Executive Summary
There has never been any hazardous material contaminating anyone or anything from this property and no one doubts or disputes that fact. The decades-long, $100,000 ordeal is about proving a negative, proving that no hazardous material can possibly contaminate anything from this property in the future. This is about the unreasonable regulation, laws and expense, those who profit, and the Kafkaesque bureaucracy of attempting to prove no one is going to be harmed, ever. Licensed Environmental Professional or LEP companies were paid, laws were followed, and thousands of dollars in taxes were paid directly to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection or DEEP. This is the story of the Connecticut Transfer Accordance Act which we will call The Act.
Most people assume the government has our best interest at heart and government makes laws reasonable for society. But we also know that laws aren’t always reasonable, and some people comply less than others but we all assume consequences when we don’t comply and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Government as a whole does not deliberately engage in misdirection, lies and malevolence, and such things are not in the laws. Rather the power of government is from time to time misused by malevolent, incompetent and duplicitous government employees as laws are written and enforced. The tax payer is mistreated as a byproduct while these people exercise their power mostly because that is how it has always been done. We are legally misused and still believe in the goodness of government.
If you stick with this story you will realize that assuming the government is solving problems is a harmful assumption and much of the harm is that government will grow while accomplishing less overall. Those who gain from the imposition of government monopolies, regulations and licensing are not the taxpayers though the intent is to keep us safe. Those who gain are government employees and those licensed, like the lawyers and insurance companies and utilities and trades. Mostly the taxpayers and the enforcers of such laws both hate the expensive and inefficient system.
In my case there was extensive testing for hazardous materials and nothing was proved. One cannot prove a negative, as if we were testing for unicorns to prove there are no unicorns. We didn’t find a hazard or a unicorn and we are just as sure today as we were 20 years ago there is no hazardous waste on this property. Only the government itself and its licensed professional monopolies profited by the efforts. We are no safer even if we are poorer.
The Act makes it necessary to delineate where any hazard would be if there were a hazard. We must find the highest detectible levels of hazard even if those levels are thousands of times less than levels found in fruits and vegetables we all eat daily.
The law clearly and nearly explicitly favors abandoning such property to a municipality. Government has its own interests and we accept penalties and punishments for non-compliance with laws and tacitly support The Act which is not likely to find any hazards and encourages property owners to give their land to the government. The Act compelled me to either buy services from government licensed monopolies or give up the property. This property would have deteriorated in downtown Torrington and the taxpayer would then own the abandoned property like so many other abandoned buildings. The costs of complying with The Act are well over the cost of buying equivalent property. But if the property reverts to the government there are many taxpayer funded programs and loopholes in the law which will make it easier for a government owner to comply than a private owner to comply with the Act.
Even legislators responsible The Act obviously do not understand it and did not read it. The only reasonable solution to a systemic failure like this is a very unlikely systemic reform. The clear remedy to benefit taxpayer and government alike is a concerted effort to simplify laws and repeal the laws that do not help taxpayers but only government.
As we read The Act in this book we see the stupidity of law as written because the gist of this law is simple. But this law and every law is so badly written with too many words, extremely redundant, and intentionally difficult to understand. But the heft and breadth and language and redundancy and obscurity built into the law is akin to bullying. Millions in penalties no one ever pays, prison time is proscribed but awaits no one, paragraph after paragraph no one ever read but does not apply to any real situation, ridiculous redundancy…. While we await justice to enter the system we can acquaint ourselves with the government system we have adopted. If you aren’t angry you aren’t familiar with The Act. There are no supporters even if there are beneficiaries.
In general there are two partisan political views. The prevailing opinion is that we all must be protected at any cost from greedy business that causes damage in search of profits like me. The other is that there are conflicting, restrictive, and expensive laws that do not help society. This is a case study of such a law and the harm it does. I expose The Act as a testament to how simplifying such a law would help the entire State of Connecticut.
The only hesitation I have is that revealing the law as I do in this book will make it easier for government employees to understand this law and thereby misuse it. When those in power know their power they will seize more properties unjustly and legally, and perhaps retaliate against me or other people like me who only want to employ their property for business and pleasure.
History
In November of 2006 I became interested in this commercial building at 233 East Main Street, Torrington, which once was a dry cleaner. I made an offer conditional that the “property to be delivered clear and in accordance with the Connecticut Transfer Accordance Act”. This law is more commonly called the Transfer Act which here we call The Act, although it does not appear by any of those names in the law itself. I was rebuffed and instead leased the property beginning in August of 2007.
I would not buy the place for fair market value in 2007 because of The Act, but after the owner died the family did not want it. I continued to lease from the estate and purchased it the following year under The Act paying $35,000 via private funding (no bank would touch it) in November of 2011. Yeah, well, that might seem like very cheap, but you don’t know about The Act yet and I didn’t either. I was stupid to buy it. Everyone who knows The Act would walk away from receiving such property even for free.
As we will see The Act is designed to make it ridiculously difficult to privately own ex dry cleaners or auto body shops. Perhaps someone knows why, but the reasons for the existence of The Act are not readily apparent. Property that is not ex dry-cleaner or ex- auto body shop is only tangentially mentioned and I doubt many other properties have to comply with The Act. Perhaps other industries have better lobbyists. My city of Torrington, Connecticut bought a property for a dollar and has spent nearly $2 million to clean it according to the law which may very well be parts of The Act, but that is beyond the scope of this book. I only refer to journalist reports of the purchase and incomplete cleanup for a 41 space parking lot in Downtown Torrington.
The Act, as we will see, seems designed to coerce people into abandoning dry cleaners and auto body shops so that it will be seized by government and then, with government ownership, it will not need to be cleaned. This is a story about the law which coerces us while we blindly trust a benevolent government. Perhaps it is not nefarious, that our legislators know and understand and believe that such property should reasonably be abandoned so that government can take over for their own unstated reasons. I cannot say that it is a bad thing, or that the coercion and seizure is calculated, or that the results of The Act are what our lawmakers intended. I can only show what happened to me, and that such is written in law as clearly as any law is written.
For all I know this book is about government greed, or incompetence or disinterest, or most probably all three. Unless there is a Deep State level of calculation of the effect of laws such as The Act we should assume few in government consider how their jobs affect us all. Like the rest of us we all seem to believe the government is protecting us from evil business interests like, for example, me. Simply put government makes laws to punish people for doing evil and fix damages caused. Then government has agencies to make regulations for our safety, designed to stop us from doing evil before we do that evil or cause the damage. Then government adds more laws to punish us for not complying with those agencies and safety regulations in addition to punishing us for the original evil and making us fix damages according to the original laws.
The only hazardous material detected on this property was found in three out of 120 soil samples which came from 14 test borings. There were also a dozen “hand samples” of soil taken through holes drilled through concrete to the soil below. But the hand samples did not turn up any reportable levels of hazardous material. Off the property, in 1993 water samples taken at the Wall Street gas station some 75 yards downstream (the property line is the Naugatuck River) found 27 parts per billion (ppb) of dry cleaning fluid also called PCE or Perc. Much lower levels of Perc were found as it is nearly impossible to not find a chemical with modern testing techniques. The requirements of Act makes us delineate the highest concentrations of these extremely small concentrations of Perc.
This whole story is about Perc. Tetrachloroethylene, also known as tetrachloroethene, or perchloroethylene and many other names. It is a chlorocarbon or organocloride chemically similar to DDT type insecticides with the formula Cl2C=CCl2. But to keep perspective, one billion is 9 zeros. So 27 ppb is 0.00000027%.
Because of this find 25 years ago the Licensed Professionals I hired urged me to declare this location a Significant Environmental Hazard (SHE) in 2016, nearly 25 years after the significant environmental hazard was detected. There was no additional evidence. This led to estrangement from my LEP and an expensive legal battle lasting over a year. In the end all my expenses were reimbursed by the LEP and I was reimbursed for the paid retainer, but more about that later.
The Back Story
Eugene Luciano, owner of Luciano’s Cleaning Clinic, died in February of 2010. Gene was a genuine hero of World War II and had the medals and scars to prove it. He wrote a book which he gave away to all who wanted it and signed my copy for me. At the end of the war in Germany he and two other Americans brought in several dozen prisoners without firing a shot. He told me they had been trying to get the guys to surrender for days and the three of them had gone out scouting behind the German position. All of a sudden they found themselves facing the backs of about 50 guys all armed pointing the other way, at the American position.
Gene said he doesn’t know what got into him, and he doesn’t even know what the other two Americans were doing, but Gene yelled in German a phrase that meant surrender, put down your weapons, and the Germans did it. The three of them marched the Germans to the American position.
Gene was a pip, a little guy. He would offer to show the three scars where he was shot. He had three Purple Hearts, he said. I introduced him to my mother, the both of them in their 80s, and he said in an opening remark “I could make love to you, you know”. So my mother sat down with us in the kitchen that day.
He bought this property after the Great Flood of 1955. It was one of the oldest houses in Torrington and seen on the maps from the early 1800s. Gene said it was a roadside rest stop for people traveling from Hartford to Albany, which it very well might have been according to the Torrington Historical Society. Gene was born in the house next door, which is now a four family apartment building. Gene’s father’s house next door was built in 1900 or so like so many houses in Torrington. Gene was born to a large family and did not have anything good to say about his father, who owned the house until he died.
Behind his father’s house was a garage that was lost in the flood. Gene used to clean carpets in that garage. But after the flood he needed to find a new location for his rug cleaning so he borrowed money from his wife’s family and bought this historic landmark next door. He jacked it up eight feet, added a basement, two car garage and tripled the size of the house with the concrete dry cleaning shop add-on. He paved nearly every square inch of the downtown property. Three quarters of the property now is the old cleaners and I live in the apartment, the original 2 story house. Gene had it completely rebuilt in the early 1960s. The original beams probably from the 17th century are visible from the basement and some of them 18 inches square and hand hewn.
Gene struggled with The Act when he wanted to sell his property. He told me he paid HRP Associates LLC hereafter called HRP, a major player in this sad story, $20,000. I will always remember Gene telling me about them with these words: “That’s how they fucked me, Kent”. He said it nearly every time he spoke on the subject. He so regretted ever letting them near his property. Gene did not realize he didn’t have any choice. The Act requires an LEP to transfer ownership. He saw it all as a scam, which in a way it is, but probably only a few of those involved in the scam know it is a scam. We call it The Act.
He paid HRP $20,000 thinking they would prove what he knew to be true, that the property was not contaminated. Gene would tell stories about how careful he was, how a brother who worked in dry cleaning at a different Torrington location had died from exposure to Perc. The danger of Perc according to OSHA is breathing it in and Gene said he could always smell it on his brother. Gene said he was always careful not to mis-handle Perc the way his brother did.
When he wanted to sell the property I believe Gene felt rich. It is a nice property in what he considered to be a prosperous area of downtown, worth a lot of money. He certainly asked for a lot of money. David Dean was his Real Estate Agent, and Gene told me Dean was the one who talked him into hiring HRP and started on The Act to sell the property. So HRP did testing and prepared the Phase I reports required by The Act.
If you were paying attention you know already HRP found what they considered to be some problems when they tested the property. They could not let the property be transferred without a lot more testing, and more reports and a lot more money. They worried about their license if they are audited by the State of Connecticut Department of Energy and Environment al Protection, the DEEP. The recommendations from the $20,000 Phase I report might be resolved; Gene was quoted, for about $130,000 with no guarantees, depending on what more is found. No wonder he felt “fucked”.
While this was going on about 2003 Gene had another company remove the old underground oil tank so it didn’t pollute the ground in the future if it rusted out. It was common for small companies and even homes to have underground oil tanks at one time. But of course that can’t happen anymore. I once was talking to Scot Kuhn of HRP and he pointed to the patch in the asphalt where the tank had been and referred to it as though he had removed the tank. I said I had new respect for HRP since they had done so within the $20,000 Gene had paid. Scot nodded, taking responsibility, but now, with more experience and having been through all the documents and bills, HRP had recommended the removal of the tank but Gene had paid another company to remove the tank, not HRP.
Requirements? Really?
According to our government if ground water testing detects an amount of Perc above 25 ppb it must be reported. If drinking water tests above 5 ppb it must be reported. In 1993 the gas station detected 27 ppb in ground water, a reportable level; found and reported the year after Luciano’s Cleaning Clinic had closed. Dry Cleaning equipment had already been sold and the building was used only as an apartment in 1993. There have been no reportable detections of Perc in the vicinity before or since this one reported detection in 1993.
In 2016 HRP said I had to report this property is a Significant Environmental Hazard or SEH because Perc was detected at 2 ppb above the reportable limit 23 years earlier. They would fill out the report for me for $6,000. This is because in preparation for work I had told HRP about a drinking water well used in a household about 1500 feet uphill from here. As a drinking water well was adjacent to my property, and testing showed 27 ppb Perc in ground water 23 years earlier, according to their logic, made my property an SEH.
It is this action of HRP in March of 2016 that is the impetus of this book and all the ridiculousness that happened afterwards. I refused to file a report of SEH and instead wrote a letter to the commissioner of DEEP, to explain the situation. So far as I know I was found to be in compliance with the law. But if you check the maps by the DEEP keeps of where the hazards are I am on the map. But I am getting ahead of myself.
Twenty-seven ppb concentration of Perc was reported 75 meters downstream from the Cleaning Clinic in 1993. But on the property of the Cleaning Clinic itself, with over $65,000 spent so far to follow direction from the DEEP, testing done in Phase I and Phase II for the Transfer Act from 2003 -2005 there were 120 soil samples from 14 borings and another dozen “hand samples”. Only three soil samples contained reportable levels of Perc. The highest sample was 122 ppb. The other two were 40 ppb and 35 ppb.
One hundred twenty two ppb is about 12 molecules per 100 million molecules or 1 molecule per ten million molecules. If there were 10 million marbles each of them one centimeter in diameter on the flat ground the marbles would cover 2.5 acres of land and one those marbles could represent Perc. One billion square centimeters, or marbles, are about as many 1 centimeter marbles as would fit in Hangar One, a NASA building that covers about 8 acres of land and reaches a height of 200 feet, and 122 of those marbles could represent Perc.
The dosage for LSD, a very, very potent drug is generally thought to be 100 micrograms for a 220 lb. (100kg) adult. Assume that in soil 1 ppb is 1 microgram per kilogram or one billionth part, and in liquid 1 ppb equals 1 microgram per liter (a liter weighs a kilogram) then 112 ppb = 112 micrograms per liter. At that concentration one would eat nearly a kilogram of soil from a very specific hole under this building to take an LSD trip. If we were instead to compare to water found “contaminated” with LSD at the level of 27 ppb in the gas station down the road, then one would have to drink well over 4 liters to get the 100 micrograms for a trip.
Ricin is touted as one of the most toxic poisons with a lethal dosage of one milligram per kilogram. That is a hundred times the dosage for an LSD trip. So you would need to drink 450 liters of ricin solution for a lethal dose. If you don’t die, ricin and LSD wear off. LSD has a half-life of less than 8 hours. Eventually there will be no measurable residue in your body to prove you ever ingested these substances. Whether or not you were harmed by exposure to these substances is an argument.
I repeat in 1993 a level of Perc two parts per billion above the reportable level was found 75 meters downstream from this location. This is the only evidence of any hazardous material leaving this property and although it was detected it contaminated no one. It was found in ground water. It was found the year after stopping all dry cleaning and 25 years before these words were written. The laws and government regulations require expensive testing and reporting by LEPs to prove these facts which no one doubts or disputes.
Our governments’ environmental protection agencies regulate Perc at levels 200 times less than the dosages of the most potent drugs or poisons that exist. These quantities are buried in soil under a concrete building and so they are extremely unlikely to be eaten. And the danger of LSD or ricin in the water is a theoretically greater danger than Perc in the soil, but still no danger at all at these levels. Luckily I don’t have to test for LSD or ricin.
A World Health Organization survey published in 1996 reported:
“A survey of drinking-water in the USA in 1976–77 detected tetrachloroethene [Perc] in nine of 105 samples at levels ranging from 0.2 to 3.1 [ppb] (mean 0.81 ppb). In other surveys of drinking-water supplies in the USA, it was found that 3% of all public water-supply systems that used well-water contained tetrachloroethene [Perc] at concentrations of 0.5 ppb or higher.”
In general drinking water in the US has well under 1 ppb Perc. The EPA standard for Perc in drinking water is 5 ppb. The WHO nor OSHA nor anyone else I could find except the EPA lists standards for Perc in water but WHO and OSHA list standards for Perc in the air. The Act is not interested in the amount of Perc that is in the air, which is where other agencies believe the danger of Perc is found.
How Do We Figure?
Many people believe that if a gram of something is bad then a billionth of a gram is also bad. Often people argue that organic products are healthier because less pesticides and other toxic chemical residue are in organics. The produce section of your supermarket has, on a very rough average, 4 times the pesticides found in organic produce in the same supermarket. Following this logical argument, if you eat an average four organic tomatoes you are just as contaminated with toxic chemicals as if you ate one non-organically grown tomato. Each of us has to decide if we want to spend extra money to avoid approximately one quarter of the pesticide and chemical residues on otherwise government approved vegetables and instead buy more expensive organic vegetables.
No one can say definitively if a detectable quantity of any substance can have unknown future effects. Studies show the levels at which damage can occur, and the EPA regulations do not allow such amounts, or even thousands of times less than such amounts. Also every substance we take into our bodies leaves our bodies sooner or later.
Here we are talking about government regulations concerning a known hazardous chemical from dry cleaning. No one reasonably believes there are harmful quantities of such chemicals at this location or that such chemicals that are not here can leech into our water. But government regulations require that we prove that they aren’t and it can’t. The reason we have to do it is because of the law, or more specifically, The Act.
This chemical, Perc, like pesticides and fertilizers, does not grow in the body. If you ingest a gram of these harmful chemicals you might show reactions and need treatment, but they will leave your body. And if you ingest a smaller quantity you might not have any symptoms, will not need treatment, and the chemical will leave your body even without you ever knowing.
There are claims that even when the amounts are small and there are no symptoms there could be damage done. Whether true or not, and all the claims about pesticides notwithstanding, the amount of chemicals we are talking about with Perc in ground water or drinking water are hundreds or even a thousand times less than the pesticide amounts found in fresh produce. I am certainly not suggesting anyone taste anything harmful only pointing out that quantity makes a difference and we are not talking about sure and deadly consequences.
Captan is an ingredient in many pesticides that is detected in fruits and vegetables we buy at the store. I only chose to talk about this one because it is common and often listed first due to alphabetical order. The EPA (and curiously not the FDA) has instituted standards or a “tolerance” for public consumption of Captan and that tolerance is different for different produce. For blue berries that tolerance is 25 ppm. Parts per million are a thousand times more parts than ppb. For grapes the tolerance is 50 ppm. Of course it is extremely rare that any produce would contain that much Captan and generally the tests come up with a hundred times less than the maximum allowable. But even at these allowable limits of 10,000 times the amount of Perc in the samples at this site there are no expected symptoms or treatment. If vegetables test that high don’t eat them. Report such a thing to the government and they will find out where they came from and stop any further contamination.
It is the same with Perc. The data about harmful effects of Perc are about breathing it, and the DEEP in Connecticut doesn’t care about Perc in the air. The dangers of Perc on the skin, we are told by OSHA, might cause a rash. But it is ridiculous to think that within 100 yards of this location there are enough Perc molecules to cause such a rash.
With today’s technology we can detect parts per billion of Perc or Captan. That is like being able to count those 112 Perc marbles in the building that is 200 feet tall and covers 8 acres. Being able to detect the presence of Perc doesn’t mean that ingesting that amount of Perc is harmful. Even if you could separate them from the rest of the molecules there would not be enough to do harm according to any generally accepted theories of hazards to humans. And Perc in soil leaves the body as easily as it enters the body, or perhaps even easier.
The FDA will allow the sale of produce with 1000 times higher quantities of these chemicals on fresh vegetables in grocery stores than the DEEP will ignore in the soil under my basement. We might wonder why the EPA and the DEEP are more concerned about lower quantities of chemicals in soil under the Cleaning Clinic than the FDA is concerned with those chemicals in food we eat. Whatever the reason we have to comply with The Act.
According to the World Health Organization or WHO survey “Mice treated with doses as low as 70 mg per kg (70,000 ppb) of body weight per day exhibited significantly increased liver triglyceride levels and liver-to-body-weight ratios.”
The implication is that if people are like mice and a 220 pound (100 kg) person were to regularly ingest as little as 7 grams of Perc a day it might cause significant changes in that person’s liver function. But as I said no one believes there are 7 grams of Perc molecules within 100 yards of this place, or that anyone would eat one’s day’s ration of Perc if they could. But this is not about logic or reason; this is about laws, rules and regulations.
Somewhere between one ppb and seven grams is an amount that causes harm to humans over time. The FDA has allowed either 50 ppm or 25 ppm for Captan on your fresh produce and the DEEP has disallowed 0.0035 ppm (35 ppb) Perc in the soil under my basement. EPA set Maximum Contaminant Level or MCL at 5 ppb for drinking water and 25 ppb for ground water. If a level above 5 ppb is found in drinking water it must be reported and notices given to the public. However we can sell tomatoes with nearly a thousand times that concentration of Captan.
Perc belongs to the same class of chemicals as DDT, banned in 2001 as an environmental hazard to egg shells but not particularly harmful to humans. It has since been allowed in some countries and in the US under certain circumstances. The FDA allows DDT in commercially sold milk, carrots, fish and potatoes at 100s of times the levels found in soil samples of Perc from under the Cleaning Clinic.
Small fruits and berries sold in the grocery stores may have 100 ppb of DDT which is slightly less than the highest amount in one of the 120 soil samples taken. But no one eats soil. Insecticides of similar chemical properties to DDT or Perc are not banned and can be found in fresh produce at higher concentrations. The DEEP is concerned with quantities of such chemicals in soil under a basement while quantities even thousands of times higher, are found in foods we eat daily as regulated by the FDA (luckily not by the EPA).
The Act is the law we are talking about here, not reason or logic. And the law requires one of several options be followed. The law guarantees that LEPs must certify that the property is up to DEEP standards or I will be eligible for jail time and millions of dollars in fines and other penalties paid directly to the Connecticut General Fund.
The obvious big winners here are the LEPs, and the DEEP who hire lots of people to perform work, file reports and pay a lot pensions at taxpayer expense. And the lawmakers, the vast majority of which have no idea what The Act is or how it attempts to clean up the environment will vote for the “environment” as a worthy cause out of ignorance. As always the taxpayer has no direct interest in such things, only wondering why taxes are so high.
The Transfer Act or “The Act”
The Act is found in Connecticut General Statutes Section 22a ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (they write such things in all caps). In Section 22a are contained Chapters 439 to 446 and The Act is in Chapter 445 titled “HAZARDOUS WASTE”. So within that chapter is The Act as we call it, but it is also called “22a-sections 114-134a”. There no specific section heading for The Act, only the numbers. It is named The Transfer Act only in DEEP literature that refers to this section of law.
It is very dry reading, so I will abridge, translate and/or spice it up with BOLD commentary to make reading a bit easier. If you have never read a law before this is your chance to get an education in our legislature and legal system. You may ask yourself why laws are written this way and the best answer I can supply is that it is tradition. There can be no benevolent purpose to being obtuse, redundant and overly severe.
The parts that concern Luciano’s Cleaning Clinic “transfer” or change of ownership are our primary concern here. But there are also some really stupid and badly written or confusing sections. The main gist, then, is transfer of “establishments”. I italicize establishments because that word means ex-Dry Cleaners and ex-Auto Body Shops almost exclusively. Also note the unique use of the word “siting”. Later in the law you will note that the “guidance document” which I have italicized is what I would have thought was the law. The law could save a lot of ink if it just told us the DEEP as the power to enforce the guidance document and left it at that.
Another curiosity about Connecticut law is reference to “the commissioner” means the department. In this case when the law say “the commissioner” it is really saying the DEEP.
Everything that is not bold, both sides of the ellipsis (…) where I have abridged the text is in the law. Sometimes I have italicized some of the text, but it is law. Really, it is, as ridiculous as it reads. I just abridged some and with bold commentary I wrote to accompany it.
Start Now:
Sec. 22a-114. Legislative finding; policy of the state. The General Assembly finds that improper management of hazardous wastes has contaminated the water, soil and air of the state thereby threatening the health and safety of Connecticut citizens; that the economic benefits to the state from industry are jeopardized if hazardous waste disposal facilities are not available in Connecticut;
The first stated purpose is to benefit Connecticut by making waste disposal facilities in Connecticut. Hazardous waste from my site would not be stored in Connecticut however and my only option was Massachusetts and New Jersey.
… that the safe management of hazardous wastes, including state involvement, is mandated by the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] … and implementing regulations; that the siting of hazardous waste disposal facilities is in the best interest of Connecticut’s citizens [though often sent out of state instead] and that the public should participate in siting decisions.[by “public” that is “legislators” and have italicized the word “siting” for emphasis] Therefore the General Assembly declares that it is the policy of the state to initiate final remedial action by the year 2000 at each hazardous waste disposal site listed on July 3, 1989, on the inventory maintained by the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection … [AND] … to assure the siting of hazardous waste disposal facilities so that the health and safety of Connecticut’s citizens and the environmental and economic interests of the state are protected. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process for the siting of hazardous waste facilities that will protect the health and safety of Connecticut citizens and assure responsible economic development and to have that siting process be at least as strict as that required by federal law.
The law is intended to clean up all sites on a list from 1989 and “establish a process” for cleaning other sites. The second stated purpose is “siting”. Although the definitions section does not make it clear, soon we shall see that “siting” means most often seizing hazardous sites from private owners for taxpayer ownership and responsibility.
Sec. 22a-115. Definitions. As used in this chapter:
(1) “Hazardous waste” means any waste material which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly disposed of, treated, stored, transported, or otherwise managed, including (A) hazardous waste identified in accordance with Section 3001 of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 USC 6901 et seq.),
Searches for USC Title 42 Chapter 1 Subchapter 1 § 6901 section 3001 sends us to 42 U.S. Code § 6921 – Identification and listing of hazardous waste, which tells us the categories of hazardous waste. It is not a list of hazards as implied.
(B) hazardous waste identified by regulation by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, [In other words, whatever DEEP says it is] … and
(C) polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs] in concentrations greater than fifty parts per million, but does not mean by-product material, source material or special nuclear material … or scrap tires;
We can simplify this list to say that hazardous waste is therefore PCBs plus whatever DEEP says it is but not nuclear material or scrap tires. The nuclear people and the tire people must have good lobbyists.
(2) “Hazardous waste facility” means [what you think it means. Let’s skip some definitions since they define things to be just what we think they mean.]
(3) “Disposal” … (4) “Treatment” … (5) “Short-term storage” … (6) “Long-term storage” … (7) “Municipality” … (8) “Person” … (9) “Modification” …
Laws could be significantly simplified if the Definitions sections of all the laws were consolidated and every law just says ***See “Definitions As Defined By Law” in a separate location.
(10) “Council” means the Connecticut Siting Council …
The Siting Council is nine full time State Employees who are consulted about seizing land to be used for State created monopolies like hazardous waste disposal, and utilities, power lines, roads, immanent domain, etc.
(11) “Commissioner” means the Commissioner of the Department Energy and Environmental Protection;
(12) “Closure period” means the first one hundred eighty days after the hazardous waste facility receives its final volume of hazardous waste or any other period …
(13) “Postclosure period” means the first thirty years after the date of completing closure or any other period …
(14) “Permanent council members” means the membership for proceedings under this chapter, consisting of the Commissioners of Public Health and Emergency Services and Public Protection or their designees, five members appointed by the Governor and one designee each of the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate;
Important! Three Commissioners, Five Governor Appointments, and One Appointee Each from the House and Senate. Ten Permanent Council Members, hereafter called Ten Guys.
(15) “Development and management” means… What you think it means (16) “Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act” means… What you think it means
(17) “Recovery” means a method, technique or process designed to produce materials or substances from hazardous waste for reuse, offering for sale, or sale;
(18) “Existing hazardous waste facility” means a hazardous waste facility in operation on or before June 1, 1983 …
We got though the longest section. Congratulations. In pages that was long, but not in substance, probably true of all sections of law. I used the ellipsis to get us through that one. You saw very few of the total number of words in that section.
Sec. 22a-116. Regulations. (a) Except as specified in this chapter the regulations and procedures of the Connecticut Siting Council shall be the same as those for proceedings …
(b) The commissioner shall adopt … regulations for licenses, permits and approvals … which must be applied for … Awkward wording but clear enough. The commissioner will tell you if you need a license, permit or approval.
(c) The permanent members of the council [Ten Guys] shall adopt … regulations for the siting of and the development and management of hazardous waste facilities. Such regulations shall establish reasonable application fees to meet administrative costs. The permanent members of the council [Ten Guys] shall also … establish procedures for an assessment to finance any additional anticipated expenses of reviewing, hearing, and issuing a decision on an application for a hazardous waste facility, including expenses for staff, consultants and studies which such council deems necessary …
It seems important how the procedures to finance are figured, priced and how much of the costs are covered by the “reasonable application fees” which in my case were well over $10,000. Based on quotes I got from LEPs that were more than triple what I ultimately paid I doubt my situation is typical. And LEPs are all very busy and therefore generate a lot of application fees for the State, and probably swimming pools in the second homes of their administrative assistants.
(d) The commissioner shall adopt regulations … for the construction, operation, closure and postclosure of hazardous waste facilities.
Sec. 22a-117. Construction or modification of hazardous waste facility. When certificate required. Transfer of certificate. Polychlorinated biphenyls. [PCBs]
But we will skip the body of this section because they deal with what happens if there is a complaint against me or if I am found to be in violation of the laws, regulations and policies, and must go to a hearing and defend myself. Thankfully that didn’t happen.
Sec. 22a-118. Application for certificate.
Sec. 22a-119. Hearing on application.
Sec. 22a-120. Parties to certification proceedings
Sec. 22a-121. Record of hearing.
Sec. 22a-122. Decision and opinion. Criteria for decision
Sec. 22a-123. Enforcement of certificate requirements and other standards. Penalties.
Sec. 22a-124. Exclusive jurisdiction of council.
Sec. 22a-126. Use of facility after postclosure period.
Sec. 22a-127. Local project review committee.
Sec. 22a-128. Payments of assessments or negotiated incentives
Sec. 22a-129. Chief elected official’s right of access
Sec. 22a-130. Regulations.
Sec. 22a-131. Civil penalty for violation of hazardous waste program. Any person who violates any provision of the state’s hazardous waste program shall be assessed a civil penalty of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars for each day such violation.
continues. The Attorney General, upon complaint of the commissioner, shall institute a civil action to recover such penalty. Any amount recovered shall be deposited in the General Fund.
Yikes $25,000 per day if I “violate any provisions” of this law, and the money deposited directly into the General Fund.
Sec. 22a-131a. Penalties. Terms defined. (a) Any person who (1) willfully fails to prepare a manifest required in accordance with the provisions of the State Hazardous Waste Program … or any regulation adopted pursuant to said subsection, (2) knowingly makes any false material statement or representation on any application, label, manifest, record, report, permit or other document required [by this law]… or said regulations, including any such statement or representation for used oil that is regulated under said subsection, or (3) willfully fails to maintain or knowingly destroys, alters or conceals any record required to be maintained [by this law] … or said regulations, including any record for used oil that is regulated under said subsection, shall be fined not more than fifty thousand dollars for each day of such violation or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. A subsequent conviction for any such violation shall be a class D felony, except that such conviction shall carry a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars per day.
Not more than $50,000 per day or two years in prison for “misrepresentation” of any waste including used oil. Doesn’t say motor, vegetable oil, diesel, heating. Says Used Oil is in the Definitions section but I couldn’t find it… So lying about how you got rid of used oil can take everything we own and put us in prison.
(b) Any person who knowingly transports or causes to be transported any hazardous waste to a facility which does not have a permit required … or who knowingly treats, stores or disposes of any hazardous wastes without a permit … or who knowingly violates any material condition or requirement of such permit or an order issued by the commissioner regarding treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste… Same penalties as above.
(c) Any person who knowingly stores, treats, disposes, recycles, transports or causes to be transported or otherwise handles any used oil that is regulated under subsection (c) of section 22a-449 but not identified or listed as hazardous waste in violation of any condition or requirement of a permit under said subsection or under any regulation adopted pursuant to said subsection … Same penalties as above.
(d) Any person, who in the commission of a violation for which a penalty would be imposed under subsection (a), (b) or (c) of this section, who knowingly places another person, by commission of such violation, in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, shall be fined not more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both, and when the violator is an organization, the fine shall be not more than one million dollars. This subsection shall not be construed as a limitation on the amount of fines that may be imposed in accordance with subsection (a), (b) or (c) of this section. As used in this section, “organization” means any legal entity, other than the state or any of its political subdivisions, established for any purpose, and includes a corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, joint stock company, foundation, institution, trust, society, union or any other association of persons.
The “Not More Than A Million Dollar” corporate crime.
(e) Any fine imposed pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the General Fund.
(f) Notwithstanding the provisions … for the purposes of this section, the terms “treatment”, “storage”, “disposal”, “facility”, “hazardous waste” and “used oil” have the same meaning as provided in the State Hazardous Waste Program …
As mentioned earlier, I can find no definition of “used oil” in the law even though this law says it uses the one in the State Hazardous Waste Program, wherever that is written. No doubt the DEEP commissioner can help us find it in a supporting document as I do not find it in law.
Sec. 22a-132. Hazardous waste assessment.
This section is a crazy tax on hazardous waste delivered to treatment facilities. I see no requirement the facilities must be in Connecticut. Up to $12 per cubic yard or a half cent per pound or 6 cents per gallon. How it should be paid and what penalties are in store if you don’t. I skipped it for you. Just know they are severe and the waste is sent out of state anyway. Imagine hazardous water pumped from my basement into 55 gallon drums for which I would pay tax in addition to finding it, pumping it out, transporting it out of state, and storing it forever. I feel lucky I didn’t have to do that.
Sec. 22a-132a. Administration expenses. Fees. Staff. Consultants.
You might think there was something different from asking for their money from the General Assembly or receiving it from this section of law, but you would be wrong. They just ask the GA when they need money. Their money is in the budget.
Sec. 22a-133. Payments prohibited if federal funds available.
If the Federal Government pays then Connecticut cannot, according to law.
Sec. 22a-133a. Definitions: Discovery and cleanup of hazardous waste disposal sites.
We’re not quite to the place where we can talk about transfer.
Sec. 22a-133b. Discovery and evaluation of hazardous waste disposal sites deemed to pose threat to the environment or public health.
The government will actively look for threats at the Waste Disposal sites.
Sec. 22a-133c. Hazardous waste disposal site inventory. The commissioner shall maintain a hazardous waste disposal site inventory …
They will keep a list.
Sec. 22a-133d. Site assessments.
They will collect information about sites.
Sec. 22a-133e. Remedial action.
They will continue to remedy problems, provide plans to remedy problems, check ways to fund such plans.
Sec. 22a-133f. Costs of remedial action. Regulations. (a) The costs of remedial action … may be paid from (1) available appropriations, or (2) any account authorized [law]… The costs may be paid from such funds and accounts … [when] the commissioner is unable to determine the responsible party for the disposal or cleanup of the hazardous waste, (B) the responsible party is not in timely compliance with orders issued by the commissioner to provide remedial action, or (C) the commissioner has not issued a final decision on an order to a responsible party to provide remedial action because of (i) a request for a hearing …
The commissioner can pay for the remedy.
Sec. 22a-133g. Reimbursement for costs and expenses of remedial action.
If the commissioner pays for remedies the commissioner will seek reimbursement.
Sec. 22a-133h. Telephone line for hazardous waste disposal site information.
An anonymous tip line.
Sec. 22a-133i. Bonds. The commissioner may provide the state share of payments of the costs of remedial action pursuant to CERCLA from funds authorized pursuant to subsection (a) of section 29 of special act 87-77 and subdivision (5) of subsection (e) of section 2 of special act 86-54.
No idea what they are talking about there. Sounds very special, though.
Sec. 22a-133j. Annual report.
Tells what is in their annual report.
Sec. 22a-133k. Regulations establishing standards for the remediation of hazardous waste sites and for review and approval of final remedial action reports.
The commissioner will tell you what you have to do. The law doesn’t say what you have to do, it says to ask the commissioner, he will know.
Sec. 22a-133l. Grants to clean up landfills where hazardous waste was disposed of. (a) The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection may establish…
Grants under a complicated set of rules which will probably shuffle taxpayer money to LEPs who test and certify property seized from small businessmen like me when they achieve municipal or state ownership.
Sec. 22a-133n. Environmental use restrictions:
A useful section to me. This is how I could avoid remediating or removing lead that was found in testing. According to this law I can rather declare that I know about it, record it on the deed to the property “irrevocably” and attach the restriction that the lead must remain covered, paved, and not exposed forever. Lead is bad for children under 6 years old.
Sec. 22a-133o. Environmental use restrictions: Requirements .. If the commissioner has a program and the commissioner says you can apply and all owners agree unless the commissioner says they don’t have to agree…
(2) Within seven days after executing an environmental land use restriction [I doubt all time limits for government action, not gonna happen] and receiving thereon the signature of the commissioner or licensed environmental professional, as the case may be, the owner of the land involved therein shall record such restriction [Oh, I have the time limit, not the government. Never mind.] and documents required … and shall submit to the commissioner a certificate of title certifying that each interest in such land or any part thereof is irrevocably subordinated to the environmental land use restriction …
(3) An owner of land … may be released, wholly or in part, permanently or temporarily, from the limitations of such restriction only with the commissioner’s written approval… The commissioner may waive the requirement to record such release …
This is just tedious and entirely unnecessary.
(4) An environmental land use restriction shall survive foreclosure of a mortgage, lien or other encumbrance.
How many times are they going to say it?
(c) (1) A notice of activity and use limitation may be used and recorded for releases remediated in accordance with the regulations adopted [Could the language be more awkward?]… for the following purposes:
(A) To achieve compliance with industrial/commercial direct exposure criteria, groundwater volatilization criteria, and soil vapor criteria … by preventing residential activity and use of the area to be affected through the notice of activity and use limitation, provided such property is zoned for industrial or commercial use, is not used for any residential use, and no holder of an interest in such property, other than such owner, has a right of residential use …;
This goes on for several long, single-spaced paragraphs (B) (C) (D) listing quite extensively then ending with
…or
(E) Any other purpose the commissioner may prescribe by regulations adopted ..
In sum you can get a land use restriction in place of removing the hazardous waste if the Commissioner says you can. But even if the commissioner says you can’t you can circumvent the commissioner (good luck) for any number of reasons listed in these sections. I bet the legal lobby got this section in place to throw a bone to Environmental Lawyers who can make a living opposing the Commissioner in court.
(2) No owner shall record a notice of activity and use limitation on the land records of the municipality in which such land is located unless such owner, not later than sixty days prior to such recordation… [Oh My God, law really does say you can’t do it without the agreement of all owners of property (unless the commissioner says you can) AND you provide …] “written notice to each person who holds an interest in such land or any part thereof, including each mortgagee, lessee, lienor and encumbrancer. Such written notice of the proposed notice of activity and use limitation shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, and shall include notice of the existence and location of pollution within such area and the terms of such proposed activity and use limitation. Any such person who holds an interest may waive such sixty-day-notice period in relation to such interest provided such waiver is in writing.
So they have to be involved, sign off on it, be on all applications, AND then in addition to that you have to notify by certified mail what you are doing what they agreed to do on the form.
(3) A notice of activity and use limitation recorded pursuant to this subsection shall be implemented and adhered to by the owner and subsequent holders of interests in the property, such owner’s successors and assigns, and any person who has a license to use such property or to conduct remediation on any portion of such property.
More redundancies.
(4) Any notice of activity and use limitation shall be effective when recorded on the land records of the municipality in which such property is located.
The land use restrictions will take effect when you record it with the City. I was not really confused about that point, but thanks anyway.
(5) (A) Any notice of activity and use limitation document, as described in this subsection, shall be prepared on a form prescribed by the commissioner.
There is a form to fill out. Good. I kind of thought so.
(B) A notice of activity and use limitation decision document, signed by the commissioner or signed and sealed by a licensed environmental professional, shall be referenced in and recorded with any such notice of activity and use limitation, and shall specify:
Goes into several sections, but I would bet a lot that all of these listed items that must be included in the application will be on the form that is required.
Why … [the activity] … is appropriate (ii) Any activities and uses that are inconsistent (iii) Any activities and uses to be permitted; (iv) Any obligations and conditions necessary (v) The nature and extent of pollution
(6) A notice of activity and use limitation shall not be used in any area where a prior holder of interest in the property has an interest that allows for the conduct of an activity that interferes with the conditions or purposes described in subparagraphs (A) to (E), inclusive, of subdivision (1) of this subsection or if such interest allows for intrusion into the polluted soil.
More extremely awkward wording. I don’t get it. I tried, but I just can’t read it. I am sure I got a lot further than any of the readers here. I urge anyone reading to just skip this, cannot believe it is law and that it serves any purpose whatever. Read the bold parts I will try to explain what follows, but I cannot explain the above, it is too ridiculous. Something like a grandfather clause that if an activity was allowed on what is now deemed a hazardous property this purports to tell us something about when the DEEP can and/or cannot require the posting of a sign.
(7) Upon transfer of any interest in or a right to use property, or a portion of property that is subject to a notice of activity and use limitation, the owner of such land, any lessee of such land and any person who has the right to subdivide or sublease such property, shall incorporate such notice in full or by reference into all future deeds, easements, mortgages, leases, licenses, occupancy agreements and any other instrument of transfer provided the failure to incorporate such notice shall not affect the enforceability of any such notice of activity and use limitation.
They just like redundancy. That is the only possible reason for such a paragraph.
(8) If a notice of activity and use limitation is extinguished…[and] (9)
Another long section that means taking off the land use restriction means performing the LEP prescribed remedy and removing the pollution.
Sec. 22a-133p. Environmental use restrictions: Enforcement of environmental land use restriction, notice of activity and use limitation, statutes and regulations. (a) The Attorney General, at the request of the commissioner, shall institute a civil action in the superior court … wherein the subject land is located for injunctive or other equitable relief to enforce an environmental land use restriction, a notice of activity and use limitation or the provisions of [law] and regulations … to recover a civil penalty pursuant to [law].
(b) The commissioner may issue orders …to enforce an environmental land use restriction… and regulations adopted pursuant to said sections.
I don’t think anyone ever read this except the writer of the paragraph.
(c) In any administrative or civil proceeding instituted by the commissioner to enforce an environmental land use restriction … any other person may intervene as a matter of right.
(d) In any civil or administrative action to enforce an environmental land use restriction … the owner of the subject land, and any lessee thereof, shall be strictly liable for any violation … and shall be jointly and severally liable for abating such violation.
(e) Any owner of land with respect to which an environmental land use restriction …and any lessee of such land, who violates any provision of such restriction or limitation or violates the provisions of sections … shall be assessed a civil penalty…
Why is there so much redundancy? Perhaps there is a foreboding list somewhere of all the redundant sections of law you break if you “violate” the land use restriction law and a single action violates so many separate paragraphs with so many aggregate punishments. But I don’t even know how you could violate this one. Surely the government will check to see that you filed a land use restriction. If you don’t file a restriction I suspect you would know the unfiled restriction is not valid. So why the severe penalties? And why the redundancy?
Sec. 22a-133r. Environmental use restrictions: Abatement of pollution when restriction or notice is void or without effect. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction finds for any reason that an environmental land use restriction or notice of activity and use limitation is void or without effect for any reason, the owner of the subject land, in accordance with a schedule prescribed by the commissioner, shall promptly abate pollution thereon consistently …
Seems to me if you are polluting on any land, not just land that has a use restriction on it, you should stop even before the commissioner tells you to. And if you don’t you would be liable for crimes other than not following the commissioner’s order to stop. This section of law could never be used against anyone, ever.
Sec. 22a-133s. Environmental use restrictions: Other powers not affected. Nothing in sections 22a-133n to 22a-133r, inclusive, shall be construed to affect the commissioner’s authority under any other provision of law to abate or prevent pollution or to enforce any statute, requirement, order or permit issued or administered by him.
God Forbid. Nothing to take away any power from the Commissioner.
The longest section was the Definitions which we got through a long time ago. This is just a lot of redundancy and, forgive my saying so, evident stupidity. If you have ever read any laws you knew that already. If you want to go get a coffee I’ll wait.
Sec. 22a-133t. Special Contaminated Property Remediation and Insurance Fund. There is established and created a fund to be known as the “Special Contaminated Property Remediation and Insurance Fund”. There shall be deposited in the fund: (1) The proceeds of bonds issued by the state for deposit into said fund and used in accordance with this section; (2) revenues from taxes or fees required to be deposited into the fund pursuant to law; and (3) interest or other income earned on the investment of moneys in the fund pending transfer or use pursuant to this section and section 22a-133u. The fund may contain any moneys required by law to be deposited in the fund and shall be held by the Treasurer separate and apart from all other moneys, funds and accounts. Investment earnings credited to the assets of said fund shall become part of the assets of said fund. Any balance remaining in said fund at the end of any fiscal year shall be carried forward in said fund for the fiscal year next succeeding.
I wonder if this fund exists and if so if it really is not raided by the legislature for other projects. I hope I didn’t just give them the idea.
Sec. 22a-133u. Uses of Special Contaminated Property Remediation and Insurance Fund. Repayment of funds. Liens. Criteria. (a) The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection may use any funds …
Just say the Commissioner can do anything and be done with it. I am skipping this section. You can find it on line, but I am ashamed to read this far into the law and what this law means for Connecticut. Stupid with no purpose whatever.
(b) The Commissioner of Economic and Community Development may use any funds deposited into the Special Contaminated Property Remediation and Insurance Fund …
The same way the Commissioner can use the funds in section (a) above. Skipping the rest. I am going to the bottom of this section. If the Commissioner uses the funds for anything “which said commissioner deems appropriate” it shall be deemed a loan which will be returned to the funds from which the commissioner took it in no more than five years after the sale of the property according to terms approved by the commissioner. We can add the hope and prayer that the legislature did not raid that account.
(d) The amount of any funds received under subsection (b) of this section by any entity other than a municipality shall be a lien against the real property for which the funds were disbursed….
If someone takes the money from the commissioner’s funds to clean their property it shall be a lien, unless that someone is a municipality. Clearly municipalities can have the contaminated land free and clear.
(e) The Commissioner of Economic and Community Development shall establish criteria …
There are programs and forms to apply for the loans.
Sec. 22a-133v. Licensed environmental professionals. Definitions. Licensing board. Standard of care. Issuance of license. Fees. Suspension or revocation of license or other sanction. Examination.
As this has become so ridiculously tedious I will summarize that LEPs and the other definitions in this section are just what you think they are. I can’t imagine anyone thinks this law is reasonable and can defend even the expenditure of electronic ink on its production. Well, no one but a lawmaker, whose job it is to make such laws. What a waste.
(b) There shall be within the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection a State Board of Examiners of Environmental Professionals. The board shall consist of eleven members. One member, who shall be the chairman of the board, shall be the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection, or his designee. The Governor shall appoint the other ten members of the board who shall consist of the following: Six members shall be licensed environmental professionals or, prior to the publication by the board of the first roster of licensed environmental professionals, persons on the list maintained by the commissioner pursuant to subsection (h) of this section, including at least two having hydrogeology expertise and two who are licensed professional engineers; two members who are active members of an organization that promotes the protection of the environment; one member who is an active member of an organization that promotes business; and one member who is an employee of a lending institution. The members of the board shall administer the provisions of this section as to licensure and issuance, reissuance, suspension or revocation of licenses concerning environmental professionals. The Governor may remove any member of the board for misconduct, incompetence or neglect of duty. The members of the board shall receive no compensation for their services but shall be reimbursed for necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. The board shall keep a true and complete record of all its proceedings.
We can call these the Eleven Guys. The chairman is appointed by the Commissioner and the other ten are appointed by the governor with vested interests in the business of hazardous waste. They are obviously lobbyists since they don’t get paid for this state service. In those three short sentences I gave more useful information than the paragraph of five times the length approved by Connecticut lawmakers.
(c) A licensed environmental professional [LEP] shall perform his duties in accordance with the standard of care applicable to professionals engaged in such duties….
(d) The commissioner shall receive and account for all moneys derived under the provisions of this section and shall deposit such moneys in the General Fund….
(e) The board shall authorize the commissioner to issue a license …to any person who demonstrates to the satisfaction of the board that such person… meets rather strict requirements
(f) The board shall authorize the commissioner to issue a license to any applicant who, in the opinion of the board, has satisfactorily met the requirements of this section….
(g) The board may conduct investigations concerning the conduct of any licensed environmental professional. The commissioner may conduct audits of any actions authorized by law to be performed by a licensed environmental professional. …
(h) The board shall hold the first examination pursuant to this section no later than eighteen months after the date the commissioner adopts regulations …
(i) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a licensed environmental professional to engage in any profession or occupation requiring a license under any other provisions of the general statutes without such license.
Sec. 22a-133w. Voluntary site remediation in GB and GC areas: Licensed environmental professionals. (a) As used in this [law]
Finally we are into the areas which directly affect me. Take another break if necessary, but start here:
(1) “Phase II environmental site assessment” means an investigation to confirm the presence or absence of a spill on or at a parcel of real property which investigation may include sampling of soil or groundwater in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer Act Site Assessment Guidance Document published by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, June, 1989, revised November, 1991, or in accordance with comparable provisions in any regulations adopted by the commissioner …
Phase II concerns the “presence” of hazard and is the investigation Gene paid $20,000 for this investigation that found the three soil samples which caused the rest of the problems. The DEEP published the Guidance Document in 1991 that tells the LEPs what they must do according and the law says to follow the DEEP document. I wonder if ANYONE thought that was the essence of the law.
So the law says, in effect, do whatever the DEEP said to do in their guidance document of November of 1991. Other than that there is dozens of pages that really just tell us how to the DEEP is structured, the few limits on the powers of the DEEP and the severe penalties in store if you figure out how to break the law.
(2) “Phase III investigation” means an investigation to ascertain the extent of a spill on or at a parcel of real property in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer Act Site Assessment Guidance Document …
Phase III concerns the “extent” of hazard and is the investigation that is required to delineate precisely where and how much “hazard” there is in every “spill” regardless how ridiculously small, as in my case.
(3) “Phase III remedial action plan” means a written plan prepared subsequent to a Phase III investigation as provided in said guidance document or such regulations which plan includes information regarding the feasibility of various alternative remediation strategies and an assessment of the costs of such strategies;
In my case I have had several of these very expensive plans prepared.
(4) “Spill” (5) “Commissioner” Mean what you think they mean.
(b) The commissioner shall publish along with any list or roster of licensed environmental professionals … a record of any work performed by any licensed environmental professional pursuant to a final remedial action … which is submitted to the commissioner and any action taken by the commissioner with regard to such work.
(c) Any licensed environmental professional who performs any services … shall act with reasonable care and diligence and shall apply the knowledge and skill ordinarily required of a professional in good standing practicing in that field at the time the services are performed.
Why is it necessary to put in this law that LEPs have to “act with reasonable care and diligence”? I can assume that every law says everyone must be careful and honest, except the commissioner and other government employees, who are protected from having to do such things by law.
(d) Any licensed environmental professional who performs any services pursuant to section 22a-133y shall not have, develop or acquire any business association or financial interest which is substantial enough to create an impression of influencing his judgment in connection with the performance of such services. No licensed environmental professional shall offer or render such services under an arrangement whereby no fee will be charged if a specified finding or result is attained, or where the payment of his fee, or the amount of the fee, is otherwise dependent upon a specified finding or result of such services.
LEPs must not charge based on results. Imagine this in action. I request a quote from an LEP to test and remedy the property but what I can get is, like what happened to me twice, a quote saying they will drill monitoring wells etc. not dependent on findings. The crew shows up, but they don’t work for me, they work for the LEP who doesn’t work for me either but rather works for the Commissioner and is more worried about being audited than anything else. The LEP is contracted to do something no one wants to do and no one thinks is necessary but is required by law. And there are very specific requirements according the 1991 document only the LEP knows.
So things never go as expected drilling wells in New England. Every well I have ever had drilled found unexpected results or other problems. And so they take the money and by law they must start over again with a new quote and a new job, usually drilling in a different location with no guarantees, by law. No one is happy because the law makes people responsible to the idea of not being audited, not to the idea of fixing a problem. They have to keep doing the same thing over again until they can approximate the center of the spill, no matter how small. The LEP charges an unhappy customer several times for a job no one thinks is necessary but must be done because of The Act.
(e) Any licensed environmental professional who violates any provision of subsection (c) or (d) of this section shall be assessed a civil penalty of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars…. Any amount recovered shall be deposited into the Special Contaminated Property Remediation and Insurance Fund ..
Let that sink in.
Sec. 22a-133x. Investigation and remediation of contaminated real property. Submission of forms. Review by commissioner. Fee. Notification required. (a) For the purposes of this section:
(1) “Applicant”… (2) “Interim verification”… (3) “Release area” (4) “Verification”… all mean pretty much what you think they mean.
(b) Except as provided in [other law], any person may, at any time, submit to the commissioner an environmental condition assessment form for real property and an initial review fee in accordance with [this law]. Such applicant shall use a licensed environmental professional to verify the investigation and remediation, unless not later than thirty days after the commissioner’s receipt of such form, the commissioner notifies such applicant, in writing, that review and written approval of any remedial action at such property by the commissioner will be required. The commissioner shall not process any such form submitted pursuant to this section unless such form is accompanied by the required initial review fee.
This is the procedure followed. It goes like this: Pay your LEP thousands to write the assessment and pay the DEEP thousands to file the assessment.
(c) The applicant shall, on or before ninety days after the submission of an environmental condition assessment form, submit a statement of proposed actions for investigating and remediating the parcel or a release area and a schedule for implementing such actions. The commissioner may require the applicant to submit to the commissioner copies of technical plans and reports related to investigation and remediation of the parcel or release area. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the commissioner may determine that the commissioner’s review and written approval of such technical plans and reports is necessary at any time, and in such case the commissioner shall notify the applicant of the need for the commissioner’s review and written approval. The commissioner shall require that the certifying party submit to the commissioner all technical plans and reports related to the investigation and remediation of the parcel or release area if the commissioner receives a written request from any person for such information. The applicant shall advise the commissioner of any modifications to the proposed schedule.
After the assessment no actions should be taken for at least 90 days and make sure you submit “technical plans and reports”, which the commissioner can demand any time at all.
(d) If the commissioner notifies the applicant that the commissioner will formally review and approve in writing the investigation and remediation of the parcel, the applicant shall, on or before thirty days of the receipt of such notice, or such later date as may be approved in writing by the commissioner, submit for the commissioner’s review and written approval a proposed schedule for: (1) Investigating and remediating the parcel or release area; and (2) submitting to the commissioner technical plans, technical reports and progress reports related to such investigation and remediation. Upon the commissioner’s approval of such schedule, the applicant shall, in accordance with the approved schedule, submit technical plans, technical reports and progress reports to the commissioner for the commissioner’s review and written approval. The applicant shall perform all actions identified in the approved technical plans, technical reports and progress reports in accordance with the approved schedule. The commissioner may approve, in writing, any modification proposed in writing by the applicant to such schedule or investigation and remediation and may notify the applicant, in writing, if the commissioner determines that it is appropriate to discontinue formal review and approval of the investigation or remediation.
This was not my experience. I suppose the procedure we followed is according the power of the commissioner to require such things as the commissioner wants such things and impose time limits and forms instead of following this section. Or perhaps there are policies which count the forms submitted as the ones required by law even though they appear to have a very different function.
(e) (1) Upon receipt of an interim verification by a licensed environmental professional, the applicant may submit such interim verification to the commissioner. Any applicant who submits an interim verification pursuant to this subdivision shall, until the remediation standards for groundwater are achieved: (A) Operate and maintain the long-term remedy for groundwater in accordance with such interim verification and any applicable approval by the commissioner or remedial action plan; (B) prevent exposure to the groundwater plume; and (C) submit annual status reports to the commissioner.
I submitted annual status reports as required in this section. My time for submission is “on or about” March of every year.
(2) Upon receipt of a verification by a licensed environmental professional, the applicant shall submit such verification to the commissioner.
I hire the LEP and the LEP submits to me their forms and I send those forms to the Commissioner. I guess that is kind of true. I do have to sign the forms before they are submitted by the LEP, and the LEP insists they have to file them.
(f) If, in accordance with the provisions of this section, the commissioner has approved in writing or, as applicable, a licensed environmental professional has verified, that the parcel has been remediated in accordance with the remediation standards, such approval or verification may be used as the basis for submitting a Form II pursuant to … [law] provided there has been no additional discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of hazardous waste at or on the parcel subsequent to the date of the commissioner’s approval or verification by a licensed environmental professional.
Umm, this says if the commissioner says so or an LEP has verified the 1991 Guidance Document was followed, and there are no further spills then the LEP can file the form. Imagine spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to clean up, being all done, the commissioner approves and then you have a new spill. If so the law is explicit, and you can read it above. The law has you covered. You can’t file the forms. If you have a new spill, it seems to me, you have worse problems than that. But don’t file, it’s the law.
(g) The fee for submitting an environmental condition assessment form to the commissioner pursuant to this section shall be three thousand two hundred fifty dollars and shall be paid at the time the environmental condition assessment form [ECAF] is submitted. Any fee paid pursuant to this section shall be deducted from any fee required by subsection (m) or (n) of section 22a-134e for the transfer of any parcel for which an environmental condition assessment form has been submitted within three years of such transfer.
That is what I paid for the ECAF.
(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect or impair the voluntary site remediation process provided for in section 22a-133y.
That is one section down. Wait a second we will get to that.
(i) Prior to commencement of remedial action taken under this section, the applicant shall (1) publish notice of the remediation, in accordance with the schedule submitted pursuant to this section, in a newspaper having a substantial circulation in the area affected by the parcel, (2) notify the director of health of the municipality where the parcel is located of the remediation, and (3) either (A) erect and maintain for at least thirty days in a legible condition a sign not less than six feet by four feet on the parcel, which sign shall be clearly visible from the public highway, and shall include the words “ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN-UP IN PROGRESS AT THIS SITE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:” and include a telephone number for an office from which any interested person may obtain additional information about the remediation, or (B) mail notice of the remediation to each owner of record of property which abuts the parcel, at the last-known address of such owner on the last-completed grand list of the municipality where the parcel is located.
Finally a straight-forward, easy to understand section of law. Either put up a HUGE sign or notify your neighbors. I chose to mail a notice to my neighbors.
Sec. 22a-133y. Voluntary site remediation in GB and GC areas: Procedures. Review by commissioner. Environmental use restrictions. (a) On and after January 1, 1996, any licensed environmental … may … conduct a Phase II environmental site assessment or a Phase III investigation, prepare a Phase III remedial action plan, supervise remediation or submit a final remedial action report to the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection in accordance with the standards provided for remediation in the regulations adopted by the commissioner [the 1991 Guide] … for any real property which has been subject to a spill and which meets the following criteria: (1) Such property is located in an area classified as GB or GC under the standards adopted by the commissioner for classification of groundwater contamination; and (2) such property is not the subject of any order issued by the commissioner regarding such spill, consent order or stipulated judgment regarding such spill. Any such professional employed by a municipality may enter, without liability, upon any property within such municipality for the purpose of performing an environmental site assessment or investigation if the owner of such property is unknown or such property is encumbered by a lien for taxes due to such municipality. Nothing in this subsection shall affect the ability of any person, firm or corporation to provide any of the services enumerated in this subsection in connection with the remediation of contaminated real property other than as provided for a voluntary site remediation conducted pursuant to this section.
An LEP employed by a municipality can enter any seemingly abandoned property to test for hazards if the property has been “subject to a spill”. Clearly the point is to clear the way seize the property for the municipality under The Act.
(b) Following any Phase II environmental site assessment or a Phase III investigation for any such property, any Phase III remedial action plan prepared for purposes of a voluntary site remediation under this section shall be prepared by a licensed environmental professional in accordance with [the 1991 Guidance Document] … Prior to commencement of remedial action taken pursuant to such plan, the owner of the property shall submit such plan to the commissioner and shall: (1) Publish notice of the remedial action in a newspaper having a substantial circulation in the town where the property is located; (2) notify the director of health of the municipality where the parcel is located; and (3) either (A) erect and maintain for at least thirty days in a legible condition a sign not less than six feet by four feet on the property, which sign shall be clearly visible from the public highway, and shall include the words “ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN-UP IN PROGRESS AT THIS SITE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:” and include a telephone number for an office from which any interested person may obtain additional information about the remedial action; or (B) mail notice of the remedial action to each owner of record of property which abuts such property, at the address on the last-completed grand list of the relevant town. The commissioner may review such plan and may advise such owner as to the adequacy of such plan. The remedial action shall be conducted under the supervision of a licensed environmental professional. The commissioner shall expedite the process for issuing any permits required under this title for such action. The final remedial action report shall be submitted by a licensed environmental professional. In preparing such report, the licensed environmental professional shall render an opinion, in accordance with the standard of care provided for in …[the law] that the action taken to contain, remove or mitigate the spill is in accordance with the remediation standards for such property adopted by the commissioner under [the law]. The owner of the property shall maintain all records relating to such remedial action for a period of not less than ten years and shall make such records available to the commissioner at any time upon his request.
This is exactly what happened. I did not do the HUGE sign, but rather sent registered letters to everyone. But we should note that after doing all this. The work was never completed. It was a huge fiasco that led me several times into a court room.
(c) Any final remedial action report submitted to the commissioner for such a property by a licensed environmental professional shall be deemed approved unless, within sixty days of such submittal, the commissioner determines, in his sole discretion, that an audit of such remedial action is necessary to assess whether remedial action beyond that which is indicated in such report is necessary for the protection of human health or the environment. Such an audit shall be conducted within six months of such determination. After completing such audit, the commissioner may disapprove the report provided he shall give his reasons therefor in writing and further provided such owner may appeal such disapproval to the superior court in accordance with the provisions of section 4-183. Prior to approving a final remedial action report, the commissioner may enter into a memorandum of understanding with the owner of such property with regard to any further remedial action or monitoring activities on or at such property which the commissioner deems necessary for the protection of human health or the environment.
The Commissioner can stop the process for an “audit” within 60 days of receiving a final report, but you can negotiate with him or take him to Superior Court if you don’t like his reasons.
(d) Upon the approval of such report, the owner of the property shall execute and record an environmental use restriction in accordance with … [law] unless a licensed environmental professional presents evidence, satisfactory to the commissioner, that the remediation has achieved a standard sufficient to render such a restriction unnecessary and the commissioner issues a written finding that such restriction is not necessary. Approval of a final remedial action report pursuant to this section shall be sufficient to support the filing of a Form II, as defined in section 22a-134.
Sounds easier here than how it was explained to me. I wish I had looked into use restriction, but I was told it wasn’t an option in the old days when I trusted HRP as my LEP.
(e) Nothing in this section shall relieve any person of any obligation to comply with sections 22a-134 to 22a-134e, inclusive.
We will get to these sections later, because they deal directly with establishments.
Sec. 22a-133z. General permits for contaminated site remediation…
The Commissioner can issue any general remediation permit he wants to whomever he wants.
Sec. 22a-133aa. Covenant not to sue prospective purchasers or owners of contaminated land. Approval of remediation plan by commissioner…
A long and complicated section about sales of contaminated property so the Commissioner can agree not to stop a purchase of property the Commissioner deems contaminated if administrative fees are paid, plus 3% of the uncontaminated appraised purchase price, and plans are filed and approved more than 90 days in advance of the sale. Mainly it appears to apply to the banks or other investors who were not involved contaminating property but become owners rather than outright sales. Of course municipalities are exempt.
Sec. 22a-133cc. Submission of information for covenant not to sue. Any person seeking a covenant not to sue … shall submit to the commissioner sufficient information to allow the commissioner to make any determination required in said sections.
Not only must you make a plan approved by the Commissioner but also submit “sufficient information” by law. If the form provided by the commissioner doesn’t ask for sufficient information we would have to invoke this law. The mind boggles.
Sec. 22a-133dd. Entry onto property to perform environmental site assessment or investigation on behalf of municipality. (a) Any municipality or any licensed environmental professional employed or retained by a municipality may enter, without liability upon any property within such municipality for the purpose of performing an environmental site assessment or investigation on behalf of the municipality if: (1) The owner of such property cannot be located; (2) such property is encumbered by a lien for taxes due such municipality; (3) upon a filing of a notice of eminent domain; (4) the municipality’s legislative body finds that such investigation is in the public interest to determine if the property is underutilized or should be included in any undertaking of development, redevelopment or remediation …; or (5) any official of the municipality reasonably finds such investigation necessary to determine if such property presents a risk to the safety, health or welfare of the public or a risk to the environment. The municipality shall give at least forty-five days’ notice of such entry before the first such entry by certified mail to the property owner’s last known address of record.
Send a certified letter and 45 days later any municipal official or their hired LEP can enter any property to investigate if the property presents a risk to anyone. If entered I would wager The Act will help the municipality take ownership pretty easily.
(b) A municipality accessing or entering a property to perform an investigation pursuant to this section shall not be liable for preexisting conditions … or to the property owner or any third party, provided the municipality (1) did not establish, cause or contribute to the discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of such hazardous substance, material, waste or pollution; (2) does not negligently or recklessly exacerbate the conditions; and (3) complies with reporting of significant environmental hazard requirements [law] . To the extent that any conditions are negligently or recklessly exacerbated, the municipality shall only be responsible for responding to contamination exacerbated by its activities.
Can’t blame the municipal officials unless the municipal officials are to blame. I wonder what the criminal penalty is for a municipal official who causes pollution in violation of this law.
(c) The owner of the property may object to such access and entry by the municipality by filing an action in the Superior Court not later than thirty days after receipt of the notice provided pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, provided any objection be limited to the issue of whether access is necessary and only upon proof by the owner that the owner has (1) completed or is in the process of completing in a timely manner a comprehensive environmental site assessment or investigation report; (2) provided the party seeking access with a copy of the assessment or report or will do so not later than thirty days after the delivery of such assessment or report to the owner; and (3) paid any delinquent property taxes assessed against the property for which access is being sought.
You have to let them on your property unless you file “an action in superior court” claiming access is unnecessary or you are in to process of getting an assessment under this law.
(d) For purposes of this section, “municipality” includes any municipality, [that you think it might mean]
Sec. 22a-133ee. Liability of owner of real property for pollution that occurred or existed prior to taking title. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, and except as provided in this section, no owner of real property shall be liable for any costs or damages to any person other than this state, any other state or the federal government, with respect to any pollution or source of pollution on or emanating from such owner’s real property that occurred or existed prior to such owner taking title to such property, provided:
I am only liable to Connecticut or the Feds for my hazardous waste, not to any other state. That’s a relief.
(1) The owner did not establish or create a condition or facility at or on such property that reasonably can be expected, as determined by the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection, to create a source of pollution to the waters of the state for purposes of [the law] and such owner is not responsible pursuant to any other provision of the general statutes for creating any pollution or source of pollution on such property;
Now that bothers me. I hate that we have a law that says I am not liable for what I did not do. Without this law, presumably, there may be a law somewhere that says I am liable for I did not do.
(2) The owner is not affiliated with any person responsible for such pollution or source of pollution through any direct or indirect familial relationship, or any contractual, corporate or financial relationship other than that by which such owner’s interest in the property was conveyed or financed; and
(3) The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection has approved in writing: (A) An investigation report regarding such pollution or sources of pollution, provided the investigation was conducted in accordance with the prevailing standards and guidelines by an environmental professional licensed in accordance with section 22a-133v; and (B) a final remedial action report prepared by a licensed environmental professional that demonstrates that remediation of such pollution and sources of pollution was completed in accordance with the remediation standards in regulations adopted pursuant to section 22a-133k. Prior to the initiation of an investigation or a remediation undertaken to meet the criteria of this section, an owner of the subject real property shall notify, by certified mail, the owners of the adjoining properties of such initiation. Such reports shall be forwarded, by certified mail, to the owners of the adjoining properties.
I am still liable for what I did not do if I don’t hire an LEP and notify my neighbors.
(b) This section shall not relieve any such liability where (1) an owner failed to file or comply with the provisions of an environmental land use restriction created pursuant to section 22a-133o for such real property or with the conditions of a variance for the real property that was approved by the commissioner in accordance with regulations adopted pursuant to section 22a-133k, or (2) the commissioner, at any time, determines that an owner provided information that the owner knew or had reason to know was false or misleading or otherwise failed to satisfy all of the requirements of subsection (a) of this section. Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve an owner of any liability for pollution or sources of pollution on or emanating from such property that occurred or were created after the owner took title to such property. Nothing in this section shall be construed to hold an innocent landowner, as defined in section 22a-452d, who meets the requirements of this section liable to this state for costs or damages in an amount greater than the amount that an innocent landowner may be held liable pursuant to section 22a-432.
Failing to comply as a reason for liability, as opposed to actually causing the liability, shall not be punished more than if I were actually caused the liability. And further, the nonsensical addition that if I am not guilty but liable I could still be liable and guilty if I pollute further.
(c) If an owner of real property is found to be liable under this section because the owner is affiliated with the person responsible for the pollution or source of pollution, as provided in subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this section, such owner shall be liable for a civil penalty of one hundred thousand dollars or the cost of remediating the pollution or source of pollution, whichever is greater.
Sec. 22a-133ff. Municipal liability for easement acquired for recreational use. ..
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes or regulations to the contrary, any municipality with a population greater than ninety thousand people that acquires an easement over property of another that is duly recorded on the land records for the purpose of making the property included in such easement available to the public for recreational use without charge, rent, fee or other commercial service shall not be liable to the state for any fines, penalties or costs of investigation or remediation with respect to any pollution or source of pollution or contamination by hazardous waste on or emanating from such easement area, provided such pollution or source of pollution or contamination by hazardous waste (1) occurred or existed on such property prior to the municipality’s acquisition of such easement, and (2) was not caused or created by or contributed to by such municipality or by an agent of such municipality and provided such municipality, or the use of such easement area by the public, does not contribute to or exacerbate such existing pollution or source of pollution or contamination by hazardous waste or prevent the investigation or remediation of such pollution or contamination. Such municipality shall not interfere with, and shall provide access to, other persons who are investigating and remediating any such pollution or source of pollution or contamination by hazardous waste. This section does not limit or affect the liability of the owner or operator of the property on which such easement is located under any other provision of law, including, but not limited to, any obligation to address any such pollution or source of pollution or contamination by hazardous waste, or from any fines or penalties.
If I give up my property to a city of 90,000 people or more for the recreational use of then I am no longer liable for pollution I didn’t cause to begin with.
(c) Any municipality that acquires an easement for recreational use as provided in subsection (b) of this section shall ensure that any pollution or source of pollution or contamination from hazardous waste, on or emanating from such easement area, does not pose a risk to the public based upon the use of such easement.
The city then does not have to hire an LEP or go through all of the above , but rather has to show the property doesn’t “pose a risk to the public”. A very different standard that what I have to go through.
Sec. 22a-133gg. Evaluation of risk-based decision making for remediation of contaminated sites. Report. Statutory and regulatory recommendations. The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection, in consultation with the Commissioner of Public Health, shall evaluate risk-based decision making related to the remediation of contaminated sites. The commissioner shall, within existing resources, engage independent experts in the field, with broad national experience, to conduct such evaluation and prepare a report that includes an assessment of the existing process of risk-based decision making including risk assessment and risk management tools utilized to protect public health, general welfare and the environment. Such evaluation and report shall also include identification of best practices in ecological and human health risk assessment and risk management used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory agencies, and those published by the National Academy of Sciences. The commissioner shall provide opportunities for public review and input during the evaluation process. Upon completion of the evaluation and report, the commissioner shall consider the evaluation and report and make recommendations for statutory and regulatory changes to the risk-based decision making process including, but not limited to, those in section 22a-6u not later than October 1, 2014. For purposes of this section, “commissioner” means the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection.
The commissioner shall study and evaluate risk and “make recommendations for statutory and regulatory changes” before October 2014. We will skip the next few sections about a Unified Cleanup Program and Brownfields which helps municipalities but not me.
Sec. 22a-133hh. Unified clean-up program regulations. Required provisions.
Sec. 22a-133ii. Brownfield liability relief program. Application. Eligibility. Liability. Plan and schedule for remediation and redevelopment. Acceptance in program.
- a) For the purposes of this section:(1) “Applicant” means any (A) municipality, (B) economic development agency… (C) nonprofit economic development corporation … funded, either directly or through in-kind services, in part by a municipality, or (D) a nonstock corporation or limited liability company controlled or established by a municipality…
(2) “Municipality” …[what you think it means];
(3) “Brownfield” …[what you think it means];
(4) “Commissioner” means …[what you think it means];
(5) “Regulated substance” …[what you think it means]
(6) “Person” has the same meaning as …[what you think it means]
(b) There is established a brownfield liability relief program to assist applicants [see above, “applicants” means municipalities] with the redevelopment of eligible brownfields …
(c) Prior to acquiring a brownfield, any applicant [municipalities] may apply to the commissioner, on such forms as the commissioner prescribes, to obtain liability relief as described in subsection (d) of this section. Any brownfield shall be eligible for the program if the commissioner determines that: (1) The property is a brownfield; (2) such applicant intends to acquire title to such brownfield for the purpose of redeveloping or facilitating the redevelopment of such brownfield; (3) such applicant did not establish or create a facility or condition at or on such brownfield that can reasonably be expected to create a source of pollution, as defined in section 22a-423, to the waters of the state; (4) such applicant is not affiliated with any person responsible for such pollution or source of pollution through any contractual, corporate or financial relationship other than a municipality’s exercise of such municipality’s police, regulatory or tax powers or a contractual relationship in which such person’s interest in such brownfield will be conveyed or financed; (5) such applicant is not otherwise required by law, an order or consent order issued by the commissioner or a stipulated judgment to remediate pollution on or emanating from such brownfield; and (6) such brownfield and applicant meet any other criteria that said commissioner deems necessary.
I especially like the line “Any brownfield shall be eligible for the program if the commissioner determines that: (1) The property is a brownfield…”
(d) (1) Upon the acceptance of any brownfield into such program by the commissioner and upon such applicant taking title to such property, such applicant shall not be liable to the state or any person for the release of any regulated substance at or from the eligible brownfield that occurred prior to such applicant taking title to such brownfield, except such applicant shall be liable to the state or any person to the extent that such applicant caused or contributed to the release of a regulated substance that is subject to remediation and to the extent that such applicant negligently or recklessly exacerbated the condition of such brownfield.
More awkward wording that once in a brownfield program liability is limited.
(2) Any applicant that owns a brownfield that is accepted in such brownfield liability relief program shall not be liable to the commissioner or any person …
Redundancy and please remember that all this only applies to municipalities and quasi-governmental entities who are formed to take advantage of this law.
(e) After acceptance of any brownfield into such program by the commissioner and upon such applicant taking title to such property, such applicant shall (1) submit a plan and schedule that outlines an applicant’s intention to facilitate the investigation, remediation and redevelopment of such brownfield; and (2) continue to minimize risk to public health and the environment potentially posed by such brownfield and the conditions and materials present at such brownfield.
I bet the commissioner has a form to fill out. Let’s skip some of these sub-sections. Take a break if you need to because now we arrive at my favorite part…
Sec. 22a-134. Transfer of hazardous waste establishments: Definitions.
In most law books the Definitions section is the driest, lamest, most boring part. But in the transfer act the definitions section is an art. As we saw above a municipality has a different standard , only having to show there is no hazard, and municipalities can get aid to do that. Here we have a listing of everyone else.
(1) “Transfer of establishment” means any transaction or proceeding through which an establishment undergoes a change in ownership, but does not mean:
(A) Conveyance or extinguishment of an easement;
The Act “defines” the ways people will abandon property for the state to take over because of contamination. Try speed reading, This list is quite extensive and ridiculous. Remember this is a list of every change of ownership that is not covered by this law. See if you can guess what kind of change of ownership is covered by this law. And try speed reading, it will be fun.
(B) Conveyance of an establishment through a foreclosure … of a municipal tax lien or through a tax warrant sale …, an exercise of eminent domain by a municipality or … by condemnation … or purchase …[or] through eminent domain for establishments that also meet the definition of a brownfield … or a subsequent transfer by such municipality that has foreclosed on the property, foreclosed municipal tax liens or that has acquired title to the property …or is within the pilot program … or the remedial action and redevelopment municipal grant program …or has acquired such property through the exercise of eminent domain by a municipality or … by condemnation … or a resolution adopted in accordance with this subparagraph, provided (i) the party acquiring the property from the municipality did not establish, create or contribute to the contamination at the establishment and is not affiliated with any person who established, created or contributed to such contamination or with any person who is or was an owner or certifying party for the establishment, and (ii) on or before the date the party acquires the property from the municipality, such party or municipality enters and subsequently remains in the voluntary remediation program administered by the commissioner … and remains in compliance with schedules and approvals issued by the commissioner. For purposes of this subparagraph, subsequent transfer by a municipality includes any transfer to, from or between a municipality, municipal economic development agency or entity created or operating … a nonprofit economic development corporation formed to promote the common good, general welfare and economic development of a municipality that is funded, either directly or through in-kind services, in part by a municipality, or a nonstock corporation or limited liability company controlled or established by a municipality, municipal economic development agency or entity created or operating under chapter 130 or 132;
And when you think you have seen every possible way one can give away property in section B here comes section C.
(C) Conveyance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure to a lender.
(D) Conveyance of a security interest
(E) Termination of a lease and conveyance, assignment or execution of a lease for a period less than ninety-nine years including conveyance, assignment or execution of a lease with options or similar terms that will extend the period of the leasehold to ninety-nine years, or from the commencement of the leasehold, ninety-nine years, including conveyance, assignment or execution of a lease with options or similar terms that will extend the period of the leasehold to ninety-nine years, or from the commencement of the leasehold;
Could it be The Act is all about getting people to give property to the State?
(F) Any change in ownership approved by the Probate Court;
(G) Devolution of title to a surviving joint tenant, or to a trustee, executor or administrator under the terms of a testamentary trust or will, or by intestate succession;
(H) Corporate reorganization not substantially affecting the ownership of the establishment;
(I) The issuance of stock or other securities of an entity which owns or operates an establishment;
(J) The transfer of stock, securities or other ownership interests representing less than forty per cent of the ownership of the entity that owns or operates the establishment;
(K) Any conveyance of an interest in an establishment where the transferor is the sibling, spouse, child, parent, grandparent, child of a sibling or sibling of a parent of the transferee;
(L) Conveyance of an interest in an establishment to a trustee of an inter vivos trust created by the transferor solely for the benefit of one or more siblings, spouses, children, parents, grandchildren, children of a sibling or siblings of a parent of the transferor;
(M) Any conveyance of a portion of a parcel upon which portion no establishment is or has been located and upon which there has not occurred a discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of hazardous waste, provided either the area of such portion is not greater than fifty per cent of the area of such parcel or written notice of such proposed conveyance and an environmental condition assessment form for such parcel is provided to the commissioner sixty days prior to such conveyance;
(N) Conveyance of a service station, as defined in subdivision (5) of this section;
(O) Any conveyance of an establishment which, prior to July 1, 1997, had been developed solely for residential use and such use has not changed;
Am I the only one who finds this list more and more ridiculous as it continues? Note all of the ellipses which show things I have skipped for you.
(P) Any conveyance of an establishment to any entity created or operating under chapter 130 or 132, or to an urban rehabilitation agency… or to a municipality … or to Connecticut Innovations, Incorporated or any subsidiary of the corporation;
(Q) Any conveyance of a parcel in connection with the acquisition of properties to effectuate the development of the overall project, as defined in section 32-651;
(R) The conversion of a general or limited partnership to a limited liability company;
(S) The transfer of general partnership property held in the names of all of its general partners to a general partnership which includes as general partners immediately after the transfer all of the same persons as were general partners immediately prior to the transfer;
(T) The transfer of general partnership property held in the names of all of its general partners to a limited liability company which includes as members immediately after the transfer all of the same persons as were general partners immediately prior to the transfer;
Seems to me at some point they could stop and say “OR ANY OTHER REASON” and end the list.
(U) Acquisition of an establishment by any governmental or quasi-governmental condemning authority;
(V) Conveyance of any real property or business operation that would qualify as an establishment solely as a result of (i) the generation of more than one hundred kilograms of universal waste in a calendar month, (ii) the storage, handling or transportation of universal waste generated at a different location, or (iii) activities undertaken at a universal waste transfer facility, provided any such real property or business operation does not otherwise qualify as an establishment; there has been no discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of a universal waste or a constituent of universal waste that is a hazardous substance at or from such real property or business operation; and universal waste is not also recycled, treated, except for treatment of a universal waste … or disposed of at such real property or business operation;
(W) Conveyance of a unit in a residential common interest community
(X) Acquisition of an establishment that is in the abandoned brownfield cleanup program established … and all subsequent transfers of the establishment, provided the establishment is undergoing remediation or is remediated
(Y) Any transfer of title from a bankruptcy court or a municipality to a nonprofit organization;
(Z) Acquisition of an establishment that is in the brownfield remediation and revitalization program and all subsequent transfers of the establishment, provided the establishment is in compliance with the brownfield investigation plan and remediation schedule, the commissioner has issued a no audit letter or successful audit closure letter in response to a verification or interim verification submitted regarding the remediation of such establishment under the brownfield remediation and revitalization program, or a one-hundred-eighty-day period has expired since a verification or interim verification submitted regarding the remediation of such establishment under the brownfield remediation and revitalization program without an audit decision from the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection;
They finished (A)-(Z), and now they start the alphabet all over again with (AA).
(AA) Conveyance of an establishment in connection with the acquisition of properties to effectuate the development of a project certified and approved …; or
(BB) Conveyance from the Department of Transportation to the Connecticut Airport Authority of any properties comprising (i) Bradley International Airport and all related improvements and facilities now in existence and as hereafter acquired, added, extended, improved and equipped, including any property or facilities purchased with funds of, or revenues derived from, Bradley International Airport, and any other property or facilities allocated by the state, the Connecticut Airport Authority or otherwise to Bradley International Airport, (ii) the state-owned and operated general aviation airports, including Danielson Airport, Groton/New London Airport, Hartford Brainard Airport, Waterbury-Oxford Airport and Windham Airport and any such other airport as may be owned, operated or managed by the Connecticut Airport Authority and designated as general aviation airports, (iii) any other airport as may be owned, operated or managed by the Connecticut Airport Authority, and (iv) any airport site or any part thereof, including, but not limited to, any restricted landing areas and any air navigation facilities;
Whew, that was a mouthful. Now let’s go to the next Definition.
(2) “Commissioner” means the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection or the designated agent of the commissioner;
This next Definition is the one pertinent to this book. The Cleaning Clinic is an ESTABLISHMENT.
(3) “Establishment” means any real property at which or any business operation from which (A) on or after November 19, 1980, there was generated, except as the result of (i) remediation of polluted soil, groundwater or sediment, or (ii) the removal or abatement of building materials, more than one hundred kilograms of hazardous waste in any one month, (B) hazardous waste generated at a different location was recycled, reclaimed, reused, stored, handled, treated, transported or disposed of, (C) the process of dry cleaning was conducted on or after May 1, 1967, (D) furniture stripping was conducted on or after May 1, 1967, or (E) a vehicle body repair facility was located on or after May 1, 1967;
Anyplace where “hazardous waste” was “generated” since 1980, or was a Dry Cleaner or auto body shop since 1967 is an establishment.
(4) “Hazardous waste” means any waste which is (A) hazardous waste identified in accordance with Section 3001 of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 USC 6901 et seq., (B) hazardous waste identified by regulations adopted by the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection, or (C) polychlorinated biphenyls in concentrations greater than fifty parts per million except that sewage, sewage sludge and lead paint abatement wastes shall not be considered to be hazardous waste …
All that concerns us is (B), whatever the Commissioner says is hazardous waste. And we have to ask because it is not included here.
(5) “Service station” means.. [just what you think it means]
(6) “Certifying party” means, in the case of a Form III or Form IV, a person associated with the transfer of an establishment who signs a Form III or Form IV and who agrees to investigate the parcel in accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines and to remediate pollution caused by any release at the establishment in accordance with the remediation standards and, in the case of a Form I or Form II, a transferor of an establishment who signs the certification on a Form I or II;
This is where Licensed Environmental Professionals get honorable mention and their power.
(7) “Party associated with the transfer of an establishment” means … [what you would expect it to mean.]
(8) “Remediation standards” means regulations adopted by the commissioner pursuant to section 22a-133k;
(9) “Parcel” means … [what you would expect it to mean]
(10) “Form I” means a written certification by the transferor of an establishment on a form prescribed and provided by the commissioner that: (A) No discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of hazardous waste or a hazardous substance has occurred at the establishment which certification is based on an investigation of the parcel in accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines, or (B) no discharge spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of hazardous waste has occurred at the establishment based upon an investigation of the parcel in accordance with the prevailing standards and guidelines and the commissioner has determined, in writing, or a licensed environmental professional has verified, in writing, that any discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of a hazardous substance has been remediated in accordance with the remediation standards and that since any such written approval or verification, including any approval or verification for a portion of an establishment, no discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of hazardous waste or hazardous substances has occurred at any portion of the establishment;
This is the Holy Grail, a Form I. In my case such a form was not possible because of 127 ppb Perc in the soil under the basement.
(11) “Form II” means a written certification by the transferor of an establishment on a form prescribed and provided by the commissioner that the parcel has been investigated in accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines and that (A) any pollution caused by a discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of hazardous waste or a hazardous substance which has occurred from the establishment has been remediated in accordance with the remediation standards and that the remediation has been approved in writing by the commissioner or has been verified pursuant to section 22a-133x or section 22a-134a in writing attached to such form by a licensed environmental professional to have been performed in accordance with the remediation standards and that since any such written approval or verification, including any approval or verification for a portion of an establishment, no discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of hazardous waste or hazardous substances has occurred at any portion of the establishment, (B) the commissioner has determined in writing or a licensed environmental professional has verified pursuant to section 22a-133x or section 22a-134a in writing, attached to the form that no remediation is necessary to achieve compliance with the remediation standards, or (C) a Form IV verification was previously submitted to the commissioner and, since the date of the submission of the Form IV, no discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of hazardous waste or a hazardous substance has occurred at the establishment, which certification is based on an investigation of the parcel in accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines;
(12) “Form III” means a written certification signed by a certifying party on a form prescribed and provided by the commissioner, which certification states that (A) a discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of hazardous waste or a hazardous substance has occurred at the establishment or the environmental conditions at the establishment are unknown, and (B) that the person signing the certification agrees to investigate the parcel in accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines and to remediate pollution caused by any release of a hazardous waste or hazardous substance from the establishment in accordance with the remediation standards;
(13) “Form IV” means a written certification signed by one or more certifying parties on a form prescribed and provided by the commissioner and which is accompanied by a written determination by the commissioner or by a verification by a licensed environmental professional pursuant to section 22a-134a or 22a-133x, which certification states and is accompanied by documentation demonstrating that the parcel has been investigated in accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines and that (A) there has been a discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of hazardous waste or a hazardous substance on the establishment, and (B) all actions to remediate any pollution caused by any release at the establishment have been taken in accordance with the remediation standards except postremediation monitoring, natural attenuation monitoring or the recording of an environmental land use restriction, and (C) the person or persons signing the certification agree, in accordance with the representations made in the form, to conduct postremediation monitoring or natural attenuation monitoring in accordance with the remediation standards and if further investigation and remediation are necessary to take further action to investigate the establishment in accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines and to remediate the establishment in accordance with the remediation standards;
(14) “Person” means … [what you think it means]
(15) “Remediate” means to contain, remove or abate pollution, potential sources of pollution and substances in soil or sediment which pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment and includes, but is not limited to, the reduction of pollution by natural attenuation;
(16) “Licensed environmental professional” means an environmental professional licensed pursuant to section 22a-133v;
(17) “Environmental condition assessment form” means a form prescribed and provided by the commissioner, prepared under the supervision of a licensed environmental professional, and executed by (A) the certifying party under [law] … which form describes the environmental conditions at the parcel;
(18) “Pollution” means pollution, as defined in [law];
(19) “Verification” means … [what you think it means]
(20) “Vehicle” means any motorized device for conveying persons or objects except for an aircraft, boat, railroad car or engine, or farm tractor;
(21) “Business operation” means any business that has, or any series of substantially similar businesses that have, operated continuously or with only brief interruption on the same parcel, either with a single owner or successive owners;
(22) “Corporate reorganization not substantially affecting the ownership of an establishment” means implementation of a business plan to restructure a corporation through a merger, spin-off or other plan or reorganization under which the direct owner of the establishment does not change;
(23) “Form IV verification” means the rendering of a written opinion by a licensed environmental professional, after a Form IV has been filed, that postremediation monitoring, natural attenuation or the recording of an environmental land use restriction has been completed in accordance with the Form IV;
(24) “Hazardous substance” means hazardous substance… [what you think it means]
(25) “Sediment” means unconsolidated material occurring in a stream, pond, wetland estuary or other water body;
(26) “Universal waste” means batteries, pesticides, thermostats, lamps and used electronics regulated as a universal waste under regulations adopted pursuant to subsection (c) of section 22a-449. “Universal waste” does not mean (A) batteries, pesticides, thermostats and lamps that are not covered under 40 CFR Part 273, or (B) used electronics that are not regulated as a universal waste under regulations adopted pursuant to subsection (c) of section 22a-449;
A subject for further study. It means batteries etc. but not batteries etc. “covered under 40 CFR Part 273” which will only be mentioned in law later, and not “unregulated” electronics.
(27) “Universal waste transfer facility” means any facility related to transportation, including loading docks, parking areas, storage areas and other similar areas where shipments of universal waste are held during the normal course of transportation for ten days or less;
(28) “Interim verification” means a written opinion by a licensed environmental professional, on a form prescribed by the commissioner, that (A) the investigation has been performed in accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines, (B) the remediation has been completed in accordance with the remediation standards, except that, for remediation standards for groundwater, the selected remedy is in operation but has not achieved the remediation standards for groundwater, (C) identifies the long-term remedy being implemented to achieve groundwater standards, the estimated duration of such remedy, and the ongoing operation and maintenance requirements for continued operation of such remedy, and (D) there are no current exposure pathways to the groundwater area that have not yet met the remediation standards.
Covers a lot of ground. The problem for me is (D) where we must prove that there are “no current exposure pathways”. I can’t prove there are no unicorns, but I can hire an LEP to certify how the groundwater flows and that there is so little Perc in that ground water to be silly to look further. And that is what I did and hopefully the commissioner will agree that there are no other “current exposure pathways” for Perc from the Cleaning Clinic of Torrington.
Sec. 22a-134a. Transfer of hazardous waste establishments: Forms, verification, schedules, audits, approval, notification requirements, orders, exceptions. (a) No person shall transfer an establishment except in accordance with the provisions [this law] … Notwithstanding … a person appointed by the Superior Court or any other court to sell, convey or partition real property or a person appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy shall not be deemed a party associated with the transfer of an establishment and shall not be required to comply with [this law] … inclusive.
Lawyers are not liable. Who would know?
(b) The commissioner may adopt regulations, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54, to implement the provisions of this section.
(c) Prior to transferring an establishment, the transferor shall submit to the transferee a complete Form I or a Form II and, no later than ten days after the transfer, shall submit a copy of such Form I or Form II to the commissioner. The commissioner shall notify the transferor no later than ninety days after the submission of such Form I or Form II if the commissioner deems the Form I or Form II incomplete. If the transferor is unable to submit a Form I or a Form II to the transferee, the transferor shall, prior to the transfer, submit a complete Form III or Form IV prepared and signed by a party associated with the transfer to the transferee and, no later than ten days after the transfer, shall submit a copy of such Form III or Form IV to the commissioner. If no other party associated with the transfer of an establishment prepares and signs the proper form as a certifying party, the transferor shall have the obligation for such preparation and signing.
I have ten days to submit a form and the government has 90 days to accept or reject it.
(d) The certifying party to a Form I, Form II, Form III or Form IV shall (1) upon receipt of a written request from the commissioner, provide to the commissioner copies of all technical plans, reports and other supporting documentation relating to the investigation of the parcel or remediation of the establishment as specified in the commissioner’s written request, and (2) simultaneously submit with the submission of a Form I, Form III or Form IV to the commissioner a complete environmental condition assessment form and shall certify to the commissioner, in writing, that the information contained in such form is correct and accurate to the best of the certifying party’s knowledge and belief.
The LEP must respond to the commissioner if asked to provide background documents.
(e) Not later than thirty days after receipt of a Form III or Form IV, the commissioner shall notify the certifying party whether the form is complete or incomplete. The certifying party shall use a licensed environmental professional to verify the investigation and remediation, unless not later than seventy-five days after receipt of a complete Form III or IV the commissioner notifies the certifying party, in writing, that review and approval of the remediation by the commissioner shall be required. Any person who submitted a Form III to the commissioner prior to October 1, 1995, may submit an environmental condition assessment form to the commissioner. The commissioner shall, not later than forty-five days after receipt of such form, notify the certifying party whether approval of the remediation by the commissioner will be required or whether a licensed environmental professional may verify that the investigation was performed in accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines and the remediation has been performed in accordance with the remediation standards.
(f) In determining whether review and approval of the remediation by the commissioner will be required, or whether a licensed environmental professional may verify that the remediation has been performed in accordance with the remediation standards, the commissioner shall consider: (1) The potential risk to human health and the environment posed by any discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of hazardous waste or a hazardous substance at the establishment; (2) the degree of environmental investigation at the parcel; (3) the proximity of the establishment to significant natural resources; (4) the character of the land uses surrounding the establishment; (5) the complexity of the environmental condition of the establishment; and (6) any other factor the commissioner deems relevant.
(g) (1) (A) Except as provided in subsection (h) of this section, the certifying party to a Form III shall, not later than seventy-five days after the receipt of the notice that such form is complete or such later date as may be approved in writing by the commissioner, submit a schedule for the investigation of the parcel and remediation of the establishment. Such schedule shall, unless a later date is specified in writing by the commissioner, provide that the investigation shall be completed within two years of the date of receipt of such notice, remediation shall be initiated not later than three years after the date of receipt of such notice and remediation shall be completed sufficient to support either a verification or interim verification within a time frame set forth in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this subdivision. The schedule shall also include a schedule for providing public notice of the remediation prior to the initiation of such remediation in accordance with subsection (i) of this section. Not later than two years after the date of the receipt of the notice that the Form III is complete, unless the commissioner has specified a later day, in writing, the certifying party shall submit to the commissioner documentation, approved in writing by a licensed environmental professional and in a form prescribed by the commissioner, that the investigation has been completed in accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines. Not later than three years after the date of the receipt of the notice that the Form III is complete, unless the commissioner has specified a later day in writing, the certifying party shall notify the commissioner in a form prescribed by the commissioner that the remediation has been initiated, and shall submit to the commissioner a remedial action plan approved in writing by a licensed environmental professional in a form prescribed by the commissioner. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the commissioner may determine at any time that the commissioner’s review and written approval is necessary and in such case shall notify the certifying party that the commissioner’s review and written approval is necessary. Such certifying party shall investigate the parcel and remediate the establishment in accordance with the schedule or the schedule specified by the commissioner.
(B) For a certifying party that submitted a Form III or Form IV before October 1, 2009, when remediation of the entire establishment is complete, the certifying party shall achieve the remediation standards for the establishment sufficient to support a final verification and shall submit to the commissioner a final verification by a licensed environmental professional.
(C) For a certifying party that submits a Form III or Form IV after October 1, 2009, not later than eight years after the date of receipt of the notice that the Form III or Form IV is complete, unless the commissioner has specified a later date in writing, the certifying party shall achieve the remediation standards for the establishment sufficient to support a final or interim verification and shall submit to the commissioner such final or interim verification by a licensed environmental professional. Any such final verification may include and rely upon a verification for a portion of the establishment submitted pursuant to subdivision (2) of this subsection. Verifications shall be submitted on a form prescribed by the commissioner. The certifying party may request a verification or interim verification filing extension. The commissioner shall grant a reasonable extension if the certifying party demonstrates to the commissioner’s satisfaction that: (i) Such certifying party has made reasonable progress toward investigation and remediation of the establishment; and (ii) despite best efforts, circumstances beyond the control of the certifying party have significantly delayed the remediation of the establishment.
(D) A certifying party who submits an interim verification shall, until the remediation standards for groundwater are achieved, operate and maintain the long-term remedy for groundwater in accordance with the remedial action plan, the interim verification and any approvals by the commissioner, prevent exposure to the groundwater plume and submit annual status reports to the commissioner.
(E) The certifying party to a Form IV shall submit with the Form IV a schedule for the groundwater monitoring and recording of an environmental land use restriction, as applicable.
(2) (A) Notwithstanding the date the Form III or Form IV was submitted, if a certifying party completes the remediation for a portion of an establishment, such party may submit a verification or an interim verification by a licensed environmental professional for any such portion of an establishment. The certifying party shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of this subsection for that portion of the establishment covered by any such verification or interim verification. If any portion of an establishment for which a verification or interim verification is submitted pursuant to this subdivision is transferred or conveyed or undergoes a change in ownership before remediation of the entire establishment is complete that would not otherwise be subject to the provisions of sections 22a-134 to 22a-134e, inclusive, the certifying party shall provide notice to the commissioner of such transfer, conveyance or change in ownership not later than thirty days after any such transfer, conveyance or change in ownership.
(B) Any certifying party who submits an interim verification for a portion of an establishment on or before December 31, 2014, shall not be required to record any environmental land use restriction, in accordance with section 22a-133o, prior to submitting such interim verification, provided such certifying party shall record such environmental land use restriction, in accordance with section 22a-133o, on or before September 1, 2015, or a later date as approved, in writing, by the commissioner. If such environmental land use restriction is not recorded on or before September 1, 2015, or such later date, such interim verification shall be invalid and shall not be recognized by the commissioner.
(3) (A) The commissioner may conduct an audit of any verification or interim verification submitted pursuant to this section, but shall not conduct an audit of a final verification of an entire establishment submitted pursuant to subdivision (1) of this subsection after three years have passed since the date of the commissioner’s receipt of such final verification unless an exception listed in subparagraph (C) of this subdivision applies. Upon completion of an audit, the commissioner shall send written audit findings to the certifying party and the licensed environmental professional who verified. The three-year time frame for an audit of a final verification of an entire establishment shall apply to such final verifications received by the commissioner after October 1, 2007.
(B) The commissioner may request additional information during an audit. If such information has not been provided to the commissioner within ninety days of the commissioner’s request for such information or any longer time as the commissioner may determine in writing, the commissioner may either (i) suspend the audit, which for a final verification shall suspend the running of the three-year audit time frame until such time as the commissioner receives all the information requested, or (ii) complete the audit based upon the information provided in the verification before the request for additional information.
(C) The commissioner shall not conduct an audit of a final verification of an entire establishment after three years from receipt of such verification pursuant to this subdivision unless (i) the commissioner has reason to believe that a verification was obtained through the submittal of materially inaccurate or erroneous information, or otherwise misleading information material to the verification or that misrepresentations were made in connection with the submittal of the verification, (ii) a verification is submitted pursuant to an order of the commissioner pursuant to subsection (j) of this section, (iii) any post-verification monitoring, or operations and maintenance, is required as part of a verification and which has not been done, (iv) a verification that relies upon an environmental land use restriction was not recorded on the land records of the municipality in which such land is located in accordance with section 22a-133o and applicable regulations, (v) the commissioner determines that there has been a violation of sections 22a-134 to 22a-134e, inclusive, or (vi) the commissioner determines that information exists indicating that the remediation may have failed to prevent a substantial threat to public health or the environment.
(h) (1) If the commissioner notifies the certifying party to a Form III or Form IV that the commissioner’s review and written approval of the investigation of the parcel and remediation of the establishment is required, such certifying party shall, not later than thirty days after the receipt of such notice or such later date as may be approved in writing by the commissioner, submit for the commissioner’s review and written approval a proposed schedule for: (A) Investigating the parcel and remediating the establishment; (B) submitting to the commissioner scopes of work, technical plans, technical reports and progress reports related to such investigation and remediation; and (C) providing public notice of the remediation prior to the initiation of such remediation in accordance with subsection (i) of this section. Upon the commissioner’s approval of such schedule, such certifying party shall, in accordance with the approved schedule, submit scopes of work, technical plans, technical reports and progress reports to the commissioner for the commissioner’s review and written approval. Such certifying party shall perform all actions identified in the approved scopes of work, technical plans, technical reports and progress reports in accordance with the approved schedule. The commissioner may approve in writing any modification proposed in writing by such certifying party to such schedule or investigation and remediation. The commissioner may, at any time, notify such certifying party in writing that the commissioner’s review and written approval is not required and that a licensed environmental professional may verify that the remediation has been performed in accordance with the remediation standards.
(2) A certifying party may complete the remediation of a portion of an establishment and request that the commissioner determine that the requirements of this subsection have been satisfied for any such portion of the establishment. If the commissioner determines that any such remediation is complete, the certifying party shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of this subsection for any such portion of an establishment. Any determination by the commissioner that remediation at the entire establishment has been completed may include and rely upon any determination made pursuant to this subdivision that remediation is complete at a portion of an establishment. If any portion of an establishment for which the commissioner determines that remediation is complete pursuant to this subdivision is transferred or conveyed or undergoes a change in ownership before remediation of the entire establishment is complete that would not otherwise be subject to the provisions of sections 22a-134 to 22a-134e, inclusive, the certifying party shall provide notice to the commissioner of such transfer, conveyance or change in ownership not later than thirty days after any such transfer, conveyance or change in ownership.
(i) The certifying party to a Form III or Form IV shall (1) publish notice of the remediation, in accordance with the schedule submitted pursuant to this section, in a newspaper having a substantial circulation in the area affected by the establishment, (2) notify the director of health of the municipality where the establishment is located of the remediation, and (3) either (A) erect and maintain for at least thirty days in a legible condition a sign not less than six feet by four feet on the establishment, which sign shall be clearly visible from the public highway, and shall include the words “ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN-UP IN PROGRESS AT THIS SITE. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:” and include a telephone number for an office from which any interested person may obtain additional information about the remediation, or (B) mail notice of the remediation to each owner of record of property which abuts the parcel, at the address for such property on the last-completed grand list of the municipality where the establishment is located.
(j) The commissioner may issue an order to any person who fails to comply with any provision of sections 22a-134 to 22a-134e, inclusive, including, but not limited to, any person who fails to file a form, or files an incomplete or incorrect form or to any person who fails to carry out any activities to which that person agreed in a Form III or Form IV. If no form is filed or if an incomplete or incorrect form is filed for a transfer of an establishment, the commissioner may issue an order to the transferor, the transferee, or both, requiring a filing. The commissioner may also request that the Attorney General bring an action in the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford to enjoin any person who fails to comply with any provision of sections 22a-134 to 22a-134e, inclusive, including, but not limited to, any person who fails to file a form, improperly files a Form I, Form II, Form III or Form IV or the certifying party to a Form III or Form IV to take any actions necessary to prevent or abate any pollution at, or emanating from, the subject establishment. Any person to whom such an order is issued may appeal such order in accordance with the procedures set forth in sections 22a-436 and 22a-437.
(k) Notwithstanding the exemptions provided in section 22a-134a, nothing contained in sections 22a-134 to 22a-134e, inclusive, shall be construed as creating an innocent landowner defense for purposes of section 22a-452d.
(l) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, no person shall be required to comply with the provisions of sections 22a-134 to 22a-134e, inclusive, when transferring real property (1) (A) for which a Form I or Form II has been filed for the transfer of the parcel on or after October 1, 1995, or (B) for which parcel a Form III or Form IV has been filed and which has been remediated and such remediation has been approved in writing by the commissioner or has been verified in writing in accordance with this section by a licensed environmental professional that an investigation has been performed in accordance with prevailing standards and guidelines and that the remediation has been performed in accordance with the remediation standards, and (2) at which no activities described in subdivision (3) of section 22a-134 have been conducted since the date of such approval or verification or the date on which the Form I or Form II was filed.
(m) Failure of the commissioner to notify any party in accordance with the provisions of this section in no way limits the ability of the commissioner to enforce the provisions of sections 22a-134 to 22a-134e, inclusive.
(n) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the execution of a Form III or a Form IV shall not require a certifying party to investigate or remediate any release or potential release of pollution at the parcel that occurs after the completion of a Phase II investigation, as defined in the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s Site Characterization Guidance Document, or from and after the date such Form III or Form IV was filed with the commissioner, whichever is later.
Sec. 22a-134b. Damages. (a) Failure of the transferor to comply with any of the provisions of sections 22a-134 to 22a-134e, inclusive, entitles the transferee to recover damages from the transferor, and renders the transferor of the establishment strictly liable, without regard to fault, for all remediation costs and for all direct and indirect damages.
(b) An action to recover damages pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall be commenced not later than six years after the later of (1) the due date for the filing of the appropriate transfer form pursuant to section 22a-134a, or (2) the actual filing date of the appropriate transfer form.
(c) This section shall apply to any action brought for the reimbursement or recovery of costs associated with investigation and remediation, which includes assessment, investigation, containment, mitigation, removal, remediation and monitoring, and all direct and indirect damages, except any action that becomes final and is no longer subject to appeal on or before October 1, 2009.
Sec. 22a-134c. Authority of commissioner. The provisions of sections 22a-134 to 22a-134e, inclusive, shall not affect the authority of the commissioner under any other statute or regulation, including, but not limited to, the authority to issue any order to the transferor or transferee of an establishment.
(P.A. 85-568, S. 5; P.A. 95-183, S. 6.)
History: P.A. 95-183 added a reference to Sec. 22a-134e.
Cited. 27 CA 353; 43 CA 113.
(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents) (Return to
List of Chapters) (Return to
List of Titles)
Sec. 22a-134d. Penalty. Any person who violates any provision of sections 22a-134a to 22a-134e, inclusive, or regulations issued in accordance with the provisions of said sections shall be assessed a civil penalty or shall be fined in accordance with section 22a-438.
Sec. 22a-134e. Transfer fees. Regulations. (a) As used in this section, “cost of remediation” shall include total costs related to the complete investigation of pollution on-site and off-site, evaluation of remediation alternatives, design and implementation of approved remediation, operation and maintenance costs for the remediation and postremediation monitoring.
(b) The fee for filing a Form I, as defined in section 22a-134, shall be three hundred seventy-five dollars. The fee for filing a Form II shall be one thousand three hundred dollars except as provided for in subsections (e) and (p) of this section.
(c) The fee for filing a Form III, after July 1, 1990, and before July 1, 1993, shall be as follows: (1) Four thousand five hundred dollars if the cost of remediation is less than one hundred thousand dollars; (2) seven thousand dollars if the cost of remediation is equal to or greater than one hundred thousand dollars but less than five hundred thousand dollars; (3) ten thousand dollars if the cost of remediation is equal to or greater than five hundred thousand dollars but less than one million dollars; and (4) thirteen thousand dollars if the cost of remediation is equal to or greater than one million dollars.
(d) The fee for filing a Form III with the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection prior to July 1, 1990, and which concern a site for which the commissioner had not given written approval of a final remediation plan before July 1, 1990, shall be as follows: For a Form III filed between October 1, 1985, and September 30, 1986, the fee shall be twenty per cent of the amount specified in subsection (c) of this section; for a Form III filed between October 1, 1986, and September 30, 1987, the fee shall be forty per cent of the amount specified in subsection (c) of this section; for a Form III filed between October 1, 1987, and September 30, 1988, the fee shall be sixty per cent of the amount specified in subsection (c) of this section; for a Form III filed between October 1, 1988, and September 30, 1989, the fee shall be eighty per cent of the amount specified in subsection (c) of this section; and for a Form III filed between October 1, 1989, and July 1, 1990, the fee shall be ninety per cent of the amount specified in said subsection (c).
(e) If a Form II is filed after July 1, 1990, and before October 1, 1995, and within three years following completion of remedial measures as approved by the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection, the fee for such transfer shall be the fee specified in subsection (c) of this section.
(f) The fees specified in subsections (b) and (e) of this section shall be due upon the filing of the notification required under section 22a-134a.
(g) The fee specified in subsection (c) of this section shall be due in accordance with the following schedule: (1) Four thousand five hundred dollars shall be paid upon filing of the Form III; (2) the balance, if any, shall be paid within thirty days of receipt from the commissioner of written approval of a remedial action plan or within thirty days of the issuance of an order, consent agreement or stipulated judgment, whichever is earlier; (3) any remaining balance shall be paid within thirty days after receipt of written notice from the commissioner that it is due; and (4) any refund, if applicable, will be paid after receipt of a letter from the commissioner stating that no further action is required or after receipt of a letter of compliance.
(h) The fee specified in subsection (d) of this section shall be due in accordance with the following schedule: (1) Nine hundred dollars shall be paid within thirty days of receipt of a written notice of a fee due from the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection; (2) the balance, if any, shall be paid within thirty days of receipt from the commissioner of written approval of a remedial action plan or within thirty days of the issuance of an order, consent agreement or stipulated judgment, whichever is earlier; (3) any remaining balance shall be paid within thirty days after receipt of written notice from the commissioner that it is due; and (4) any refund, if applicable, will be paid after receipt of a letter from the commissioner stating that no further action is required or after receipt of a letter of compliance.
(i) The commissioner may adopt regulations, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54, to prescribe the amount of the fees required pursuant to this section. Upon the adoption of such regulations, the fees required by this section shall be as prescribed in such regulations.
(j) The fees specified in this section shall be paid by the certifying party.
(k) The fee for filing a Form III, on and after July 1, 1993, and before October 1, 1995, shall be as follows: (1) Twenty-three thousand dollars if the cost of remediation is equal to or greater than one million dollars; (2) twenty thousand dollars if the cost of remediation is equal to or greater than five hundred thousand dollars but less than one million dollars; (3) fourteen thousand dollars if the cost of remediation is equal to or greater than one hundred thousand dollars but less than five hundred thousand dollars; (4) four thousand five hundred dollars if the cost of remediation is equal to or greater than fifty thousand dollars but less than one hundred thousand dollars; (5) three thousand dollars if the cost of remediation is equal to or greater than twenty-five thousand dollars but less than fifty thousand dollars; and (6) two thousand dollars if the cost of remediation is less than twenty-five thousand dollars.
(l) The fee specified in subsection (k) of this section shall be due in accordance with the following schedule: (1) Two thousand dollars shall be paid upon the filing of the notification required under section 22a-134a if the cost of remediation is less than one hundred thousand dollars; (2) six thousand dollars shall be paid upon filing of the notification required under section 22a-134a if the cost of remediation is equal to or greater than one hundred thousand dollars; (3) the balance, if any, shall be paid within thirty days of receipt from the commissioner of written approval of a remedial action plan or within thirty days of the issuance of an order, consent agreement or stipulated judgment, whichever is earlier; (4) any remaining balance shall be paid within thirty days after receipt of written notice from the commissioner that it is due; and (5) any refund, if applicable, will be paid after receipt of a letter from the commissioner stating that no further action is required or after receipt of a letter of compliance. After the deposit of any appropriated funds, funds from the sale of bonds of the state or any contribution pursuant to section 22a-16a, 22a-133t or 22a-133u or section 3 of public act 96-250* to the Special Contaminated Property Remediation and Insurance Fund established under section 22a-133t, any amount received by the commissioner pursuant to this section shall be deposited into said fund.
(m) On and after October 1, 1995, the fee for filing a Form III or Form IV shall be due in accordance with the following schedule: An initial fee of three thousand dollars shall be submitted to the commissioner with the filing of a Form III or Form IV. If a licensed environmental professional verifies the remediation of the establishment and the commissioner has not notified the certifying party that the commissioner’s written approval of the remediation is required, no additional fee shall be due. If the commissioner notifies the certifying party that the commissioner’s written approval of the remediation is required, the balance of the total fee shall be due prior to the commissioner’s issuance of the commissioner’s final approval of the remediation.
(n) On and after October 1, 1995, the total fee for filing a Form III shall be as follows: (1) Thirty-four thousand seven hundred fifty dollars if the total cost of remediation is equal to or greater than one million dollars; (2) thirty thousand two hundred fifty dollars if the total cost of remediation is equal to or greater than five hundred thousand dollars but less than one million dollars; (3) twenty-one thousand two hundred fifty dollars if the total cost of remediation is equal to or greater than one hundred thousand dollars but less than five hundred thousand dollars; (4) seven thousand dollars if the total cost of remediation is equal to or greater than fifty thousand dollars but less than one hundred thousand dollars; (5) four thousand seven hundred fifty dollars if the total cost of remediation is equal to or greater than twenty-five thousand dollars but less than fifty thousand dollars; and (6) three thousand two hundred fifty dollars if the total cost of remediation is less than twenty-five thousand dollars.
(o) On and after October 1, 1995, except as provided in subsection (p) of this section, the total fee for filing a Form IV shall be as follows: (1) Seventeen thousand five hundred dollars if the total cost of remediation is equal to or greater than one million dollars; (2) fifteen thousand two hundred fifty dollars if the total cost of remediation is equal to or greater than five hundred thousand dollars but less than one million dollars; (3) ten thousand seven hundred fifty dollars if the total cost of remediation is greater than or equal to one hundred thousand dollars but less than five hundred thousand dollars; (4) three thousand six hundred twenty-five dollars if the total cost of remediation is equal to or greater than fifty thousand dollars but less than one hundred thousand dollars; and (5) three thousand two hundred fifty dollars if the total cost of remediation is less than fifty thousand dollars.
(p) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the fee for filing a Form II or Form IV for an establishment for which the commissioner has issued a written approval of a remediation under subsection (d) of section 22a-133x within three years of the date of the filing of the form shall be the total fee for a Form III specified in subsection (n) of this section and shall be due upon the filing of the Form II or Form IV.
(q) The requirements of this section shall not apply to a transfer of property to a municipality under the provisions of section 12-157.
Sec. 22a-134f. List of hazardous waste facilities. Municipal clerks to maintain and post. (a) The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection shall provide the clerk of each municipality in the state with a list of all hazardous waste facilities located within such municipality. As used in this section, “hazardous waste” means any material defined as hazardous waste in section 22a-115 except sewage and sewage sludge, and “hazardous waste facility” means a facility as defined in section 22a-115, except a facility which stores hazardous waste for less than ninety days or whose primary business is not disposal, treatment or recovery of hazardous waste, but which may treat or recover such waste as an integral part of an industrial process, and any site listed under section 22a-133c. Each such list shall be updated by the commissioner at least quarterly.
(b) Each municipal clerk shall maintain a copy of the list provided pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, as updated, and shall post a notice of the availability of the list in the area where the municipal land records are kept.
Sec. 22a-134g. Termination of operations at certain hazardous waste facilities. Procedures. Regulations. (a) As used in this section, “regulated substance” means petroleum, any flammable substance, any extremely hazardous substance, as defined in 40 CFR 355, any hazardous substance, as defined in 40 CFR 302, or polychlorinated biphenyls in concentrations greater than fifty parts per million and “regulated activity” means the production, use, storage or handling of any regulated substance by a business if such production, use, storage or handling requires a permit from the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection and is not otherwise regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 USC 6901 et seq.).
(b) Not later than the date of termination of all business or other activities at any facility involved in regulated activities, the owner or operator of such facility shall file a notice with the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection which shall include information regarding a person employed by the business who may be contacted for information regarding compliance with this section.
(c) Not later than ninety days after such termination, such owner or operator shall (1) submit to the commissioner a list of all regulated substances located at the facility and all stationary storage vessels, (2) drain, remove or otherwise dispose of all regulated substances in accordance with any applicable law, (3) post warning signs around any area of land where the soil is contaminated with a regulated substance, and (4) submit a certification to said commissioner with regard to whether regulated substances have been removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable law.
(d) Following receipt of the certification required under subsection (c) of this section, the commissioner shall conduct an inspection of such facility to determine compliance with this section.
(e) The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection may adopt regulations, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54, to carry out the provisions of this section. The commissioner shall give notice of the requirements of this section to any person issued a permit on or after October 1, 1999, for the production, use, storage or handling of a regulated substance, and to any person who has any such permit renewed on or after said date.
Sec. 22a-134h. Transfer of hazardous waste establishments: Submission prior to October 1, 2001. Withdrawal of forms. (a) Any certifying party who has submitted a Form III or Form IV to the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection pursuant to section 22a-134a prior to October 1, 2001, may comply, after providing notice to the transferor, transferee and, if different, the owner of the parcel, with the requirements to investigate and remediate under sections 22a-134a to 22a-134d, inclusive, instead of the requirements for investigation and remediation under sections 22a-134a to 22a-134d in effect at the time of the submittal of such Form III or Form IV.
(b) Any person who has submitted a Form I, Form II, Form III or Form IV to the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection pursuant to section 22a-134a may petition the commissioner to withdraw such form. Such petitioner shall notify the transferor, the transferee and the certifying party by certified mail. The petitioner shall make every reasonable effort to identify the address of such transferor, transferee and certifying party. The transferor, transferee and certifying party shall have thirty days to submit to the commissioner written objections to such petition. The commissioner may approve the petition if it demonstrates to the commissioner’s satisfaction that the property or business was not an establishment or the transaction was not a transfer at the time the form was submitted. If the commissioner approves the petition, no further action is required by the certifying party with respect to its obligations under the form, but the form and the fee shall not be returned.
Sec. 22a-134i. Transfer of hazardous waste establishments. Conveyance of a unit in a residential common interest community. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, a conveyance of a unit in a residential common interest community shall not be subject to the requirements of sections 22a-134 to 22a-133e, inclusive, provided the declarant for the residential common interest community of which the unit is a part is a certifying party, as defined in section 22a-134, for purposes of remediation of any establishment, as defined in section 22a-134, within such community and provides to the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection a surety bond or other form of financial assurance acceptable to the commissioner.
(b) The surety bond or other form of financial assurance required pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall (1) identify both the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the unit owners association for the common interest community as beneficiaries, and (2) be in an amount and in a form approved by the commissioner that is, at all times when the real property comprising the common interest community is an establishment, equal to the cost of remediation of the contaminants on the subject property. In calculating such remediation costs, the amount of the bond or other form of financial assurance may be reduced from time to time as work covered by the bond is completed, may exclude the costs of any improvements to the real estate not required to remediate the contamination, and may exclude the costs of remediation work already completed or on parcels of real estate that may be added to the common interest community by the exercise of development rights pursuant to section 47-229.
(c) Each time a seller conveys to a purchaser a unit in a common interest community that is an establishment, the seller shall provide a notice to the purchaser that summarizes (1) the status of the environmental condition of the common interest community, (2) any investigation or remediation activities, and (3) any environmental land use restrictions. Such notice requirement applies to all such conveyances, including those conveyances otherwise excepted from the requirement for delivery of a public offering statement or of a resale certificate under subsection (b) of section 47-262 and section 47-270.
Sec. 22a-134k. Household hazardous waste management plan. On or before February 1, 1992, the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection shall, within available appropriations, prepare a plan for the collection, disposal, reduction, recycling and other management techniques for household hazardous waste. Such plan shall include specifications for the siting, licensing and operation of regional facilities for such purposes and shall take into account different methods of appropriate disposal. Such plan shall be submitted to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to the environment.
Sec. 22a-134l. Regional household hazardous waste disposal facilities. The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection may, within available appropriations, make a grant or loan to any municipality, group of municipalities, regional council of governments organized under the provisions of sections 4-124i to 4-124p, inclusive, or group of municipalities that have established a regional interlocal agreement pursuant to sections 7-339a to 7-339l, inclusive, for the planning of regional facilities for the purpose of collection and disposal of household hazardous waste. The commissioner may adopt regulations, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54, to carry out the purposes of this section.
Sec. 22a-134m. Chemical disposal days. The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection shall coordinate a program of chemical disposal days for the collection and disposal of hazardous household chemicals in any municipality or group of municipalities or in the participating towns in any regional council of governments organized under the provisions of sections 4-124i to 4-124p, inclusive. The commissioner shall develop guidelines for such chemical disposal days.
Sec. 22a-134n. Grants for chemical disposal days. (a) The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection may, within available appropriations, make a grant to any municipality, any group of municipalities or any regional council of governments organized under the provisions of sections 4-124i to 4-124p, inclusive, sponsoring a chemical disposal day. The grant shall be not more than fifty per cent of the cost to the grantee of conducting such chemical disposal day. An application for a grant shall include a plan for a chemical disposal day which shall comply with any guidelines developed by the commissioner pursuant to section 22a-134m.
(b) Any grantee under this section shall be eligible for additional grants, provided no grantee shall be eligible for more than two grants in any fiscal year.
History: P.A. 87-543 added Subsec. (b) regarding eligibility for additional grants; P.A. 91-369 amended Subsec. (a) to make grants under this section discretionary within available appropriations; pursuant to P.A. 11-80, “Commissioner of Environmental Protection” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection”, effective July 1, 2011; P.A. 13-247 amended Subsec. (a) by deleting references to regional planning agency and regional council of elected officials and changing “government” to “governments”, effective January 1, 2015.
Sec. 22a-134o. Contract with hazardous waste transporter or company. (a) Any municipality, any group of municipalities or any regional council of governments organized under the provisions of sections 4-124i to 4-124p, inclusive, sponsoring a chemical disposal day shall enter into a contract with a hazardous waste transporter or waste collection company licensed under section 22a-454 to dispose of the hazardous waste collected during a chemical disposal day. Such contract shall (1) make the transporter or company, upon receipt of hazardous waste, liable for any violation of a federal or state statute concerning the generation, transportation or disposal of hazardous waste, (2) identify the transporter or company as the generator of hazardous waste collected and (3) make the transporter or company responsible for providing material and equipment for handling, labeling, loading and transporting hazardous waste.
(b) Any transporter or company may participate in a chemical disposal day program provided such transporter or company has (1) a number issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency identifying such transporter or company as the generator for the day and (2) at least one trained employee or agent is at the site on the chemical disposal day to identify, accept, place in containers, load and remove any waste collected.
Sec. 22a-134p. Regulations re storage of hazardous substances near a watercourse. (a) As used in this section, “watercourse” means a watercourse as defined in section 22a-38 and “hazardous substance” means any substance on the list prepared pursuant to Section 302 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.
(b) The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection may adopt regulations in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54 setting forth standards for the storage of hazardous substances near watercourses. Such regulations shall (1) establish best management practices for the storage of such substances, including determination of a minimum distance between any hazardous substance and a watercourse, and (2) establish a threshold quantity for storage before compliance with regulations adopted under this subsection is required.
Sec. 22a-134q. Inventory of contaminated wells and leaking underground storage tanks. The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection shall compile an inventory of contaminated wells and leaking underground storage tanks known to him. As used in this section, “contaminated well” means any well that exceeds maximum levels for substances established in the Public Health Code or action levels determined jointly by the Commissioners of Public Health and Energy and Environmental Protection.
Future editing,
The Transfer Act My point is there is no 100%. It isn’t digital, yes/no, safe/unsafe. It is an analog world and just because we can measure smaller and smaller quantities doesn’t mean such small quantities are dangerous. There is a level that is and always was equivalent for ALL intents and purposes to ZERO.
The recommendation of HRP was this: “At a minimum, one additional monitoring well is needed for the southern portion of the site near the former dry cleaning operation to provide an adequate monitoring network. Please note that this well will likely be installed in bedrock, based on the shallow refusals encountered in this area during the Phase II investigation.”
In August and September of 2010 (while still leasing the property, before buying it under the Transfer Act) I contracted with HRP and paid them $6300 to drill several wells to fulfill this recommendation. They were able to drill several wells but according to their estimation the one needed could not be drilled. Several months later they quoted me over $17,000 to drill this one well because, they stated, it had to be drilled inside the basement with little overhead clearance.
HRP Associates completed for me Phase III and Phase IV plus the ECAF for the Transfer Act. There are several documents that are mostly prepared but they were unable to finish due to the fact that no work was done, but those documents may be helpful to complete the work.
The most important issue of inquiry is whether or not this well must be drilled at all, and if it does need to be drilled, does it need to be drilled as HRP insists, inside my basement?
There was also lead found in a single boring into the parking lot, nothing to do with dry cleaning. It came from fill Gene Luciano bought from the Town of Torrington when the building was built in the 1950s. After quotes as high as $94,000 to remediate the entire parking lot, I decided on a plan to remediate a 6 x 6 foot square where the sample had been found. I would provide the labor and HRP Associates would send someone to oversee the work and for this I gave them an $8,000 retainer toward an estimated $12,000 bill.
While preparing to remediate the lead with men and shovels under my employ, HRP provided to me a form letter to send to all adjacent property owners to notify them of the remediation work and ask them if they had well water on their property. There is a water well about 250 meters uphill from this property and therefore all work had to stop and I was required by law (according to HRP) to notify the DEEP that I am a “Significant Environmental Hazard”. The DEEP says I may now be required to do more or different work. As the owner of the well is a friend of mine he shared the information that nothing was found in the well after testing by the DEEP last year.
This seems Kafkaesque. 2005 levels of a chemical found in the soil under the basement of the building, a chemical that hasn’t been on this property in over 20 years makes this property a hazard today to a fresh water well uphill when water samples downstream tested clean even 20 years ago (2 ppb above reportable levels).
HRP also insisted that I pay $6,500 for them to “identify all properties within 500 feet of … property boundary 2) search well drilling records at the health department, CT DEEP, and Dept. of Consumer Protection to identify wells, 3) contact the water company to see which properties they serve, and 4) a drive-by survey.” I am not able to do such work myself since I am not licensed, and I did not hire another licensed person to do the work since the companies I contacted insisted they would need to re-perform all the background work and not rely on the work of another Licensed Environmental Professional, HRP Associates. These companies warned that they may find some new problem they would have to address once they began work.
No work was performed and in March of 2015 HRP Associates terminated services with me, sending me fraudulent invoices for services not rendered. I sued for the return of my $8,000 retainer in Superior Court, which forced me into Arbitration and most of my money was returned to me in November of 2016.
So I am in need of help to fulfill the requirements of the Transfer Act. The information below may be helpful in deciding how to proceed to terminate my responsibilities and finish the work that needs to be done.
EXCERPTS [direct quotes from the Reports except brackets mine]:
From December 9, 2005 Phase I Report (62 Pages).
——————————–
Conclusions: The DEP indicated in the memo that the identified chlorinated VOC [volatile organic compounds] groundwater contamination is presumably from Luciano’s Cleaners, the subject site. PCE levels up to 27 parts per billion (ppb) [25 ppb is the “reporting Level, anything below that level need not be reported] and TCE levels up to 6.5 ppb were detected on the East Wall Gulf Station property. A DEP Memo dated January 10, 1994 suggests that chlorinated VOC contamination detected on this property is presumably from Luciano’s Cleaners, the subject site.
Water samples taken by Harwinton Drilling on 1/29/93 only showed very levels of hydrocarbons in monitoring well#1 (See attachment #12}. The DEP’s LUST Section surveyed and sampled these wells on 10/25/93. Groundwater flow was determined to be basically parallel to the Branch River. The upgradient well (#1696} showed low levels of PCE, TCE (presumably Luciano’s Cleaners} and MTBE…
Recommendations:
- Prior to any future transfer of the property, HRP would recommend review of the “Transfer Act” by appropriate environmental legal counsel as it applies to the subject site, to determine the necessary filings pursuant to the Connecticut Transfer Act.
Given the recognized environmental conditions identified for the site (Conclusion #6), HRP recommends that a subsurface investigation be completed at the subject property. Such an investigation should include the installation of test borings and groundwater monitoring wells in the areas of concern, with follow-up analysis of selected soil and groundwater samples from these areas. The purpose of the proposed investigations is to determine whether or not a petroleum or chemical release has occurred at the site due to historical activities and operations.
Pending the results of these investigations, if evidence of contamination is identified in the subsurface, then HRP would make recommendations for additional site characterization and/or remediation, as necessary.
[From January 24, 2006 Phase II Report (75 pages)]
Conclusions: Five sub-slab borings and nine exterior test borings were installed on site to investigate the potential release areas. A total of sixty-three (63) soil samples were collected and field screened. As a result of this evaluation, thirteen (13) soil samples were selected for laboratory submission for analysis of selected parameters.
A mass lead concentration exceeding the residential direct exposure criteria was detected in one shallow soil sample collected from test boring TB-7 at a depth of 0.2′-2′ below grade. The elevated lead in this sample is interpreted to be related to the urban fill soils containing a trace of coal/ash that were encountered in this boring from below the asphalt to a total depth of 3 feet below grade. No other CT RSR exceedances were exceeded in any of the analyzed soil samples.
Low levels of CT ETPH and PAHs were detected in selected soil samples, well below CT RSR criteria. Low levels of tetrachloroethylene (a.k.a., “perc”), were detected in shallow soil samples collected from borings HS-01, HS-05, and TB-2.
Three (3) ground water monitoring wells were installed in the overburden aquifer on the subject site. Ground water samples were collected from the three wells and were analyzed for volatile organic compounds.
Low levels of various chlorinated volatile organic compounds were detected in these ground water samples. These compounds included tetrachloroethylene (a.k.a., “perc”), cis- 1,2- dichloroethylene, and trichloroethylene. All VOC levels are below applicable CT RSR criteria. [This passage is misleading since only tetrachloroethylene was detected at reportable levels].
Based on January 11, 2006 survey event and regional topography, ground water in the shallow overburden aquifer beneath the site is interpreted to flow generally to the northwest and west toward the East Branch of the Naugatuck River.
Recommendations: Based upon the results of the subsurface investigations as described in this report, HRP has the following recommendations for additional investigations at the subject site:
Given that the complete vertical and horizontal distribution of site soils with mass lead contamination exceeding applicable CT RSR criteria has not been fully delineated, HRP recommends additional subsurface investigations at the site. The soil investigations would mainly focus on evaluating the degree and extent of contaminated soil in the area of test boring TB-7. At the conclusion of the degree and extent investigations, HRP will make recommendations for appropriately addressing/handling the contaminated soil. Such recommendations would take into account the proposed future use of the site and the various means of compliance outlined in the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations, as possible.
One possible remediation scenario would be the excavation and appropriate off-site disposal at an approved facility of shallow contaminated soils exceeding applicable CT RSR direct exposure criteria (DEC) standards. Following site remediation, at least two years of post-remediation monitoring would also be required to achieve compliance. Note that other remediation alternatives may exist for the site, the feasibility of which would be examined at the conclusion of the recommended degree and extent investigations.
Additional ground water monitoring should be completed at the site to confirm the results of the initial event. Also, further evaluation of site ground water needs to be completed based on the detection of tetrachloroethylene and other chlorinated VOCs [what other VOCs?] in the three site monitoring wells. At a minimum, one additional monitoring well is needed for the southern portion of the site near the former dry cleaning operation to provide an adequate monitoring network. Please note that this well will likely be installed in ·bedrock, based on the shallow refusals encountered in this area during the Phase II investigation. The recommended ground water monitoring should include collection of ground water samples from the three existing site wells and at least one additional well, and laboratory analyses of volatile organic compounds and lead.
The recommendation of HRP that is the subject of this inquiry is quoted here:
“At a minimum, one additional monitoring well is needed for the southern portion of the site near the former dry cleaning operation to provide an adequate monitoring network. Please note that this well will likely be installed in ·bedrock, based on the shallow refusals encountered in this area during the Phase II investigation.”
In August and September of 2010 I contracted with HRP and paid them $6300 to drill several wells to fulfill this recommendation. They were able to drill several wells but according to their estimation the one needed could not be drilled. Now they want to charge over $17,000 to drill this well.
The most important issue of inquiry is whether or not this well must be drilled at all, and if it does need to be drilled, does it need to be drilled as HRP insists, inside my basement?
I also have many examples of irresponsible quotes for work, and the requirement that the entire property be remediated for a single sample of lead which now may be removed by two men and a shovel. Quotes were in excess of $45,000 for this work alone.
While preparing to remediate the lead with shovels HRP provided to me a form letter to send to all adjacent property owners to notify them of the remediation work and ask them if they had well water on their property. There is a well about 250 meters uphill from this property and therefore all work must stop and I was required by law (according to HRP) to notify the DEEP that I am a “Significant Environmental Hazard” which the DEEP says may require more or different work be done on this property.
HRP also insists that I pay $6,200 for them to “identify all properties within 500 feet of your property boundary 2) search well drilling records at the health department, CT DEEP, and Dept. of Consumer Protection to identify wells, 3) contact the water company to see which properties they serve, and 4) a drive-by survey.” I am not able to do such work myself since I am not licensed, and I cannot hire another licensed person to do the work since they would need to re-perform all the background work and not rely on the work of another Licensed Environmental Professional.
EXCERPTS [direct quotes from the Reports except brackets mine]:
From December 9, 2005 Phase I Report (62 Pages).
Conclusions: The DEP indicated in the memo that the identified chlorinated VOC [volatile organic compounds] groundwater contamination is presumably from Luciano’s Cleaners, the subject site. PCE levels up to 27 parts per billion (ppb) [25 ppb is the “reporting Level, anything below that level need not be reported] and TCE levels up to 6.5 ppb were detected on the East Wall Gulf Station property. A DEP Memo dated January 10, 1994 suggests that chlorinated VOC contamination detected on this property is presumably from Luciano’s Cleaners, the subject site.
Water samples taken by Harwinton Drilling on 1/29/93 only showed very levels of hydrocarbons in monitoring well#1 (See attachment #12}. The DEP’s LUST Section surveyed and sampled these wells on 10/25/93. Groundwater flow was determined to be basically parallel to the Branch River. The upgradient well (#1696} showed low levels of PCE, TCE (presumably Luciano’s Cleaners} and MTBE…
Recommendations:
- Prior to any future transfer of the property, HRP would recommend review of the “Transfer Act” by appropriate environmental legal counsel as it applies to the subject site, to determine the necessary filings pursuant to the Connecticut Transfer Act.
Given the recognized environmental conditions identified for the site (Conclusion #6), HRP recommends that a subsurface investigation be completed at the subject property. Such an investigation should include the installation of test borings and groundwater monitoring wells in the areas of concern, with follow-up analysis of selected soil and groundwater samples from these areas. The purpose of the proposed investigations is to determine whether or not a petroleum or chemical release has occurred at the site due to historical activities and operations. Pending the results of these investigations, if evidence of contamination is identified in the subsurface, then HRP would make recommendations for additional site characterization and/or remediation, as necessary.
From January 24, 2006 Phase II Report (75 pages)
EXCERPTS:
Conclusions: Five sub-slab borings and nine exterior test borings were installed on site to investigate the potential release areas. A total of sixty-three (63) soil samples were collected and field screened. As a result of this evaluation, thirteen (13) soil samples were selected for laboratory submission for analysis of selected parameters.
A mass lead concentration exceeding the residential direct exposure criteria was detected in one shallow soil sample collected from test boring TB-7 at a depth of 0.2′-2′ below grade. The elevated lead in this sample is interpreted to be related to the urban fill soils containing a trace of coal/ash that were encountered in this boring from below the asphalt to a total depth of 3 feet below grade. No other CT RSR exceedances were exceeded in any of the analyzed soil samples.
Low levels of CT ETPH and PAHs were detected in selected soil samples, well below CT RSR criteria. Low levels of tetrachloroethylene (a.k.a., “perc”), were detected in shallow soil samples collected from borings HS-01, HS-05, and TB-2.
Three (3) ground water monitoring wells were installed in the overburden aquifer on the subject site. Ground water samples were collected from the three wells and were analyzed for volatile organic compounds. Low levels of various chlorinated volatile organic compounds were detected in these ground water samples. These compounds included tetrachloroethylene (a.k.a., “perc”), cis- 1,2- dichloroethylene, and trichloroethylene. All VOC levels are below applicable CT RSR criteria. [This passage is misleading since only tetrachloroethylene was detected at reportable levels].
Based on January 11, 2006 survey event and regional topography, ground water in the shallow overburden aquifer beneath the site is interpreted to flow generally to the northwest and west toward the East Branch of the Naugatuck River.
Recommendations: Based upon the results of the subsurface investigations as described in this report, HRP has the following recommendations for additional investigations at the subject site:
Given that the complete vertical and horizontal distribution of site soils with mass lead contamination exceeding applicable CT RSR criteria has not been fully delineated, HRP recommends additional subsurface investigations at the site. The soil investigations would mainly focus on evaluating the degree and extent of contaminated soil in the area of test boring TB-7. At the conclusion of the degree and extent investigations, HRP will make recommendations for appropriately addressing/handling the contaminated soil. Such recommendations would take into account the proposed future use of the site and the various means of compliance outlined in the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations, as possible.
One possible remediation scenario would be the excavation and appropriate off-site disposal at an approved facility of shallow contaminated soils exceeding applicable CT RSR direct exposure criteria (DEC) standards. Following site remediation, at least two years of post-remediation monitoring would also be required to achieve compliance. Note that other remediation alternatives may exist for the site, the feasibility of which would be examined at the conclusion of the recommended degree and extent investigations.
Additional ground water monitoring should be completed at the site to confirm the results of the initial event. Also, further evaluation of site ground water needs to be completed based on the detection of tetrachloroethylene and other chlorinated VOCs [what other VOCs?] in the three site monitoring wells. At a minimum, one additional monitoring well is needed for the southern portion of the site near the former dry cleaning operation to provide an adequate monitoring network. Please note that this well will likely be installed in ·bedrock, based on the shallow refusals encountered in this area during the Phase II investigation. The recommended ground water monitoring should include collection of ground water samples from the three existing site wells and at least one additional well, and laboratory analyses of volatile organic compounds and lead.
Here end the excerpts.
Brief history of my involvement with this property:
In November of 2006 I became interested in the property and made an offer contingent that “property to be delivered clear and in accordance with the Connecticut Transfer Accordance Act”. I was rebuffed and offered to instead lease the property from Gene. I leased the property beginning in August of 2007.
In February of 2010 Gene Luciano passed, and after negotiation with the Estate I bought the property after forming Compx2 LLC using the money from a private loan based on equity from other property. No commercial company I could find would consider loaning money for this property. The purchase was completed with cash
Gene Luciano claims to have paid HRP $20,000 for Phase I and Phase II investigations. To date I have paid them as follows.
Check 08/30/2010 Check 41013 -3,000.00
Check 09/08/2010 Check 41027 -3,100.00
Check 09/21/2010 Check 41049 -200.00
Check 02/01/2012 Check 41765 -3,000.00
Check 02/01/2012 Check 41766 -100.00
Check 12/03/2013 Check 42412 -8,000.00
Notes about the work done in September 2010:
—–Original Message—–
From: Kent Johnson [mailto:kent@compx2.com]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 12:35 PM
To: Stefanie A. Kreipovich; Scot Kuhn
Subject: One week….
It has been a week since I sent you the following, with no response.
——————————————
Thank you for the updated information. It appears we are making progress.
I am sending a check for $3000 in the hopes that we can find a solution to my problems with the DEP using the information you have provided.
This fiasco has been going on for the better part of a decade, if the records I have received are correct, worth over $25,000 to your company to date.
Now to finish the job, you seem to believe I will need to spend another $40,000 or more, and that was not my understanding when I contracted for you to do work which I was assured would be no more than $6100, and include a 20 ft monitoring well in the basement. Now it appears you believe that monitoring well alone will cost $30,000.
Originally I wanted you to file the Form 3 for the ECAF, if I remember correctly how you abbreviate. But you talked me into trying this way of finishing the sales process in a single pass by doing more testing so that you could recommend a finish for me. I am trying to arrive at a recommendation that is not substantially more than the recommendation your company made after Phase II several years ago.
If I remember correctly, there are 16 yards of material that needs to be removed that is “contaminated” with, at its highest concentrated point, 24,000 milligrams per kilogram. You have sent me contact information for two subcontractors who will not receive this material unless they themselves remove it. If memory serves, you quoted me $9400 to remove, fill and asphalt the area you recommended. Please confirm that figure. I will also be looking into other places that receive “contaminated” soil.
Also, Scott at one point said that we could submit the ECAF after that remediation and it is possible the DEP will not complain about the lack of your recommended 20 foot, $30,000 monitoring well. If that is so, please let me know the complete costs for that work.
Thirdly, I will be submitting your cost estimates to other companies in the hopes that someone can do this monitoring well if it should prove necessary.
If it is possible to submit the ECAF, but it is not accepted by the DEP and the well is required, please confirm that another company can do this work, and that a new ECAF will not be necessary.
Thank you for all your help. –Kent
Kent Johnson
________________________________
—–Original Message—–
From: Scot Kuhn [mailto:scot.kuhn@hrpassociates.com]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 12:43 PM
To: Kent Johnson
Cc: Stefanie A. Kreipovich
Subject: RE: One week….
Hi Kent,
You indicated in your email of about a week ago that you would be sending a partial payment. I have not yet received it thus far. Can I ask the status of that payment?
Best regards –Scot Scot Kuhn, LEP
—–Original Message—–
From: Kent Johnson [mailto:kent@compx2.com]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 2:02 PM
To: Scot Kuhn
Subject: RE: One week….
Please acknowledge the fact that I sent the email, and that we can work together on the issues I mentioned. The check is written and ready to send.
–Kent
—–Original Message—–
From: Scot Kuhn [mailto:scot.kuhn@hrpassociates.com]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 2:57 PM
To: Kent Johnson
Subject: RE: One week….
Kent,
I did receive the email and I do hope to be able to work together on completing clean-up of the subject property. While the $3,000 partial payment will help me to pay a portion of our subs, it is still only part of the $6,300 balance due.
Raegards
-Scot
—–Original Message—–
From: Kent Johnson [mailto:kent@compx2.com]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 5:17 PM
To: Scot Kuhn
Subject: RE: One week….
When you receive the $3000 you will have partial payment, and I will have partial answers to questions I had thought were pretty easily answered:
There are 16 yards of material that needs to be removed that is “contaminated” with, at its highest concentrated point, 24,000 milligrams
(24 grams?) per kilogram. You quoted me $9400 to remove, fill and asphalt the area you recommended. Please confirm.
You said that we could submit the ECAF after that remediation and it is possible the DEP will not complain about the lack of your recommended 20 foot, $30,000 monitoring well. If that is so, please let me know the complete costs for that work, including the ECAF.
Thirdly, if it is possible to submit the ECAF, but it is not accepted by the DEP and the well is required, please confirm that another company can do this work, and that a new ECAF will not be necessary.
Kent Johnson
—–Original Message—–
From: Kent Johnson <kent@compx2.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:41:02
To: <scot.kuhn@hrpassociates.com>
Subject: RE: One week….
You told me we would not need to drill the well inside the building, that you would submit the ECAF and it was possible the DEP would not complain about the lack of that well.
Please tell me what has changed. –Kent
9/1/10: Nothing has changed. We provided the original proposal to you for closing up the soil investigation. That proposal indicated that based on the results some additional wells would be necessary. We were able to minimize additional wells based on the results to two. I sent proposal for two wells. One inside and one in lead soil area. We then spoke and I agreed to eliminate well in lead area since there are two nearby (just not quite downgradient). This resulted in some of the cost reductions in the revised proposal sent to you Aug 19th.
Kent Johnson
Compatible Computers
233 East Main St
Torrington, CT 06790
(860) 626-8486 fax 626-0091
www.compx2.com
—–Original Message—–
From: Kent Johnson <kent@compx2.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:38:50
To: ‘Scot Kuhn'<scot.kuhn@hrpassociates.com>
Subject: RE: One week….
Hi Scott, Thanks for the quick reply. As you can imagine I have been in contact with several companies that would like to know more about what needs to be done here to finish the job. As soon as I know what I have to do, specifically, to finish the job I will owe you the balance of the contracted “proposals” and your billing.
Perhaps the easiest answer to the questions would be a quote from you on what it would cost me for HRP to complete the job. Now that we are not talking about the well inside the building, only the remediation, then perhaps it would be cost effective for me to just use you to complete the job. So I will need a complete quote from you to finish the job.
In your various proposals I see that you will require $16,000 in groundwell monitoring (4 samples, 4 wells). I am assuming that charge is reduced to 4 samples 3 wells if we do not drill a $6,000 well. Also I assume I can contract with anyone to comply with this requirement of the DEP after the ECAF and the sale of the property. Please confirm.
Other companies that wish to do the remediation need to see an analysis of the soil to be remediated so that they can assess themselves what needs to be done with the soil to comply with various laws. Can you direct me to the information they need from the various documents you have provided me? I see such analyisis only in the Phase II documents. Is there something I am missing?
As of now, these are the only questions I can think of to help me make an informed decision. I await your reply.
Thanks for your help. –Kent
—–Original Message—–
From: scot.kuhn@hrpassociates.com [mailto:scot.kuhn@hrpassociates.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 9:37 AM
To: Kent Johnson
Subject: Re: One week….
I am working in Baltimore the remainder of this week. We provided you an estimate August 19 for all work excluding verification document cost as it indicated. One of the two wells, i.e. the one in the building, will still be required. The exterior one was eliminated. If you can send me the balance this week, I can have Stef email you the document with analytical for you to obtain costs.
From: Scot Kuhn [mailto:scot.kuhn@hrpassociates.com]Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 5:02 PM I received the partial payment today, thank you. What is the status of the remaining $3,300? Regarding your earlier questions;
Our revised estimate dated August 19th provides for HRP to sample and have analyzed up to 6 samples. The estimated cost for this is $1,700. You indicated that you were going to excavate and dispose of the 15 cubic yards of material and complete restorations. I believe that is the correct upper concentration. We previously indicated $3,100 for disposal of the material, but that cost was removed from the revised proposal per your request.
The ECAF must be submitted within 10 days of a sale. If remediation is conducted prior to sale, then the ECAF could be submitted with the sale after remediation. We initially discussed installation of two wells. Per our discussions, one well was eliminated from the revised proposal dated August 19th and I indicated DEP could have reservation with that decision, but that I would sign off on it. The cost for installation of one well as indicated in the proposal is $5,620, not $30,000. The ECAF preparation cost as provided in the August 19th proposal is &2,500, which is significantly discounted from our standard pricing.
Any company can do the work. Only one ECAF is required per sale or transaction. Subsequent ECAFs are not required for further investigation conducted by another company.
9/2/10: Demonstration that first groundwater beneath the former dry cleaning machine (which occurs in bedrock in that portion of the property) is required. The only current wells are above bedrock.
We can’t get to the machine but we can get close in the building. The well is anticipated to confirm that there is no groundwater contamination migrating in bedrock beneath the existing wells. If you remember, we tried to install a well above bedrock during the soil testing to make a reasonable argument against the need for the well, but unfortunately did not encounter water above the rock surface.
Phase I was completed by HRP in December of 2005 and Phase II in January of 2006. Gene said he paid $20,000 for those reports to be prepared.