|
ENFIELD TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 27, 2001
A Special Meeting of the Enfield Town Council was called to order by Chairwoman Strom in the Council Chambers of the Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 at 7:34 p.m.
ROLL-CALL Present were Councilmen Fiore, Giddings, Hall, Mangini, Strom, and Vayda. Councilman Egan entered at 7:35 p.m. Councilmen Falk, Kaupin and McGuire were absent. Also present were Town Manager, Scott A. Shanley; Assistant Town Manager, Daniel Vindigni; Town Attorney, Christopher W. Bromson.
PRESENTATION BY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICIALS
Present from the Department of Environmental Protection were Director of the Pesticides Division, Gregory Piontek; Assistant Director of the Pesticides Division, Michael Dezzani and Brad Robertson, Supervisor of Pesticide Program.
Also present was Dr. Gary Ginsberg from the State Department of Health.
Mr. Piontek noted Mr. Robertson will be presenting the process DEP goes through when dealing with aircraft permits. He stated there was some legislation that came before the General Assembly during the current session. He noted at this point he does not know what has happened with that legislation. He stated at this time, hes unaware of any changes in the statutes as they exist.
Mr. Robertson stated Connecticut is one of the few states in the country that actually requires a permit for the use of pesticides from the air. He added they do look carefully at applications.
He stated theyve requested detailed assessors maps so that they know where the property lines are and where the fields are located.
Mr. Robertson stated any pesticides to be used from the air have to be registered with both the state and federal government. He noted they also investigate to learn whether any pesticide is toxic to birds and fish and they would take that into consideration with nearby effected environments.
He stated there is a buffer zone requirement. He noted any person owning property within 200 feet of the flight path of the helicopter must provide a written release before pesticides can be sprayed in the buffer zone. He stated theres a 300-foot buffer zone for a fixed wing plane.
Mr. Robertson stated theres also a requirement that no applications for agricultural use be done closer than 200 feet to a stream or watercourse.
Mr. Robertson stated the main points they looked at were the appropriateness of the pesticide; the area to be treated; neighbor signatures regarding buffer zones.
He stated they have a history with Enfield Shade Tobacco, and they are proposing the following additional conditions for this particular application to insure compliance with rules and regulations:
- have an independent third party monitor the applications
He explained they can and will have DEP personnel look at the applications, however, their inspection staff is limited. He stated theyre currently working with the applicant to get an independent third party to monitor these applications, i.e., a licensed environmental professional. He stated these individuals have a license with the department to be independent.
- that there be global positioning system (GPS) equipment in the aircraft and have that record submitted to DEP shortly after the application so that DEP can determine exactly where the aircraft was spraying
Mr. Robertson stated the applicant proposed to apply a fungicide called Alliette from the air, and that does not have a state or federal registration so that wont be allowed unless and until there is such a registration. He noted DEP is not very inclined to allow the use of Endosulfan from the air. He explained Endosulfan is the most toxic compound that he has asked for. He noted all of the other materials are generally used pesticides.
- that the tops of the posts are painted so that the pilot can tell where the end lines are to be sprayed and those post tops will also be visible from the ground.
- that bus routes are provided to insure no children are waiting for summer school buses (this has been done)
- that a helicopter be used rather than fixed wing aircraft because they fly a lot slower, the turn radius is much shorter, the downwash will push the material through the net, and there should be less tendency of drift
Mr. Robertson then used maps to give a general idea where the fields are located that are being proposed for treatment.
Mr. Piontek referred to questions that were raised about chemicals that Enfield Shade Tobacco is seeking to apply and stated Dr. Gary Ginsberg from the State Department of Health will address those questions.
Dr. Ginsberg stated they are looking at Carburil or Seven (an insecticide); Asaphate, trade name of Orthene (an insecticide); Acrobat (a fungicide mixture of Dimethamorph and Mangozeb); Mangozeb (or tradename Dithane); Alliette (unlikely to be allowed since its not registered); Endosulfan (the most toxic material being requested and is unlikely to be allowed) Dr. Ginsberg stated there are some alternatives to Endosulfan, therefore, the farmer should be able to control his aphids.
Dr. Ginsberg noted there was some question about the Acrobat MZ label. He stated it was pointed out that the aerial label of that expired last fall. He noted the manufacturer, BASF, renewed that label last week. He stated they had a limited label because they were concerned about not getting thorough coverage of the material from an aircraft through a tobacco tent. He noted they have been satisfied with that based on some research done by Dr. Lamagna at the Agricultural Experiment Station. He pointed out the issue was never environmental effects or health with that aerial prohibition, but rather it had to do with resistance management. He explained if they dont get enough fungicide or pesticide where its needed, the pests get a weaker dose and they are more likely to evolve resistance. He noted this was a concern of the manufacturer and they wanted to be sure the method of application was efficient enough to get the material through the net. He stated they are satisfied that is the case, therefore, they renewed the label.
Mr. Piontek stated their main concern was with the Endosulfan because it can accumulate in soil and it has a relatively long life in the body so that if there is exposure to that, it might theoretically stick around from one exposure to the next and build up a little bit. He noted Endosulfan is part of an older class of very potent pesticides known as Evanochlorines, and most members of that class have been phased out. He noted Endosulfan was used last year, and they did some soil testing after the season was over, and if there had been significant over spray and residues in the soil, they think it might have shown up, but they did not see that.
Mr. Piontek stated fungicides are much less toxic than pesticides. He noted the only possible issue they saw was that there is some sensitivity with Mangozeb, however, that was found in pesticide workers who had a lot of exposure.
Mr. Piontek stated theyve looked at the chemical profiles, and they dont have a lot of experience with there being a lot of human exposure to these chemicals in Connecticut. He noted they looked at the literature on these chemicals. He stated the DEPs approach is the less the better, and any over spray is a concern to them. He noted they are relieved that these chemicals do have a fairly short persistence in the environment.
Mr. Piontek stated monitoring of the applications should make the spray applications more conservative and will allow DEP to know if theres some incident where they have to do a risk assessment. He pointed out its hard to do a risk assessment without any exposure data.
Mr. Shanley referred to Endosulfan and questioned who makes the determination whether or not it will be used, and is that within the permit as to whether or not it can be used. Mr. Piontek stated Endosulfan will not be used.
Mr. Dezzani stated a question was raised that if something was wrong with the helicopters spray pattern, could the pilot be contacted. He noted they checked with Enfield Shade Tobacco, and they will have a number people can call at Enfield Shade and the pilot could be contacted.
Mr. Piontek stated a question was raised about Enfield Shade Tobaccos history in handling pesticides. He noted theyve taken that into consideration by adding conditions to the permit.
Mr. Dezzani stated last year they ran into problems with aerial applications primarily in the Town of Ellington. He noted out of observations from DEP personnel, they determined that a drift problem was associated with a ground application and also there was an off target drift problem associated with an aerial application. He stated there were some record violations in that the company did not maintain their pesticide records as accurately as DEP requires. He noted there was also the use of a pesticide in conjunction with another pesticide in too tight of a time frame. He explained both products were used within a seven-day span, and that should not have happened. He noted on the basis of that, DEP took an enforcement action for slightly over $12,000, and that penalty has been paid. He stated that is one of the reasons they added conditions to this current permit.
Mr. Piontek stated the last question is why aerial applications should occur in a residential community of 45,000 people. He noted the statutes and regulations are still on the books that allow this type of application with the oversight of the DEP. He noted there was legislation proposed to the General Assembly, and it went through Committee process, it was slightly changed. He explained one of the original bills he saw would have prohibited aerial application of pesticides, and that did not stand. He noted what finally came out of Committee was a bill that would limit the aerial application of pesticides by helicopters and would eliminate fixed wing application. He added his belief there was also a stipulation in the proposed statute that would have required the Department of Agriculture to promulgate regulations that defined what an emergency application of a pesticide was in relation to an agricultural emergency as opposed to a public health emergency, i.e., a mosquito or tick infestation. He stated his belief there was a proposal that would have obligated $250,000 to the University of Connecticut to conduct a study on pesticidal drift from the aircraft application of pesticides, which DEP would have supported. He pointed out drift is a historic problem, not just with aerial pesticides, but with pesticide applications in general. He stated that legislation is either dead or in limbo, and hes unsure what happened to it. He explained the session ended very confusingly, whereby the budget dominated everything, and the $250,000 was obviously a budget issue. He stated he does not yet know the outcome of that.
QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
Councilman Mangini questioned the current status of the permit, and Mr. Piontek responded its still pending and incomplete.
Councilman Mangini questioned how the Town can be comfortable that chemicals being applied for are in fact the ones being used. Mr. Robertson stated as part of a routine use investigation or a complaint follow-up, their field inspectors will go to the place where the aircraft is loading and monitor whats being put into the tank. He noted that was done last year, and it can be done again this year. He stated they wouldnt be able to do it every time for every loading, but they can certainly do spot checks. He explained they took tank samples, and they never found they were putting anything into the tank that they were not supposed to.
Councilman Mangini questioned who chooses the third party, unbiased individual. Mr. Piontek stated the company would have the choice, but it would have to be an environmental professional that is licensed and approved by DEP.
Councilman Mangini referred to a letter supplied by the American Cancer Society that states Acrobat MZ BASF, Alliette, and Dithane may adversely effect the health of residents in outlying areas. She noted the letter states these chemicals contain mixtures of Mangozeb and ETU, and these chemicals are know in the State of California to cause cancer and degenerative lung disease. ETU is know to cause birth defects and other reproductive harm. Mr. Robertson noted Dr. Ginsberg did review that material and looked at their databases to independently decide what they consider to be chemicals that they had major concerns with.
Dr. Ginsberg stated ETU is a metabolite of Mangozeb. He noted ETU is not a pesticide, but it will be formed in the soil from the breakdown of Mangozeb, and it can also be formed in humans if theyre exposed to Mangozeb as a metabolite. He noted high exposure on a daily basis in laboratory rats could induce thyroid tumors. He stated they would therefore have to conclude that ETU is an animal carcinogen and Mangozeb as a material that can breakdown to ETU is at least in theory an animal carcinogen. He noted a lot of what California is doing is pollution prevention by trying to force manufacturers to use less toxic materials. He noted since Mangozeb and ETU break down fairly quickly, they do not see this as a build-up, long-term health hazard. He stated if a person is working with this material on a daily basis, then there might be an issue.
Councilman Egan requested DEP be sure to have someone present when they do the first application of chemicals. Mr. Piontek stated theyll do the best they can.
Referring to the UCONN study, Councilman Egan stated perhaps some legislators can push for this study. Mr. Piontek agreed that would be very beneficial.
Councilman Egan questioned who pays for the third party environmental professional. Mr. Piontek responded Enfield Shade Tobacco. He pointed out it will not be Enfield Shade Tobaccos call unilaterally as to who that third party environmental professional will be.
Councilman Hall questioned how many permits in the State of Connecticut has DEP approved for aerial spraying for tobacco use. Mr. Robertson stated in 2000 there was one; in 1999 there were two; in 1998 there were two or three; in 1997 there were seven or eight. He noted 1997 was the first year that the resistant blue mold strain came to the state. He added the number of permits has dwindled.
Councilman Hall questioned how many permits have been approved this year, and Mr. Robertson responded zero. He noted the permit for Enfield is the only one pending, however, he had inquiries from three other tobacco growers, but theres nothing else pending at this time.
Councilman Hall questioned what the rest of the tobacco growers are doing in the State of Connecticut for pesticide control. Mr. Robertson stated hes sure theyre spraying, however, its ground spraying.
Councilman Hall questioned how many times has DEP had experience with these pesticides being sprayed from a helicopter. Mr. Robertson stated helicopters were used very widely in the 1980s. He noted in general, the literature does in fact show that drift from helicopters is less than drift from aircraft.
Councilman Hall questioned how many times has DEP had experience with these pesticides being sprayed from a helicopter. Mr. Robertson responded he does not know since the last time helicopters were used was in the 1980s.
Councilman Hall questioned if the GPS system is tied to the chemical release button. Mr. Robertson stated it is possible to tie the GPS to the release button. Councilman Hall stated when there was discussion with the helicopter pilot at the last meeting, he indicated its manually controlled by him through an on/off switch, and there was no mention of it being tied to a GPS system. Mr. Robertson stated hes uncertain which particular system this pilot has, but DEP will require that the pilot supply his plots afterwards. He noted that equipment is available. He stated this will be part of the permit.
Councilman Hall referred to Acrobat MZ, and noted BASF was unaware of any supplemental thats been issued. She requested a copy of the new supplemental be provided to the Council. Mr. Robertson stated that will be given to the Council.
Councilman Hall requested clarification on the permit process as concerns the part of the permit that involves the local health official in regards to congested areas and what DEP
defines as a congested area and what the setbacks are for various parks in the areas that are being sprayed. She stated her understanding the pilot currently does not have a permit to fly out of Enfield. She noted if the pilot was to go to the East Windsor Skylark Airport, whats involved with getting those chemicals out of that airport. She questioned whether any special FAA permits have to be issued by the airport because he is not going to be allowed to fly out of Enfield without a zoning approval. Mr. Robertson stated they do not get involved in this. He added mixing and loading operations do have to be overseen by certified applicators and there are standards to protect the equipment and people. He noted theres nothing they have that says they need to get a permit or anything else for a particular site. He stated if the zoning ordinance is against helipads, then that would be a local issue. He went on to note that applications in a congested area have to be approved by the local Director of Health. He noted a congested area is an area thats zoned a half acre or less, or a municipal or private owned park, public playground and public swimming area. He stated the areas Enfield Shade Tobacco is applying it to do not meet any of those conditions.
Councilman Hall questioned if the part of the permit that addresses the parks and congested areas has nothing to do with tobacco spraying, and Mr. Robertson responded yes.
Councilman Vayda referred to the controlling devices on the helicopter, and questioned the safety precautions. He questioned if there are requirements in terms of the flow rates, which guarantees that the flow rate will be exactly what the manufacturer requires. Mr. Robertson stated the operator needs to calibrate his equipment because they have a very specific requirement as to how much he can apply on a per acre basis. He acknowledged this is difficult to monitor, however, they will look at records in/records out to figure out how much has actually been used on a per acre basis.
Councilman Vayda questioned what the third party will be doing. Mr. Robertson stated they will ask the third party to give DEP the protocol on exactly how things will be done. He noted there will have to be spot checks and unannounced monitoring. He stated their primary concern is where the helicopter is flying and that hes not flying where he shouldnt be flying and that hes putting the chemical down where it should be put down. He noted DEP can also look at the loading sites.
Councilman Vayda questioned what the response time might be if there was a problem called into Enfield Shade Tobacco. Mr. Piontek stated if worse came to worse, DEP could be called. He noted at this point he does not know if they can answer the question on the response time.
Councilman Vayda questioned how its known when an over spray has occurred, and what will happen in those conditions. Mr. Robertson stated DEP field people will go out and do an inspection and talk to the complainant and applicator. He added possibly theyll take samples. He noted they do have the facilities of the Agricultural Experiment Station to do analytical work for DEP if necessary.
Councilman Vayda questioned if the permit covers how often the spraying is done, and what is the expectancy of the frequency. Mr. Robertson stated the application will not specifically state the frequency of application other than that the applicator must follow the pesticide label. He noted the pesticide label does in fact give the frequency of application. He stated at this point in time its not possible to say how frequent the application will take place simply because they dont know what the weather conditions will be and they do not know what the infestation pressure will be throughout the summer. He stated if the infestation pressure is very high and remains so throughout the whole summer, the fungicides are mostly put down in the five to seven day rotation. He noted if it gets very dry, the conditions are much less conducive to that particular fungus. He stated hes sure the intervals will be spread out, depending on weather. He pointed out these materials are expensive and the farmer wont apply any more than he has to.
Councilman Vayda questioned weather parameters. Mr. Robertson stated DEP will say they should not make applications when the weather favors drift, i.e., they cannot make applications when its too windy, i.e., greater than eight to ten miles per hour. He stated another concern would be temperature inversions, and this sometimes happens during early morning hours, especially after a very still, clear night.
Referring to Mangozeb, Councilman Vayda stated he did not hear that this chemical is safe or theres no potential harm. Mr. Robertson stated all pesticides are poisonous. He noted the bigger point Dr. Ginsberg was making is that the hazard is not only dependent on the toxicity of the product, but its also dependent on the dose. He clarified the risk is acceptable.
Councilman Vayda questioned whether the risk is greater for young children vs adults. Mr. Robertson stated he does not believe theres any indication that indicates this particular material is any more toxic to children than to adults. Dr. Ginsberg stated any inhalation exposure to young children will be more dose per body mass than an adult. He noted its on the order of double the exposure. He added they do worry about the effects of carcinogens on the genes of the very young because their cells are more at risk, therefore, they do take those factors into consideration. He stated in studies the laboratory animals that showed elevated cancer with ETU and Mangozeb were exposed to clearly toxic levels day in and day out. He noted when they project the risk to low and frequent exposure, it becomes an insignificant risk, except for an applicator who is getting daily exposure.
Councilman Fiore stated he gets the impression the DEP will approve this permit.
Councilman Fiore stated his understanding Enfield Shade Tobacco had some violations last year. He requested those violations be restated.
Mr. Piontek listed last years violations as follows:
- drift from ground spray in Ellington
- use of a pesticide inconsistent with label
- many occasions when Enfield Shade Tobacco applied two pesticides at too close of an interval
- lack of record keeping
- an instance of applying a pesticide from the air before it was approved with a permit
- an instance of applying a pesticide to a particular parcel of land which was not noted on the permit
Councilman Fiore questioned whether the DEP considers the third item a serious violation. Mr. Robertson responded its not serious with respect to causing actual harm. He noted this was a violation of law, and Enfield Shade Tobacco was penalized accordingly. He added the risk to people was insignificant.
Councilman Fiore questioned whether DEP feels fairly confident that these types of violations probably wont occur again. He questioned whether DEP can take into consideration the violations of last year when giving out a permit this year. Mr. Robertson stated they can and they have. He noted many of these proposed conditions are such that theyve never required them from anyone else in the past.
Councilman Fiore questioned if DEP has ever denied permits. Mr. Robertson stated theyve denied particular parcels of land because they havent met the regulations. He noted they would look for any particular situation where they felt that the application of a particular pesticide from the air could not meet requirements under statute regulations.
Councilman Fiore questioned who defines what is a “major” risk. He questioned if there is some drift and there is an acute reaction, what can the Town or State do. He questioned whether this is a risk that should be taken by allowing these types of permits. He stated he does not want to see an error where people are at risk.
Councilman Giddings questioned if this permit is specifically for aerial spraying, or is it a permit in general for applying the pesticide. Mr. Robertson stated the permit is specifically for aerial spraying. He noted a site specific permit isnt required for ground spraying. He pointed out they need to use registered chemicals and be sure to use them properly, i.e., in accordance with labels directions.
Councilman Giddings questioned whether Mr. Robertson feels ground spraying is any more or less effective and/or dangerous than aerial spraying. Mr. Robertson stated hes unsure about the effectiveness. As concerns dangerous, he noted thats very dependent on the way that its done. He stated the way that its done is probably as important, if not more so than the particular piece of equipment that is used. He explained ground spraying uses what is generally known as a mist blower, which shoots out a mist of air with the chemical in it. He noted that could go a long distance. He stated if an aerial application is done well, it can be done with quite a small potential for drift.
Councilman Hall stated her impression DEP has made up its mind and will approve this application. She questioned whether the location of the fields is taken into consideration with the thought that this helicopter will be flying over homes. She referred to the map and pointed out there are schools, residential homes, and parks in that area, and there will be a helicopter full of chemicals flying over these areas. She noted aside from the drift and toxicity of the chemicals, just the significance of the helicopter flying with these chemicals all over Enfield is terrifying to her. She pointed out DEP is stating this is not done anywhere else in the state and she questioned why wouldnt DEP deny this permit. She feels this makes no sense at all.
Mr. Piontek pointed out they do not have a complete permit before the DEP, therefore, they have not made up their mind. He stated the permit could still be denied, granted, or modified. He noted the laws remain on the books. He pointed out there was debate in the legislature about the issue, and this matter has not come out the other end of the process at this point. He stated his belief that is where the effort should be made for the future.
Councilman Hall noted DEP indicated they do take into consideration the neighborhoods they are spraying in. She pointed out all of the fields are scattered among homes.
Councilman Mangini questioned why Enfield Shade Tobacco is opting for aerial spraying rather than ground spraying. Mr. Robertson stated that would probably be a question that should be addressed directly to the grower. He added the grower indicated to him that aerial spraying provides better coverage more quickly.
Chairwoman Strom stated if Enfield Shade Tobacco had violations, would DEP revoke the permit. Mr. Piontek responded thats a possibility.
Mr. Shanley referred to the third party environmental professional and questioned whether there would be a formal RFP process through DEP. Mr. Robertson noted there wouldnt be an RFP because the DEP wouldnt be paying for it. He explained the hiring of this third party is a requirement of the permit. Mr. Shanley questioned whether DEP will review what the details of those requirements are for the independent third party. He questioned if theres a list of specifications that the Town might be able to see as to what it is that DEP is requiring of the third party. He questioned who the third party reports to. Mr. Robertson responded the third party would have to report both to DEP and the client. Mr. Shanley questioned whether the report would go directly to DEP. Mr. Robertson stated they will require that the report is sent directly to DEP. Mr. Shanley stated if there are some written requirements, the Council would be interested in seeing those. Mr. Robertson responded they do not have the written requirements as yet, but when they do, that can be provided to the Town Council.
Councilman Fiore stated if the chemicals are loaded onto the helicopter in another town, theyll then fly across highly congested neighborhoods. He questioned if the sole charge of the Department of Environmental Protection is to protect the lives, health, and quality of life of the residents of the State of Connecticut. Mr. Piontek responded yes and obey the laws.
QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Anthony
Representing the American Cancer Society
Stated the American Cancer Society did supply a letter to the DEP, and they would like that letter taken into consideration when considering this permit.
Helen Thomas, 46 Fletcher Road
Stated about 20 years ago she moved onto her road in hopes of having a nice, quiet life. She noted she is surrounded by tobacco fields.
Ms. Thomas stated shortly after she moved onto Fletcher Road, EDB from the tobacco fields was found in several wells on Fletcher Road. She noted one person came down with cancer. She stated her well had to be checked for EDB and the next year it had to be checked for nitrates from the tobacco fields. She noted shes unsure what chemicals were sprayed on these fields last year, and she doesnt know if her lung disease has anything to do with that. She pointed out in the past year, she developed a lung disease which may or may not become cancerous in the future. She explained she has a severe asthmatic condition, and she does not want to live in an area where there could be an overdraft from the helicopter. She pointed out there is a pond directly across the street from her which is right near one of the tobacco fields in question. She noted the water from that pond could seep into her well water. She questioned if these chemicals seep into the groundwater, will residents have to continue testing their wells, or will they have to move for their own safety.
Ms. Thomas stated shes terrified at the thought that not only will the groundwater and well be effected, but shes also concerned about the aerial spraying. She noted its been said it probably wont hurt anyone, but perhaps it will.
Beverly Jameson
Stated whether through drift through aerial spraying or runoff from hand application, chemical pesticides pose a health hazard because they ultimately end up in the soil, wells, water table and in the food chain. She emphasized theres no such thing as a safe pesticide.
She noted she does not know what “short persistence in the environment” means, but questions if there is short persistence where does it go once it leaves the air, soil, or water. She suggested perhaps it goes into human tissue.
Ms. Jameson stated anyone dusting their roses, spraying weeds, or fogging to repel insects is guilty of releasing chemical pesticides into the environment. She noted while Enfield Shade Tobacco is the culprit of the hour, everyone is doing harm with weekend gardening.
She stated if the helicopters are able to produce a finer, mist-like spray, does that not make that spray or mist more of an inhalant or increase the potential for drift.
She questioned if theres any documentation of health issues in agricultural workers who had long-term exposure.
She questioned if there are children working tobacco for Enfield Shade Tobacco, and what percentage of workers are children. She noted now that they know the exposure in children is more harmful than it is in adults, they need to know what safeguards are provided for children by Enfield Shade Tobacco if any. For example, if spraying takes place on a Friday, how soon are workers sent back into the fields. She questioned how soon is it considered safe for workers to return following spraying. She questioned what is done to alert workers to the application of pesticides while theyre on the job.
Ms. Jameson stated people have learned that this spraying is not to be near or in a watershed area and that there will be oversight. She questioned whether there will be postings to indicate spraying has been completed. She questioned whether there will be ample abutter notification, especially as it relates to seniors and the disabled, and will they have a chance to take cover or to leave their homes.
She questioned if as tax paying citizens, does Enfield Shade Tobacco provide any protection for abutters other than notification.
Paul Dubriel, 6 Charnley Road
Acknowledged it seems there are a lot of additional safeguards and provisions before granting this permit. He stated they also need to look at past history. He stated his impression fines would not alleviate this issue. He feels a $12,000 fine is very little to this person. He stated his impression DEP is granting this permit, and he feels if there is any type of violation the permit should immediately be revoked.
Mr. Dubriel stated his understanding Enfield Shade Tobacco had an informational meeting, and although he was not present, he has heard many renditions of how there were veiled threats made against certain property owners living in his neighborhood as well as some threats which were not quite so veiled. He stated his hope this will be taken into consideration when considering this permit.
He stated he does not understand why the permit wasnt revoked last year when violations occurred.
He concluded stating his belief Enfield residents should not be used as guinea pigs to try and gage whether or not theres any long term effects. He noted there are a lot of residents living very near these fields.
Phillip Armentano, 12 Charnley Road
Thanked the Town Council for supporting his neighborhood.
Mr. Armentano stated Enfield Shade Tobacco has made implied threats toward him, his family and neighbors. He noted he is also aware that in the past, implied threats and perhaps actual threats have been made to some of the other residents in Enfield. He added he has heard some anecdotes about threats made to residents in Ellington.
Mr. Armentano stated there was a meeting on June 12, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. at Enfield Shade Tobacco warehouse at 24 Charnley Road. He noted Mr. Chickosky was present. He stated when resident, Wade Burchell, questioned their pilot concerning his experience and knowledge of the computer systems on the helicopter, Mr. Chickosky interrupted and said that he did not like the tone of the questioning and questioned the experience of Mr. Burchell. He stated a discussion then began about the buffer zone and whether it was 200 feet. He noted he quoted the state statute that the buffer was really 300 feet from his residence. He stated at this point Mr. Chickosky told him he wouldnt aerial spray within 800 feet of his home, but he will bring out the large blowers and blow the material out at 120 mph.
Mr. Armentano noted there is a state statute that reads as follows: “Permits for aircraft spraying in congested areas shall be issued only with the approval of the Director of Health of the municipality in which the operation is to be conducted. He referred to DEPs regulations to learn the definition for “congested areas”. It read as follows: “Congested areas shall be considered those areas zoned one half acre or less or municipally or privately owned public parks, public playgrounds, and public swimming areas. He noted he lives on Charnley Road, and next to his home and abutting the area to be sprayed is a two-acre piece of property which he believes is now owned by the Town of Enfield and was originally set aside by the developer of Charnley Road as a passive recreational area for the residents of the Town of Enfield. He claims this two-acre piece of property should be considered a public park for the publics use for recreation under DEPs regulations. He suggested before DEP issues a permit to Enfield Shade Tobacco, under State law DEP is required to get the approval of the Director of Health of the Town of Enfield.
As concerns last years violations, Mr. Armentano noted Enfield Shade Tobacco was spraying Acrobat and Dithane within a seven-day period all summer long, and this was documented.
Mr. Armentano stated on June 19th,he called Brad Robertson to ask him if he was aware that BASF, the manufacturer of Acrobat, issued a supplemental label on May 10th that said this chemical shall not be applied aerially. He noted Mr. Robertson indicated he did not know about this and stated he would call the manufacturer. He stated it has now been learned today that the label has just been changed.
Mr. Armentano then listed the following facts:
- there are several parcels of farmland in Enfield that Enfield Shade Tobacco is requesting to spray by helicopter (these are in congested areas, near residential neighborhoods and abut residences and are close to recreational areas)
- that the President of Enfield Shade Tobacco has made implied threats against him, his family, his neighbors and other residents of Enfield
- DEP has admitted that they do not have the staff necessary to adequately investigate every complaint made by the residents, and in fact, they have cited Enfield Shade Tobacco for many violations during the Year 2000, causing Enfield Shade Tobacco to pay a fine of $12,544.
- that many of the chemicals which Enfield Shade Tobacco intends to spray aerially are harmful. They can cause cancer and birth defects.
- The Enfield Town Council has unanimously passed a resolution stating that theyre opposed to DEP approving a permit to Enfield Shade Tobacco to aerially spray chemicals within the Town of Enfield.
Mr. Armentano stated his understanding that Representatives Jarmoc, Tallarita, Sayers, and Senator Kissel have all sent a letter to DEP saying they agree with the Enfield Town Council. Chairwoman Strom stated thats correct.
- the residents of Enfield do not want to be held hostages in their own homes during the spraying season this year.
Mr. Armentano addressed himself to the DEP representatives and questioned if they will still be issuing a permit in light of all the above facts. Mr. Piontek responded DEP does not have a completed permit before them.
Jill Osborn, South Meadow Lane
Stated when she purchased her property on South Meadow Lane, they educated themselves as to the farming practices of the tree farm behind them, and they were comfortable with what they learned. She noted they were shocked to see a plane flying over their home last summer, every weekend, sometimes twice per week. She stated they called the police, FAA, DEP, DOT and Town officials. She noted they were frustrated because no one seemed able to point them in the right direction.
She stated theyre still frustrated by the fact that Enfield Shade Tobacco has definitely given people the impression that they have free reign to do as they please without regard to the feelings of their neighbors.
Ms. Osborn stated at a meeting last year, DEP claimed that Endosulfan did not pose a health hazard, and tonight they are saying that it is a health hazard and they wont allow it. She questioned if another chemical will be added to that list in another year or two. She stated she feels like a guinea pig.
Ms. Osborn stated DEP failed to mention that there were two violations on South Meadow Lane of over spray, and both of those cases were Endosulfan. She noted she does not know whatever became of those violations, because they were never told, but it was not mentioned in the list given earlier this evening. She added they were also told last year that there were not adequate testing methods for all the chemicals used. She questioned why those chemicals would be allowed to be used if theres not adequate testing methods.
Ms. Osborn questioned if there are long term studies on human exposure to the chemicals being used.
As concerns the pilot who will be doing the spraying, she noted he was flying very low over her home last year. She pointed out accidents happen, and she would hate to see a helicopter or plane crash into homes.
Ms. Osborn stated neither she nor her neighbors have anything against farming or a farmer making a decent living, however, they expect it to be done in a responsible manner, and they do not feel Enfield Shade Tobacco has done that.
She stated her understanding Enfield Shade Tobacco plants their rows so close together that they cant get the ground spraying equipment in to do the job. She pointed out theres obviously no other farmer in Connecticut utilizing this method, and the other farmers are having successful seasons. She stated in light of the fact that theres another way to get the results he wants, why should he be granted the right to spray aerially.
Ms. Osborn urged the Town Council to find a way to make it not possible for Enfield Shade Tobacco to do this. She feels theres too much at stake.
Robert Welch, 135 Moody Road
Stated he is an abutter of Enfield Shade Tobacco. He questioned whether he can get some sort of assurance that his well will not be effected. He noted they went through the same thing with EDB. He pointed out his well is approximately 100 to 150 feet from the field. He stated his belief this is really asking for trouble. He feels along with the well, the pesticides and chemicals, there is a lot of guessing. He stated his belief this should be given a lot of serious thought.
Wade Burchell, 11 Charnley Road
Questioned what is the process that the State DEP uses to certify the applicator. Mr. Robertson stated the pesticide applicator needs to present to DEP several things a copy of a license from another state or take an examination in Connecticut. He pointed out this applicator does have a license in the State of New York, and he provided a copy of that. He noted the applicator provided a description and registration number of his aircraft and provided an insurance certificate that indicated he has the legal requirements for liability and damage insurance.
Mr. Burchell questioned the determination of using a NY license vs a Connecticut examination. Mr. Robertson stated they rely on their sister state to have the examination certification process.
Mr. Burchell referred to Acrobat and the supplemental label which ruled in May of this year that stated this chemical shouldnt be applied aerially. He pointed out the states of Maryland, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, West Virginia, Florida and Wisconsin all have the same label. He questioned who prodded BASF to amend the supplemental label. He noted even if they did this for Connecticut, he questions if theres a way to look at these other labels and determine it should not be.
Mr. Burchell questioned whether Mr. Robertson actually saw the supplemental label dated after May 10th. Mr. Robertson responded yes, and it was dated June 20th. He noted he could provide this for the Town Council by fax tomorrow.
Mr. Burchell questioned who may have prodded this to happen. Mr. Robertson stated its very possible that this particular applicant called the manufacturer for a label renewal.
Mr. Burchell stated no matter what the supplemental label is, it is not to be applied during conditions of drift. He stated he would like the conditions specified so that theres something to hold them to. He noted they should not leave this up to any persons interpretation.
Mr. Burchell stated this evening they heard about six or seven different types of pesticides. He noted three of those items were fungicides and the others were insecticides. He questioned what are the actual chemicals being used. Mr. Robertson stated theres only one formulation of Dithane, and as concerns the other chemicals, they are all the same active ingredients.
Mr. Burchell stated there are different variances of these chemicals, and perhaps that should be looked into.
Mr. Burchell stated aerial spraying by helicopter is relatively new, and he would like someone to be sure there is proper calibration, and the spray nozzles should be checked and calibrated for the spray. He noted with this being a new concept, DEP might not have the expertise on the aerial side, therefore, perhaps someone should look into this.
He referred to the third party monitoring, and noted there was a study that was going to be funded by the Agricultural Department by the University of Connecticut by Dr. David Miller. He noted if the funding for this study goes through, Enfield Shade Tobacco would benefit because they wouldnt have to pay for a third party monitoring.
Mr. Burchell stated he is concerned about Enfield Shade Tobaccos record keeping. He noted with their history, he feels DEP should be taking a more scrutinizing look at Enfield Shade Tobacco this time.
Mr. Piontek stated DEP will commit to doing spot checks, which will include the viewing of spraying. He noted they will utilize painted poles to be sure the spray is being turned off at the proper time.
Mr. Burchell stated he would like to see the third party report go directly to DEP. He added he would like to see a condition on the permit that any violation could or would constitute that the permit is withdrawn.
Mr. Burchell stated his wife had a couple miscarriages, and his neighbor down the road had the same experience. He questioned if any studies have been done on prolonged use regarding the effect on groundwater.
Tom Osborn, South Meadow Lane
Questioned how the area to be sprayed is surveyed. He questioned how exposure levels to residents is determined. He pointed out if this is to be a yearly event, then it seems logical there will be exposure over time. He questioned how that will be monitored.
Mr. Osborn questioned how they identify persons who may be sensitive to the substances. He questioned if theres an adverse effect, does DEP rescind the permit.
He questioned if DEP takes into account the effect on residents lives who may not fall within the buffer and yet may be effected. He questioned if its recommended people stay indoors when the application takes place.
Donna Shaw, 107 Jackson Road
Noted she is an abutter and in the past they did call DEP. She noted it took 54 signatures to get a visit from DEP.
She pointed out if a child with asthma is set off, it take a few days to recover. She questioned how many complaints it takes.
Ms. Shaw stated shes concerned about helicopters, because they will be flying a little closer to homes.
MOTION #5366 by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Fiore to take a brief recess.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #5366 adopted 7-0-0, and the meeting stood recessed at 9:55 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 10:12 p.m.
Mr. Robertson stated they are not very concerned about wells and the chemicals being proposed. He explained these chemicals break down fairly rapidly. He pointed out they did check wells last year and did not find any evidence.
As concerns the persistence of chemicals, Mr. Robertson explained these are not like the old chemicals that did not break down. He stated these chemicals are much more modern and do breakdown.
Referring to concerns about particle size released from a helicopter application, Mr. Robertson stated the particles released from the helicopter will probably be bigger and more likely to breakdown. He noted the disposal will be adjusted to avoid drift so that the chemicals are concentrated on the plants.
As concerns the re-entry of workers into the field, Mr. Robertson stated that is governed by the Federal Standard Workers Protection Standard. He noted this varies with the product and it will be clearly stated on the chemical label.
Mr. Robertson stated posting is required and other notification will be through the hot line that the company sets up.
Referring to congested areas and parks of one-half acre or less, Mr. Robertson stated these are not being sprayed. He referred to a park area which is at least 400 feet away from the spray area. He stated its their judgment that is not congested.
As concerns a comment about Endosulfan, Mr. Robertson noted the amount found last year was very insignificant. He pointed out this year, Endosulfan will not be used because this is a risk that DEP wants to avoid.
Referring to a comment about identifying sensitive individuals, Mr. Robertson stated theres no way to identify this in advance.
Mr. Robertson stated they can list weather conditions as concerns avoidance of drift.
He stated they will monitor the areas by looking to the assessors maps.
Mr. Robertson stated they do have the authority to rescind a permit if its significantly violated.
Mr. Shanley stated there was a question about the finer spray as a result of the helicopter application and whether or not that would create more risk to humans. Mr. Robertson stated a finer spray is more problematic, however, he does not believe a helicopter will make a finer spray. He noted it would probably be finer from ground equipment.
Mr. Shanley referred to the two over sprays in Enfield that were not noted in DEPs list of violations. Mr. Robertson stated the question was asked as to the violations against Enfield Shade Tobacco, however, those two violations were against the pilot. He noted the pilot was issued an official notice of violation.
Councilman Hall questioned what would happen if two abutting neighbors signed a waiver for the spraying, and two other neighbors abutting the same field did not sign the waiver. Mr. Robertson stated there has to be a buffer zone, and if someone has not signed off, the buffer zone has to be maintained.
Councilman Hall questioned how close to the property line can the spraying be done if a neighbor did sign a waiver. Mr. Robertson stated they can come right up to the property line as long as they dont come within the buffer zone of the individual who did not sign the waiver.
Councilman Hall questioned if this will be the same pilot who had the violations. Mr. Robertson responded yes.
Councilman Hall questioned how many hours of flying time on a helicopter does this pilot have. Mr. Robertson responded he did not know.
Councilman Hall stated she has heard many vague responses this evening. She stated she does not know why a risk is acceptable. She stated her belief they should be looking out for the interests of the residents, not the interests of Enfield Shade Tobacco. She stated if the permit is granted, she would like to see something done at the Town level. She noted the Town has never done this before, but because this farmer has had violations so many times, something should be done.
Councilman Mangini questioned if theres a deadline for this application process to be complete, and Mr. Piontek responded no.
Councilman Mangini questioned what qualifies a significant violation to rescind a permit. Mr. Piontek responded misuse of pesticide or use of pesticide not on the permit.
Councilman Mangini questioned if its possible to have a permanent revocation of the permit, and Mr. Piontek responded legally he does not know.
Councilman Mangini suggested perhaps the UCONN study could be considered a third party option.
Councilman Mangini stated the most important message is that the Town is concerned about the safety and well being of the people of Enfield. She requested DEP make that a priority above everything else.
Councilman Egan stated this is an issue shes very familiar with. She noted the bottom line is the laws, and those laws have to be dealt with at the state level. She added her belief a lot of this falls into the laps of their state legislators. She pointed out she has been working on this issue for three years to change the laws so that citizens can be protected.
Councilman Fiore stated his hope DEP will take into consideration the pilot when considering this permit. He added his hope DEP will request the amount of training this pilot has had with helicopters.
Councilman Vayda stated his belief if this is dangerous for a congested area, then its still dangerous for one home.
Chairwoman Strom expressed her appreciation to DEP for attending this evenings meeting. She stated this Town Council shares the concerns of the citizens. She noted the Council would like to see things change. She stated shes disturbed it is the same pilot that has had two violations. She added her hope DEP seriously looks at the pilots licensing. She stated her hope DEP will also seriously consider everything that was stated tonight. She pointed out these residents had many facts that covered everything, including threatening by the owner. She stated theyre looking for any and every recourse available to the Town. She concluded stating they truly feel this is something they do not want in this town.
Beverly Jameson
Questioned whether children working at Enfield Shade Tobacco are offered any protection.
Mr. Shanley stated this might be the Department of Labors responsibility.
Helen Thomas, 46 Fletcher Road
Suggested if anyone from DEP feels the risk is slight, perhaps they should move into these neighborhoods until this is all over, and see how they feel about it.
Paul Dubriel, 6 Charnley Road
Stated he has lived at his address for 20 years. He noted Mr. Jarmoc, the farmer behind him, sprays in a controlled manner. He emphasized hes not against farming.
MOTION #5367 by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Egan to go into
Executive Session to discuss Personnel Matters, Pending Litigation, and Real Estate Negotiations.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #5367 adopted 7-0-0, and the meeting stood recessed at 10:34 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Executive Session of the Enfield Town Council was called to order by Chairwoman Strom at 10:37 p.m.
ROLL-CALL Present were Councilmen Egan, Fiore, Giddings, Hall, Mangini, Strom, and Vayda. Also present were Town Manager, Scott A. Shanley; Assistant Town Manager, Daniel Vindigni; Town Attorney, Christopher W. Bromson.
Personnel Matters, Pending Litigation, and Real Estate Negotiations were discussed with no action or votes being taken.
Chairwoman Strom adjourned the Executive Session at 10:48 p.m. She reconvened the Special Meeting at 10:49 p.m. and stated that during Executive Session they discussed Personnel Matters, Pending Litigation, and Real Estate Negotiations with no action or votes being taken.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION #5368 by Councilman Egan, seconded by Councilman Hall to adjourn.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #5368 adopted 7-0-0, and the meeting stood adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeannette Lamontagne
Secretary to the Council
|