Submitted by Sue Phelan, info@GreenCAPE.org
NSTAR (now re-branded as Eversource Energy) has published their 2015 Yearly Operational Plan (YOP) for Cape Cod and beyond. Once again includes the use of powerful herbicides. Please spend a little time looking at the plan, the maps, the warnings. The plans are not substantially different from town to town but the deadlines for public comments differ. Click here for the sample YOP from Cape Cod. To find your town plan, please click here. They “read” well, but the field work is not implemented according to the approved plans, resulting in potential exposures to nearby residents and unsuspecting visitors from harmful herbicides.
The Mass. Dept. of Agricultural Resources must approve the Yearly Operational Plan for every town or region. If you oppose the spraying of herbicides on privately-owned land and on town property without the knowledge or consent of the owners, AND the potential contamination of the water supply, please send your comments by the deadline for your town to:
John Lebeaux, MDAR Commissioner
Department of Agricultural Resources
251 Causeway St, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02114
cc: Governor Charlie Baker and AG Maura Healey. Send a copy to your town officials and state representatives.
If you plan to vacation on Cape Cod, you should know that the following towns have been targeted for herbicide spraying as part of the NSTAR/Eversource plan: Barnstable, Bourne, Chatham, Dennis, Eastham, Falmouth, Harwich, Mashpee, Orleans, Sandwich, Truro, Wellfleet, & Yarmouth. Brewster and Martha’s Vineyard towns are not listed this year, but that information may not be reliable, given the utility’s poor communications.
In an effort to minimize their polluting now, NSTAR says they’re using LESS Than Half of 1% of the herbicides used on Cape Cod. I’m certain they will come up with similar figures for every MA town. The number is based on a very small and very unscientific phone survey conducted with questions to homeowners about their own use of pesticides, and is designed to get the desired results. Of course homeowners are not allowed by law to spray other people’s property, so the circumstances are not comparable to begin with. Despite the questionable survey or any basis it may have in reality, does everyone realize that it’s still over 2,000 gallons of herbicides sprayed per year on Cape Cod, our national treasure that has the highest breast cancer rate in the state? (At least that amount is what NSTAR has admitted to spraying. It could be more… NO ONE is watching them-their regulator is ‘too busy’.) And what’s that amount to in 20 years? Do the math. If NSTAR is spraying over 2,000 gallons of herbicides on 150 miles of utility Rights-of-Way (average of 200 feet in width), that’s a concentrated dose for the people and animals living there. It is highly likely that residents throughout MA are being exposed to the same without their knowledge or consent as well. The company does not comply with the notification requirements of the state regulation and regulators are, well, regulators and have a different agenda than the ROW property owners who may wish to enjoy the benefits of home ownership with sandboxes, swing sets, veggie gardens, chickens, dogs, etc. on their property. They should have a choice about having herbicides secretly sprayed on their property. Young children, the ill, and the elderly have more effects from herbicide exposure and, again, why there is no choice allowed in whether or not they are exposed to an untested mixture of chemicals in their own homes and yards?
NSTAR cannot and will not give appropriate warnings to property owners on even a daily basis because, according to the company, sprayers must choose a spraying location depending on the wind conditions and secondly, the spraying is a very “emotional issue” (I think this is more to the point….) and must protect its spraying employees (but not its paying customers). This is actually a violation of the law, because a notification weeks or months in advance is NOT appropriate notification for people who want to close windows, harvest or cover the crops in their gardens, remove children’s toys, and in general protect their families and animals from chemical spray.
The company does not want people to know where they are spraying because in their rush to cover the acreage chosen for spraying in the space of a month or so, employees often violate the label directions of the herbicide by spraying under windy and rainy conditions. According to the US EPA “the label is the law.” Except in MA, I suspect. If the label directions say to avoid wind drift, a responsible company would not risk injuring its customers. NSTAR’s attitude is that the risk of pesticides has yet to be absolutely proven. Their arborist said he would give the herbicides to his children to drink. Really. Public water supplies are not tested for the herbicides NSTAR uses or the results of the mixture of the herbicides. Tests do not even exist for all of the chemicals resulting from the mixture.. Does anyone know how much of any of these, or the mixture, is safe for a baby or a fetus?
Recently one of the ROW herbicides, glyphosate was assessed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization, as a “probable human carcinogen.” A study published last month in the American Society of Microbiology’s Journal mBio for the first time links three of the world’s most widely-used pesticides, glyphosate (used on ROWs) and two others, to antibiotic resistance. These are potentially significant implications given how widely glyphosate is used. These effects have not been investigated before, and were seen at levels the pesticides are expected to be used. People most at risk from pesticides (including herbicides) are those exposed through their work, however, home & garden use could also pose risks. There are also implications for honeybees as commercial hives are often treated with antibiotics. Another NSTAR herbicide, Krenite, is not approved for cropland (including home gardens), populated areas or areas with surface water, but its being used on private residential property, a use for which it has NOT been registered with the USEPA. It is not sold to the public, because it has not had the full compliment of health assessments required. NSTAR is the largest user of this chemical in MA. NSTAR’s risk assessment basically amounts to– So what? You can’t prove our chemicals are harmful anyway. We have seen NSTAR’s “selective” spraying in Harwich and other towns. More regulations, while well-intentioned, will not solve this problem. Why would you throw more regulations at a state agency that doesn’t enforce current regulations? This is why the Precautionary Principal has evolved and is widely used in other countries. If only MA and the USA functioned under the Precautionary Principle. Those having the misfortune to live on or near the utility Rights-of-Way (ROWs) in MA (same problem if you live near the MTA lines, National Grid utility lines and other designated Rights of Way) remain unprotected by current regulations and the unwillingness of officials to speak up to NSTAR/Eversource and their so-called regulator. The Precautionary Principle might benefit the abutters–IF they lived in a European Union country. It is unlikely this chemical trespass would be allowed. The concept of Precaution when implemented in policy provides for a fundamentally different approach for protecting human health and the environment. The Precautionary Principle is summarized:
When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
All statements of the Precautionary Principle contain a version of this formula: When the health of humans and the environment is at stake, it may not be necessary to wait for scientific certainty to take protective action.
When evidence gives us good reason to believe that an activity, technology, or substance may be harmful, we should act to prevent harm. If we always wait for scientific certainty, people may suffer and die and the natural world may suffer irreversible damage.
Precaution is best linked to these implementation methods
- exploring alternatives to possibly harmful actions, especially clean technologies that eliminate waste and toxic substances;
- placing the burden of proof on proponents of an activity rather than on victims or potential victims of the activity;
- setting and working toward goals that protect health and the environment; and
- bringing democracy and transparency to decisions affecting health and the environment.(SEHN.org)
We have worked all of these approaches with NSTAR but the company is too big to fail (sound familiar?) and too big to care. After 6 years of their machinations, I conclude that it is not only the regulatory system that is broken-that’s just the most obvious element. It is the entire political system that has failed us on multiple levels. Preventive policies encouraging the exploration of better, safer, and often ultimately cheaper alternatives–and the development of cleaner products and technologies need to be implemented. As public awareness of herbicide hazards and safer alternatives grows, non-chemical practices represent not only good ethics but also smart business. Countries that widely implement the precautionary principle, such as Germany and Sweden, are now exporting environmentally sound technologies. Other countries –like the U.S.–risk being left behind, with outdated, polluting facilities and technologies. Will NSTAR/Eversource be one of them?? Will ROWs be the next hazardous waste sites? Have you been exposed to NSTAR spraying?? Let us know-we can help you avoid this in the future.
Join GreenCAPE and MBCC and help us Stop the Chemical Violence.