|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, RUDOLPH GIULIANI, as MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEAL COHEN, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND RICHARD SHEIRER, COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION Steven Greenspan hereby declares under penalty of perjury,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the following is true and correct: 1. I submit this affidavit in response to the declarations
of Gerard McCarty submitted by New York City. I submit this
affidavit in further support of plaintiffs application for a preliminary
injunction and in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. 2. I am a NYSDEC licensed pesticide applicator and recognized
as a qualified trainer by the DEC. I head the Pesticide Education
Safety and Training Institute, of which I am the executive director.
I am a NYSDEC licensed pesticide spray applicator in three categories:
Turf and Ornamentals (3A), Aquatics (5B), and Public Health Pest (Mosquito)
(8). I have been NYSDEC certified since 1976. I have a bachelors
degree in Environmental Science from the New York State College of
Environmental Science and Forestry. In addition I have a bachelors
of science degree in forestry from Syracuse University. 3. I note at the outset that Mr. McCarty does not appear to
have any qualifications as a pesticide spray applicator. Mr. McCarty's
suggestion that he was responsible for eradicating the asian longhorn beetle
infestation in Greenpoint, Brooklyn is patently untrue, as these beetles
still remain despite Mr. McCarty having arranged for the cutting down of
all of the infected trees. I also note that Mr. McCarty does not
even claim to have eyewitness knowledge of the actual spraying practices
in the City's West Nile Virus efforts in 1999 and 2000, but bases his testimony
solely on an assumption that his directives were in fact followed. 4. Mr. McCarty claims that New York City used "private
certified applicators" to spray pesticides throughout the City. This
itself admits a violation of DEC regulations, which provide that a "private
certified applicator" may not engage in the commercial application of pesticides.
6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 325.7(c)(2). Application of pesticides as part
of a public pest control program is the commercial application of pesticides.
6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 325.16(h). The applicators used by New York City
were thus not appropriately qualified. 5. Mr. McCarty asserts in paragraph 8 of his declaration that
Malathion is applied in "extremely low concentrations." This statement
is manifestly untrue; as the label for Fyfanon indicates, the malathion
concentration is 96.5%, an extremely high concentration, only 4% shy of
being 100% pure active ingredient. Mr. McCarty erroneously equates
low volume with low concentration. The high concentration of malathion
in Fyfanon has important safety and health ramifications. 6. Mr. McCarty asserts that I am incorrect in my statement
that recommended storage temperatures for the pesticide Fyfanon ULV (a
concentrated form of the Malathion pesticide) should not exceed 77 degrees
F. McCarty Dec. ¶ 37. Mr. McCarty relies on the statement
on the Fyfanon label that states that the pesticide "must not be heated
above 55( C (131( F)." Mr. McCarty has neglected to consult the Material
Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Fyfanon, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit
P to this affidavit. This MSDS clearly states "Precautions-Handling/Storing:
STABLE WHEN STORED AT TEMPERATURES NOT EXCEEDING 20-25C." Twenty
to 25 degrees centigrade corresponds to 68 to 77 degrees Farenheit.
New York City clearly exceeded this stable storage temperature when it
stored Fyfanon in barrels on an airport tarmac in direct sunlight at temperatures
exceeding 77 degrees farenheit with no shield or shade or shade overhead.
This MSDS also notes, under "Control Measures" that "Inexpedient stor[age]
may induce form[ation] of more tox[ic] and synergistic contaminant isomalathion." 7. Mr. McCarty also claims that no pesticide spray drift reached
water bodies either during the 1999 or 2000 aerial and ground spraying
operations. Mr. McCarty does not claim to have observed all of the
spraying operations, at each and every site location, so this appears to
be his opinion rather than his own personal knowledge. It is my professional
opinion, based on nearly a quarter century of experience as a professional
pesticide applicator, is that the kind of wide-area spraying of fine-droplet
application of pesticides being undertaken by New York City must necessarily
result in the deposition of pesticide droplets into the contiguous bodies
of water as well those lying within the five boroughs of New York City.
Mr. McCarty asserts (¶ 10) that use of helicopters allowed New York
City to control areas in which Fyfanon was applied, but use of aircraft
does not allow control of where the pesticides will drift and ultimately
settle and come to rest. 8. The very small droplet size of the pesticides used (fog-like)
of the pesticides used by New York City resulted in a very buoyant and
driftable pesticide particle. This kind of small droplet will actually
float in the air, and will rise upward with thermal currents. Even
small wind currents will carry these droplets around for some time at great
distances before finally coming to rest to settle upon a surface.
Given the fact that New York City is surrounded by water, in addition to
the numerous lakes and ponds contained within the five boroughs, and the
fact that New York City's ground and aerial spraying activities have been
conducted from "river to river" in Manhattan virtually guarantees that
a large proportion of the pesticides sprayed from either ground or aerial
application will fall, settle, and finally come to rest upon surface waters.
In addition, I am informed that television news footage from last year's
spraying activities clearly showed helicopters spraying pesticides out
over open bodies of water. 9. Spraying pesticides onto surface water is not the only
way in which New York City's spraying activities continue to violate the
label directions for use for Fyfanon and Anvil. The Fyfanon label
clearly and prominently states "Avoid contact with skin*Avoid breathing
spray mist." New York City Exhibit 5. Similarly, the Anvil
label also states prominently under "Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals
. . . Avoid contact with skin, eyes, or clothing." I understand
that New York City has repeatedly ground sprayed populated urban streets
with Anvil from trucks. I understand that videotape of this summer's
spraying activities shows individuals caught directly within the spray
stream emitted from the trucks. This spraying activity is in direct
violation of the label directive to avoid contact with human skin and avoid
inhalation. 10. In addition, New York City's use of Anvil to spray paved
and urban areas is not a use for which it has been approved, and thus violates
the labeling requirements. The Anvil label defines its approved use
area as follows: USE AREAS: For use in mosquito control adulticiding involving outdoor
residential and recreational areas where adult mosquitoes are present in
annoying numbers in vegetation surrounding parks, woodlands, swamps, marshes,
overgrown areas and golf courses. A copy of the Anvil Label was submitted as New York City Ex. 6.
Anvil is thus labeled for use where mosquitoes are present "in vegetation."
While some areas where New York City has sprayed Anvil may qualify as vegetated,
New York City is spraying largely paved, developed, and unvegetated areas,
such as Manhattan between 23rd street and Central Park, with Anvil.
These areas consist of asphalt, concrete, and steel, not vegetation.
Application in these paved areas is not a use for which Anvil is labeled
or approved. 11. Not only is New York City's application of Fyfanon and
Anvil a violation of the labeling for use of these pesticides, it is ineffective
as a means of mosquito control. Because of the "urban canyon" effect
and microclimate that exists within the avenues and corridors within New
York City, neither ground nor aerial spraying will be particularly effective
in delivering adulticides to areas located behind buildings and in all
hard to reach places, cracks and crevices where mosquitoes are most likely
to be found hiding within populated, developed areas. Adulticiding
in these developed areas is not likely reduce mosquito populations to the
point at which they would not be considered a threat, given the breeding
efficiency of the mosquito population that would remain. Elimination
of standing water and application of larvicide to breeding areas is a much
more effective means of controlling mosquitoes, especially in backyard
areas. A massive educational program for integrated pest management
should be implemented first, and could have been achieved at lower cost
with greater efficiency as opposed to spraying with toxic and harmful chemicals.
Due consideration should be given botanical (plant derived) control
measures. In addition, new mosquito control technologies, such as
carbon dioxide traps which attract mosquitoes are likely to be more effective
at controlling adult mosquitoes without having any of the adverse toxic
effects of pesticides. Dated: August 24, 2000 ______________________________ |