~ before it enters vchlclos). Thus, action inventory ideatifios objeedw priorities for pollution prevention (top to middle of th~ list) and for sot, roe eharaeterization to find prcvcntabld root causes of dioxin (near the bottom of the list). Mayor Kniss and City Council members March 1,, 2000 Page seven any more discha rge without adverse effect|e), while pollution prevention seeks zero dlo×in creation and discharge by each source. Then the end-Of-pipe approachwaits for studies of future effects to answer a question that cannot be answered by science, because scientific tools ~annot predict all the future effects of a dioxln release allowed today. In contrast, the pollution prevention approach proc~ds now using existing scien- tific tools that can identify root causes of the pollution and verify actions at these sources that stop creating dioxin altogether. Finally, th~ end-of-pipe approach competes with pollutio]~ prevention by diverting environmental investments away from prevention menu.s that could eliminate dioxin at the source, Unfortunately, roost Bay Area dioxin sources still use the old end-of-pipe approach for dioxins, and any reasonable rcvlew of government enforcement will show that the environmental bureaucracy re.main’s entrenched in this failed approach. Thus, we judged that it was appropriate to seek the help of local officials, who ~hare responsibility for our communities’ health, in demanding a switch away from end- of-p~pa and risk assessment policies for dioxins, in favor of true pollution prevention. In fact, Oakland and San Francisco agreed that "[a] strategy that eliminates the produc- tion of dioxin is the only viable course in protecting public health," Berkeley and Maria adopted dioxin "elimination’.’ policies, A.BAG at our urging adopted a policy to "pro- vent" diuxins, and these policies all seek prevention, not end-of-pipa treatment, Therefore, it is clear that local government dioxln policies adopted to date in the Bay Area are motivated both by the need for action against this serious health threat, and by the nc..ed for a switch from the old, l’ailed policies to tme~.ollutiou prevention, S_p~ee2 ic.f2£~.~ nm__~.u.~_on thePalo ~lto Cit_v_Manage. r’t~ proposed d[oxin poli.ey. CBE strongly supports the adoption of a dioxin eliminalion policy by th~ City of Pale Alto. The staff report’s own summary recommendation appears consistent with our rnajor recommendation In that it "recommends t~at the City of Pale Alto establish a mercury mad dioxin elimination policy....," (S~ page :2,) However, we are concerned that the. specific trolley proposed might actually hin- der progress toward dioxin elimination, by Including two unnecessary steps before elim- inating ongoing pollution which wets,us an already severe health threat. First, the poli- cy as proposed would start out to "reduce," and then "eventually eliminate" dioxins (page 4) as "a long-term goal" (page 2). Actions which seek first to only "reduce" diox- in emissions from a source will inevitably compete with actions that could now elimi- nat~ the ongoing et~eatiou of the useless by-products. ~/zideed, tile environmental agen- cieS’ resistance to switching from the. failed end-of-pipe approaetl to a tru~ pollution pre- vention approach was an impetus for the dioxin elimination policies adopted in Oakland and San Francisco in 1999, 10 The staffs of the U.S. lanvironmenlal Protection Agency and the C~lifornia Regional ~ater Bo~d both mad~ this faela~al conclusion in a recant headtig on an NPDES discharge permit for San Francisco Bay. The.y applied this conclusion to dioxirts, P(2Bs, mercury and.certain other bioaecumulatiw pol|utant~ lhat have ah~eady accumulated in S.E Bay, and in Bay fish ~aten by anglers, to levels which impair the Bay. See. Trnnsedpt, I~ebruary 16, ~000 h~rll~g regarding re-issuane~ of Toseo Avon Refinery NPDES pe.rmi|o Mayor Kniss and City Council members Marcia 1, 2000 Page eight While it is true that eliminating dioxin creation today will not eliminate all diox- in exposure today (it took about 15 years for dioxin levels to drop by half in human n’tother’s milk after partial pollution prevention in Swe, den), this only supports the urgency of stopping ongoing contamination. In fact, allowing preventable dioxin pollu- tion allows another generation, including children that will be born to Bay anglers, to be exposed to this dioxin. Secondly, fl~ policy as proposedwould "evaluate opportunities" for actior~ based on a method that "will place higher priority on measures that reduce or eliminate sources having the greatest adverse impact on human healfl~ and environmental health and/or which are most cost-effective." (S~ pages 4 and 50 This could require compar- isons of reducing pollution versus eliminating it based on the effects of the pollution that would be, a.liowed if it is not liminated.tt However, the "gre.atest adverse impact" ques- liotl cannot be answered by science, because tools to predict all th~se future effects of a dioxin release do not exist, In conla’ast, the alternative question "..how can we eliminate dioxin wherever possible" can be answered by present scientific tools,-and answers to this question will prott)ct our ~nvironmental health. There is a clear need for the Council to set a policy direction for staff. Elected officials from Oakland and Contra Costa Cotmty have asked the Regional Water Board for steps toward zero dioxin at oil refineries, but at a F~brum3~ 16, 2000 hearing Pale Alto staff joined this debate on the industry’s side, saying that requiremonts to eliminate dioxins should wait for recta studies of the.overall pollution. This position counters the inttmt to protect the environment, For c~ample, waiting for more studies of dioxins. ¯ rdeased by’refineries (wht0h g~nerat~-tliOximfdfi-ffd iti’ die~’e’l)7~]~ht’i’lel~’y~t6ti’bhs tlvit " " could eliminate some of the dioxins emitted in Pale Alto by diesel vehleles. We believe it is the City’s intention to pursue dioxin elimination, without waiting indefinitely for scientific tools which might not measure all the harm from ongoing pol- lution, even after irreparable harm is done to some people and their families. Wc also believe that the City wouid agree with the language we suggested’ in the S,’m Francisco resolution to support financial assistance when necessary for small businesses to elimi- l~ate dioxin without negative effects on workers jobs. In addition, wc agree with the general intent to evaluate cost-effectiveness, and indeed .this is needed to ensure that the best options that will not cause other effects on workers and the environment are identified. We believe the City would prefer to avoid p~escribing artificial constraints on its staff’s analysis to find the best options that are available for jobs and the envlronment. ~ W~ hope that thu policy intends to measure cost-~ffectivcn~s~ with tzspeet to the "efl~ctlvcne,s" of thes~ measures in eliminating dloxins at s sourc~, ~is might allow staff to pu~u, elimination without studying fl~o unanswerable question about ~¢ frill effect of only r~dueing pollution first. However, the definition of "eost-e~feedve" rem~ns unel~r, Pur~er, the City’s st~f wMt~d until th~ sewag~ sludg~ incinerate was crocking before inwsfigating zero dioxin alternatives which staff saw as more oxpznsive~ This experionc~ shows fl~e n~ad for a clear policy m dee*lop dioxin elimination plus stating now, Mayo.r Kniss and City Council members March l, :2000 Page nine Finally, while some sources and sol,aliens’ for dioxins and mercury closely over- lap (such as at the sewage sludge incinerator), we agrc,e with the staff analysis that in other c~ses, the sources of dioxin~ and mercury tire very different, For this reason, and in order to avoid confusion over the intent of the policy with r~spcct to mercury, we suggest that tl~e policy adopted by the City might include a separate short paragraph set- ling forth fits City’s intent for dioxins, and another for mercut7. Accordingly, we suggest that the proposal be modified ~s follows with respect to dioxins (by including a separat~ short paragraph t’rom rite mercury policy, if desired): "It is a goal of the City of P01o Alt~ to.--’"~_~...~, ...... .......’~ ......... ~ eltn~natc,--rdeases ~tl.w._..d~l~ of ,,. dioxin and it~_~ubs~u~~ ~o d]c cnvironmznt~ ~ssist s~~arss in obtainingany n~ed fin~n~]_and t~ch~ical ~s]stan~, ~3_~limin~ti~on of dioxin, p~vided that ~he comply will remain in Pale Alt~ .~n~i]l ¢!imin~t~ no w~rkcts’ jobS. To achiow this goal, ~m City will ~,~ ~ evaluate opportunities to alienate ~ dioxin ~ from nmnic- Jpal. commercial, industrial and residential sources, focusing on ~ ~ ~entifted~rcvenLablc roo_t sources pf dioxin productio~ lust, CBE urges the City of Pale Alto to join with Bay Area communities that have resolved to elimhmte dioxin at the.source now, wherever possible. This policy r~solvc ¯ acknowledges the sewre health tl~reats and environmental injustice from dioxins already .................. accumulated .i~.our-oo vironment-and.in our-bodiesrand the.faet..that any addition-to-this pollution prolongs and worsens its effects, and asks "how can we olirninat, dioxin and have clea,~, safe jobs?" now at every source. It can replace the old approach wtiich allows dioxtn pollution to bc created (then fails to capture all these" dioxins from smoke stacks and discharge pipes, m~d far, her waits for answers to the question "what are future effects of an ongoing dioxin release?"), becaus~ it can eliminate this pollution. Thank you for your consideration or" CBE’s comments and sugggstions on this imf~octant m~rter for our Bay, our health, and environmental justice. Please fecl free to tolephon, rnc at 415/243-8373 ext2 206 if you have any questions about this letter, or wish CBE to appear at your adoption hbaring, I look forward to working with you for a dioxin-free fatur~ with clean, safe jobs and health protection for all people. " Greg Karras S ’,. emor Scientist co: Intt~restcd agencies and individuals Attaehm¢nts:Letter to CBE from USEPA regarding Bay Area dioxin sources. Effects associated with dioxin exposur~ ¯ UNITED ST~,TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A’G£NCY 7S H~hom~ S~e~t San Francls~, CA ~10E,3901 Citizens for a Better Environment 500 Ho, w ,ard Steer, S~-zte S06 San~Fra~is.co, CA 94105 Feli©ia Marcus has asked me to answer your letter dated June 21, 1999. You haw: a~ked the EPA’ believes industrial soui~:es are ~ to cause less dioxin release tha~ vehicles and reside, ntial wood fir~s in the San Francisco Bay Area. ., EPA released ~ national draft dioxtn reassessment in 1994, It included a nationwide estimate, or inventory, Ofdiexin emissions from a v~t~ of sources. The draft inventory was peer-reviewed by the’Science Advisory Board and r~vised in April 19~8 based on additional information, EPA’s current dra~ The lnwntory of ~ourcex of D~oxtn~n the Un~ted ,~tate.~ is syllable on EPA’s webpage, We do not have any information that is spec, ifl~: to the San Francisco Bay Axea. ,. ~_a..ti.o~nal_~y, o_._~,.mo~ .st.c.~nt estimate~s’ that di.esel-tnleksrurdead~:d gas’vel~l~l~’~h’d......... ie~;d~-~ wood burning represent about 3,2% of the total dloxin emission inve .ntory and are con~|d~re..d minor contributors, Munio|pal solid waste ineinemtors, medical waste incinerators, secondary copper smelting, forest fires, cement kilns b .urn_ing hazardous waste, and land application of sewage sludge represent the ~op 6 dioxln source categories end account for 87% of the total dloxin emission inventory, We do~t’t know if the Bay Area mim~r~ these national figures. For example, municipal solid waste incineration, which.r~pr©sents on~: third of the total national dioxin lnvenlory, is not major source in the Bay Area, However, sour~ which may be signifiumt here, such as forest f’u’es, ~fm~ries, se.eonds,,y foundries, drum n~damstion and electronic/wire s~mp facilities are not well t,attegorized in the nationwide inventory. While one ten make adjus’tments to the nationwid~ inventory, there remains a great deal of scientific uncertainty, Without slte-specific eharacterlzstion, we do notbelieve it is possible to conclude that the Bay Area’s emissions are the same as the national inventory or indus’~ial source~ ~ause less dioxln release than vehicles Sincerely, Acting Direc.tor, Water Division ,,Di.oxin Toxic effects assoCiated with dioxin: cancer chloracne birth defects developmental toxicity reproductive toxicity immunotoxicity allergies hormonal changes -decreased-testosterone~ diabetes altered enzyme action endometriosis decreased ~esticle size chidhood learning problem decreased birth weight decreased growth delayed development 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran Ct c! cI 3,3’,4,4’,5,5’-Hexachlorobiphenyt Dioxirt: A group of chemicals that cause ’dioxin-like’ toxioity by interfering with a specific protein in the cells of humans and other animals. (Chlorinated dioxins shown.) Dioxln can be toxic in tiny amounts (1 part dioxin in 70 q~-~di:illf0-E parts ~-fi~): Dioxin can increase the toxicity of other pollutants.* Dioxin persists for an extremely long time in the environment and the body. Dioxin concentrates drastically in the food chain. There is no beneficial use for dioxin except in dioxin testing. Source: USEPA, 1994. Draft Health Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p,Dioxin (’£CDD) and Related Compounds, Vol lII (EPA/600/BP.92/001c), * For ext~mple,, scientists found sufficient evidence that dioxiu-like chemica|s increase each other’s toxicity to warrant a "toxicity equivalence" approach that adds the pottmcies of these ch~mic,’ds, 2/97 Aq~I’ACHMENT B - ATTACHMENT B Proposed Mercury and Dioxin Elimination Policy It is a goal of the City of Palo Alto to red’ace, and e,~mma~ eliminate the creation of.dioxin and its subsequent release to the environment and to eliminate the use re!ezeee of mercury and its subsequent release ~ to the environment. To achieve this goal, the City will evaluate pollution prevention opportunities to eliminate mercury and dioxin ~ sources from municipal, commercial, industrial and residential ~ activities. Scheduling of specific actions will focusi~ on the most cost- effective and preventable sources first. The mercury elimination strategy will focus on products that contain mercury as an intentional ingredient; laboratory, medical, and manufacturing processes that use mercury; and the combustion of mercury-containing fuels or wastes. The dioxin elimination strategy will focus on products that contain.dioxin, manufacturing processes that create dioxin as a by-product, and combustion of fuels or wastes that contain dioxin precursors, t~,a, ot...,t..; ..... ;, ev:.’~.re."_’z’..e:’.t~! .hez!t..~’. o,.".d!er ,,,r,;,.r, .,,-o ...,or ,~.~.t_o.F.ir~.oti,,~. tr~ It is recognized that it may not be possible to totally eliminate mercury and dioxin releases due .to technological or economic factors. However, significant progress can be achieved by working toward elimination through regulatory and voluntary pollution prevention programs. ATTACHMENT C City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: TITLE: CITY MANAGER MAY 8, 2000 DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS CMR:204:00 SUB.MITTAL OF CLEAN BAY PLAN 2000: THE POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN FOR THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO’S STORM DRAIN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM This is an information report and no Council action is required. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto operates .the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater treatment plant for the communities of East Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford University. Stormwater runoff in Palo Alto flows untreated to the San Francisco Bay (Bay). Wastewater and stormwater discharges ~e both regulated via National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - -(NPDES) permits issued by the SatiFraneisco BayRegional~Wat_e~ality ControkBoard (Regional Bo~d). -Given the .strict permit r~quirements, Palo Alto must explore all feasible methodfi-bf re~-d~-eing i~s metals and toxic organic pollutani! ~lis-dS~ges to the Bay. The City of Palo Alto identified four reasons for prioritizing pollutants in the wastewater and stormwater: o Federal Clean. Water Act -- Section 303(d) requires states to identify waters where the effluent limitations required under the NPDES or any other enforceable limits have-been implemented and adopted water quality standards are still not attained. The states must also rank these impaired water bodies by priority, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the waters. The U.S. EPA revised and approved the 303(d) list for the Bay and associated Urban creeks in May. 1999. Sludge Management LimitsmThere are metal concentration limits for the land disposal of incinerated sludge ash. Air Emissions--The pollutant is a ~ignificant contributor to the air emissions health risk from the RWQCP or is an air pbllutant recognized by the U.S. EPA as impairing a local creek or.the Bay. CMR:204:00 Page 1 of 3 Toxicity Test Results--Th.e pollutant, is identified as a source of toxicity in RWQCP effluent or in storm, water runoff. Pollutant Cadmium Chromium Copper Dioxins Reason for Selection Air emission health risk Air emission health risk Federal Clean Water Act; effluent limitation; sludgemanagement limits Federal Clean Water Act; air emissions Federal Clean-Water Act; air emissions Federal Clean Water Act; Federal Clean Water Act; Wastewater Priority X X X X Stormwater Priority X Mercury X X Nickel X X Organophosphate X X pesticides PCBs Federal Clean Water Act;X X Zinc Effluent limitation; toxicity test X results DISCUSSION " " "!,On March-31,.-2000,~the-City of Paio Al~o submitted "Clean-Bay-Plan-2000," describing pollutant priorities, sources of those pollutants, and the pollution prevention plan. for the cormng year. For a complete copy of-"Cl~Bay Plan 2000," see www.eitY.palo- al.to.ca.us/cleanbay or request a bound copy from staff. A summary of the document follows. In 2000, the pollution prevention priorities for the RWQCP. and the Palo Alto stormWater program will be: ..- ¯Reducing mercury.discharges to the sewer system and storm drain sy..ste..~... ¯Reducing dioxin discharges to the sewer and storm drain system ¯Reducing diazinon and other organophosphate pesticide releases to the storm drain system ¯Reducing copper discharges to the sewer and storm drain system. These four pollutants are the focus of the "Clean Bay Plan 2000." In addition, the City of Palo Alto will continue to implement programs that address all pollutants of concern. Program highlights for the year 2000 are as follows: CMR:204:00 Page 2 of 3 ¯Adoption of a Mercury and Dioxin Elimination Policy by the Palo Alto City Council ¯Expand a "Cars Pollute Water Too" campaign ¯Educate residents about woodsmoke pollution, including the associated dioxin releases ¯Collaborate with the Mid-Peninsula Dental Society to educate local dentists about proper management of mercury and amalgam wastes and to begin discussing pretreatment options ¯Expand the Integrated Pest Management program, which educates the public about alternatives to pesticides at the point-of-purchase in local hardware stores and nurseries ¯Continue mercui’y thermometer and thermostat drop-offprograms; review options to promote fluorescent light recycling ¯Continue to discourage, use of copper materials for architectural purposes while completing a study to determine the relative magnitude of this source ¯Escalate enforcement of new 0.25 mg/L copper industrial discharge limit for large coolingwater systems and low strength process wastes. PREPARED BY: Stephanie ¯Hughes, Manager, Source Control Programs DEPARTMENT HEAD: GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works VEMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:204:00 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT D Mercury Elimination Plan for 2000-2001 Source Audiences Message / Program Staff Implementation Plan Municipal leadership regarding all sources Fluorescent lights Impurities in water treatment chemicals Use of mercury- containing laboratory chemicals Mercury- containing thermometers, switches and manometers City staff, residents, businesses, industry MUNICIPAL SOURCES City is reviewing opportunities to eliminate mercury releases Purchasing and Utilities Departments Water Department and Wastewater Treatment Operations Wastewater treatment laboratory Facilities, Utilities, and Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations Recycle . fluorescent lights fi’om all City locations Purchase low- mercury fluorescent bulbs Need to research possibility of mercury and other metal impurities in water treatment chemicals Consider . altemative chemicals Identify and replace mercury-containing switches and manometers within City operations Present Mercury and Dioxin Elimination Policy to City Council for adoption Facilitate improvements and fill gaps in the internal lamp recycling program ECD to present purchasing options to Purchasing and Facilities Departments ECD to assist other departments with manufacturer communications and product testing to look for mercury and other metals in water treatment chemicals Review current practices with wastewater lab to determine options and barriers to implementation Identify mercury-containing equipment and review alternatives with Utilities and Public Works staff Dental amalgam and dental waste mercury Medical use of mercury devices and Chemicals Switches, manometers and other mercury- containing devices COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCES Dentists Proper management In January arid disposal of waste amalgam and dental wastewater discharges Hospital and clinic Environmental Health & SAFETY (EH&S) staff; hospital administrators Facility managers Options for enhanced collection of mercury and amalgam waste from dental wastewater Find new opportunities to eliminate mercury in hospital devices and chemicals. Expand on thermometer program and other successful efforts. Identify and replace .. mercury-containing equipment whenever feasible 2000, initiated stakeholder meetings with Mid- Peninsula Dental Society to design educational campaign Creating straightforward explanation of proper dental wastewater screening,waste amalgam collection and waste management The local dental association will deliver themessages to their members (representing 90% of local dentists) Consider. providing easier/free disposal of liquid mercury,, waste amalgam and/or wastewater filters at WQCP Discuss with hospital staff during required semi-annual inspections; create and use a pollution prevention checklist for inspectors; prepare summary of efforts in Minnesota, Boston and elsewhere for use by hospital staff Track state legislation regarding hospital use of mercury Create and distribute factsheet listing mercury components and alternative devices, based on analysis conducted regarding similar municipal sources Mercury- containing thermostats Fluorescent lights Building HVAC contractors and Facility managers; small-business owners Recycle mercury- thermostats Install non-mercury thermostats Recycle fluorescent lights Purchase low- mercury fluorescent bulbs Allow and encourage Small Quantity Generator contractors to bring waste mercury to RWQCP Mail information to plumbing and heating contractors about hazardous waste disposal options and the RWQCP drop-offprogram Create a fact sheet for facility managers. If feasible, create a drop-off program for Small Quantity Generators. Conduct a rebate program (Utilities Department)for the purchase of low-mercury fluorescent bulbs. Mercury- containing thermostats Fluorescent lights Mercury thermometers Homeowners; landlords Homeowners and renters Homeowners and renters RESIDENTIAL SOURCES Recycle mercury- thermostats Install non-mercury thermostats Recycle fluorescent lights Purchase low- mercury fluorescent bulbs Recycle mercury thermometers and replace with non- mercury alternatives Continue promoting mercury thermostat drop-off and $5 coupon program Encourage recycling of fluorescent lights and conduct a rebate program with the Utilities Department for the purchase of low-mercury fluorescent bulbs. Work on regional efforts to 1) improve availability of low- mercury lights and 2) create easier drop-off programs once the Universal Waste Rule is in-place. Continue promoting thermometer drop-off and coupon program ATTACHMENT E Dioxin Elimination Plan for 2000-2001 Source Audience Messages Stafflmplementation Plan Municipal leadership regarding all sources Sewage sludge incinerator Chlorine- bleached paper products Diesel exhaust City staff, residents, businesses, and industry Stakeholders Purchasing department Municipal fleet managers MUNICIPAL City of Palo Alto is reviewing opportunities to eliminate dioxin releases SOURCES Present Mercury and Dioxin Elimination Policy to city Council .for adoption RevieW options to " reduce or eliminate dioxin releases from sludge management processes Encourage the purchase of process- chlorine-free paper products Keep all vehicles tuned up Consider alternatives to diesel vehicles at each purchase opportunity Initiate a "Long-’Term Goal Study for the RWQCP" in which staff and stakeholders will review long-term options for wastewater treatment processes that reduce or eliminate dioxin releases from the facility ECD to assist Purchasing staff with identifying and pricing alternatives Consider altering paper purchasing specifications to mandate process-chlorine-free office and toilet paper Fleet staff to continue using new diagnostic equipment to ensure that diesel fleet is performing as efficiently as possible " ECD to work with fleet manager to consider alternative, lower emission vehicle engines (especially natural gas and electric) for each category of vehicles as new products become available Chlorine- bleached paper products Diesel exhaust Automobile exhaust Diesel exhaust Existing fireplaces Fireplaces in new homes or remodels Purchasing managers INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOURCES Include line item in the pollution prevention checklist to be used in the required semi-annual industrial inspections Purchase process- chlorine-free paper products Keep all v.ehicles tuned up Consider alternatives to diesel vehicles Fleet managers at businesses., public schools, and other institutions Include line item in pollution prevention checklist to be used in the required semi-annual industrial inspections Advise schools of grant opportunities to assist schools in obtaining low-emission vehicles Commuters; Employers; Students People looking to purchase a diesel vehicle Homeowners City planners; architects RESIDENTIAL SOURCES "Cars Pollute .Water Too" ¯ Dioxin and other air emissions can be reduced with frequent oil changes and tune- ups and by decreasing auto use Consider non-diesel alternatives Decrease use of fireplace; burn hardwoods or pressed logs; do not burn soft wood, wrapping paper or trash Due to health and ecosystem issues, new construction should include only U.S. EPA-approved fireplaces Consider incentives for participants in bike-to-school programs and new participants in employer commuter programs Deliver posters and handouts to schoolchildren with "Cars Pollute Water Too" message Utilize Earth Day and other special events to distribute message. Consider newspaper ads in the classified section ECD to promote.public outreach campaign, including utility bill insert and newspaper ads Support new fireplace ordinance Develop multi-department literature to combine health, earthquake and safety messages in new construction information Chlorine- bleached paper products Laundry/ graywater Reduce releases of dioxin to our environment by purchasing process- chlorine-free paper All residents Homeowners products Consider gray-water irrigation systems ECD outreach campaign to residents through their employer newsletters and e-mail, community groups and clubs and newspaper ads Consider giving away free chlorine-free paper samples at fairs, festivals and farmers markets While not a priority for 2000-01, consider collaborating with. water conservation programs in drought years