More than 20 years after the last “hazardous” chemical was removed from Luciano’s dry cleaners in Torrington, CT, ten years after the last time the two dozen or so borings and wells and the scores of soil and water samples showed any problem the property has been declared a Significant Environmental Hazard by the Connecticut DEEP.
In 1993 water samples taken at the Wall Street gas station some 75 meters downstream from this property found 27 parts per billion (ppb) of tetracloroethylene (also called PCE or Perc) . In 2005 soil samples from 14 borings on the Luciano site the tetracloroethylene was at 40 ppb (or .000000004%) at the highest concentration. Levels below 25 ppb need not be reported. No other tests have shown any liquid hazards.
The 2006 recommendation of the Licensed Environmental Professionals firm HRP Associates Inc is below:
“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 Associates and paid them $6300 to drill wells to fulfill this recommendation. They drilled several holes but according to their estimation the one well 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? No reasonable person who has looked into this situation believes there is an environmental hazard.
I also have many examples of irresponsible quotes for work from HRP Associates. Originally they required the entire parking area be remediated for a single sample of lead which now may be removed by two men and a shovel. Original quotes were in excess of $45,000 for this work alone.
While preparing to remediate the lead with shovels HRP Associates 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 Assoc.) 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 on this property depending upon how this will tests.
This seems Kafkaesque. 2005 levels of a chemical that hasn’t been on this property in over 20 years makes this property a hazard today to well water uphill even though water samples downstream tested clean over 20 years ago. No one seriously believes there is a hazard here, but the LEP charges $17,000 to prove there is no problem.
HRP also insists 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 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) and TCE levels up to 6.5 ppb [levels under 25 ppb are not considered dangerous] 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 [sic] 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 Associates 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…
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 using equity from other property. The private party that loaned me the money insisted I form Compx2 LLC to limit my liability. No commercial company I could find would consider loaning money for this property. The purchase was completed with cash in January 2012 as no one will hold a mortgage on this property.
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
————————————
Kent Johnson
Compatible Computers
233 East Main Street
Torrington, CT 06790
(860) 626-8486
