Council on Environmental Quality Meeting Minutes

Minutes of the May 22, 2024, meeting of the Council on Environmental Quality (Council) held via Zoom.

MEMBERS PRESENT: (remote) Keith Ainsworth (Acting Chair), Charles Vidich, Christopher Donnelly, Denise Rodosevich, David Kalafa, Derek Phelps, and William Warzecha.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Paul Aresta (Council - Executive Director), Ryan Carboni (Council - Environmental Analyst), Jordan DiDomenico (Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP)), Justine Phillips-Gallucci (Office of Policy and Management (OPM)), Becca Dahl (OPM), and Bruce Wittchen (OPM). Member of the public that spoke: Louise Washer.

1. Call to Order: Establishment of a Quorum
At 9:30 AM, Ainsworth called the meeting to order, took attendance, and confirmed that there was a quorum of Council members present.

2. Chairs Report
Ainsworth introduced the Council’s newly appointed Council member – Derek Phelps. Ainsworth also noted the passing of Margaret Miner and commented on Margaret Miner’s contributions to enhancing Connecticut’s environment.

3. Approval of Minutes from April 24, 2024
Vidich made a motion to approve the draft minutes from April 24, 2024; seconded by Rodosevich. The motion was approved unanimously with Phelps and Ainsworth abstaining because they were not present at the previous meeting.

4. Citizen Comment Period
Louise Washer thanked the Council for including pesticides on the agenda and noted that members of the public were present and available to answer any questions about the issues raised at last month’s Council meeting.

5. Citizen Complaints and Inquiries Received

• Aresta reported that Council staff continues to investigate the complaint received at the Council’s March 27 meeting regarding noise from the Covanta facility in Bristol. He added that Council staff contacted the Bristol – Burlington Health District (BBHD) to collect information on the status of the noise issue and is awaiting a response. Ainsworth noted that he is Counsel to the BBHD on this issue and he will not be participating in any action that the Council might take on this issue.
  
  
•  Aresta reported that the Council received an inquiry regarding the water quality for a lake in Connecticut. He noted that Council staff investigated the 2022 Integrated Water Quality Report (IWQ) and the lakes water quality website maintained by DEEP, but unfortunately, there was no information for that waterbody. He added that Council staff provided the individual with contact information for the appropriate contact at DEEP.
  
  
• Aresta reported that the Council received a complaint regarding a data center that might be located proximate to Millstone power station in Waterford. He noted that Council staff discussed the opportunities for public comment / participation if the facility requires approval from the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC), or if the facility is regulated by the local municipal agencies. There was general discussion regarding the jurisdiction of the CSC related to the Millstone facility

6. Review of Pesticide Report

Aresta noted that Council staff reviewed the status of the recommendations from the Council’s 2017 pesticide report.

• Aresta noted that the Pesticide Management Program (PMP) at DEEP has had six to eight staff positions and generates approximately $3 million annually. He added that state law requires that funds generated through the program be directed to the general fund. Aresta summarized the number of inspections performed by the PMP from 2017 through 2023.

•  Aresta noted that DEEP has implemented electronic reporting and record keeping and that people can submit and search for information through the state’s eLicense system, such as annual pesticide use summary reports, which are required to be submitted by certified commercial supervisors and private applicators. Aresta noted that the information that is required to be provided by private applicators and commercial supervisors is specified by statute. He added that the United States Geological Survey (USGS) has developed annual estimates of pesticides used in the state for agricultural purposes. Ainsworth and Donnelly commented on the type of data and the purpose for collecting the data. Vidich and Warzecha suggested that data on the use of pesticides could be used to assess the potential to impact groundwater.

• Carboni noted that DEEP does not routinely test for pesticides in water given the cost and complexity of the testing requirements; however, the USGS does perform studies on pesticides in streams, and he summarized some of the data related to some of their sampling events. Carboni also discussed the schedule and testing requirements for pesticides for public water systems.

•  Aresta noted the federal and state laws related to the sale of restricted use pesticides. Aresta added that DEEP has contacted online retailers that might sell restricted use pesticides to inform them about the state’s laws that restrict the sale of such products.

•  Aresta summarized the activities of the PMP and the University of Connecticut to provide education and training to help control pests without pesticides or the minimal use of pesticides.

Pesticide Coated Seed

Aresta noted that pesticide-treated seeds are exempt from registration requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) if they meet the exemption criteria. He added that in 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notified the public of its intent to issue an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking and sought additional information on the use of pesticide-treated seed and paint products. He noted that the EPA will consider further actions, which might include regulations to limit the scope of the regulatory exemption, enforcing use violations, and taking administrative action to clarify labeling requirements or reduce the use of a treating pesticide. In addition, Aresta noted that the EPA requested public comment on possibly amending the existing regulations under FIFRA to require all applicants and registrants of neonicotinoid and other systemic insecticides to provide performance (efficacy) data to EPA in applications for registration and during registration review.

Donnelly noted that there may need to be a review of how and where pesticides are being applied. Donnelly made a motion that the Council look further into what information is needed and what approaches should be taken in order to get a better overall understanding of what pesticides are being applied in the state and how and where they are being applied; seconded by Rodosevich. The motion was approved unanimously.

7. Executive Director’s Report

•  Annual Report
  Aresta provided a summary of the outreach efforts for the distribution of the annual report, press coverage, and possible changes to the content and process for the 2024 annual report. Donnelly suggested establishing a working group(s) of Council members to assess the information in the annual report and provide assistance to staff. Aresta confirmed that a working group of Council members was allowed without a formal meeting notice if the working group consisted of four members or less, which would be less than a quorum. Rodosevich suggested soliciting comments on the recently released annual report. Vidich suggested providing a printed copy of the annual report to the Connecticut State Library and members of the legislature, and supported the inclusion of PFAS in the annual report.

• PFAS
  Aresta reported that Council staff contacted DEEP to inquire about the status of the PFAS testing for 2023. He noted that DEEP indicated that a total of 35 private wells were sampled / resampled for the presence of PFAS chemicals in 2023, and that no new filtration systems were installed. He added that DEEP intends to increase the number of tests performed in 2024 and the focus area for the testing will be in locations with suspected uses/industries that involved PFAS, such as landfills, fire training facilities, or manufacturers that are in areas served by private wells.
  
  Carboni reported that Council staff also contacted the Department of Public Health (DPH) regarding testing for PFAS for public water systems and DPH indicated that EPA recently conducted an Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 5 (UCMR 5) where public water systems are required to sample for 30 chemicals, all of which are PFAS compounds except one contaminant, lithium. Carboni summarized the dates for the testing requirements and noted that the water testing results are available online through the EPA’s website. Carboni added that EPA recently established legally enforceable levels, called Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), for six PFAS chemicals in drinking water, and health-based, non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs).

• Long Island Sound Study new Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
  Aresta reported that the Long Island Sound Study estuary program will be revising the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, which guides conservation work around the Sound. He added that the Long Island Sound Study has goals that are used by the Council for a few indicators, such as the area of hypoxia and swimming, and the Council will have an opportunity to provide input/comments. Ainsworth suggested that the Council should engage and provide comments, as appropriate.

Ainsworth noted that the Council would take a five-minute break at 10:57 AM. The Council meeting resumed at 11:02 AM.

7. State Agency and Legislative Actions

a. DEEP

• Release-Based Remediation Program – Update:
  Aresta reported that DEEP held a working group meeting on May 14, and there was a discussion of PFAS chemicals and road salt discovered in private wells. He added that the revised draft regulations would establish a special path for PFAS contamination and road salt. He noted that DEEP would still have the authority to investigate the contamination and potentially require the provision of potable water.
  
  
• General Permit for Water Resources Construction Activities, Statewide
  Carboni noted that the proposed General Permit is applicable for a regulated activity, such as drainage maintenance, trail construction and maintenance, or boat launch maintenance, conducted by a department/agency. He also summarized the significant changes from the General Permit that was issued in 2014.
  
  
• General Permit for Point Source Discharges to Waters of the State from the Application of Pesticides
  Carboni noted that the intent of the proposed General Permit is to regulate the discharges of pesticides associated with the direct use in waterbodies, as well as indirect discharges that occur as the result of aerial spraying of pesticides or other pesticide applications that occur near waterbodies. He summarized the significant changes from the General Permit that was issued in 2017. He added that the proposed General Permit includes provisions for a pesticide discharge management plan, adverse incident response procedures, visual monitoring procedures, and technology based effluent limitations. He noted that the proposed General Permit would be more consistent with the EPA’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System requirements. Ainsworth and Vidich noted that the threshold values for the registration under the General Permit seem to apply to large areas and questioned how the thresholds values were determined. Aresta responded that he would inquire from DEEP how the thresholds were determined.

b. Connecticut Siting Council (CSC)
    Comments recommended:

• Petition 1630 (fuel cell, Mansfield)
  Aresta reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from VFS, LLC to develop a 920-kilowatt (kW) fuel cell facility at the University of Connecticut campus in Mansfield. He noted that he reviewed the environmental characteristics of the proposed site and noted that there might be an issue with noise. Aresta noted that a draft comment has been developed to address noise. Vidich made a motion to approve the draft comment regarding CSC Petition 1630; seconded by Phelps. Vidich questioned the noise levels at the residence hall located proximate to the proposed fuel cells. Phelps expressed support for the draft comment and suggested that a taller wall might not be practical for facility maintenance. The motion was approved unanimously.

c. Legislature

• Raised bills
  Aresta reviewed the status of certain bills for which the Council previously provided comments and those that were discussed previously by the Council. There was general discussion regarding the reason(s) why House Bill 5004 (An Act Concerning the Implementation of Certain Climate Change Measures) did not pass.

8. Other Business

Aresta noted that the next meeting is scheduled for June 26, 2024, at 9:30 AM and it will be a hybrid, in-person and remote meeting.

Rodosevich questioned whether any formal action is required for the establishment of working groups for the development of the next annual report and whether to pursue comments regarding the recently published annual report. Aresta noted that he intends to reach out to Council members to inquire about the membership, and timing for one or more working groups. Ainsworth and Donnelly expressed support for working groups and suggested that such activities could be less formal.

Vidich made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 AM; seconded by Rodosevich. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was concluded.

A recording¹ of the meeting is available online and by email request of the Council (email to: CEQ@ct.gov). (Disclaimer: The transcript associated with the meeting recording is computer-generated and may contain typos that have not been edited.)

[1] Passcode: f=25?E^L