Late in the game First Selectman Rand started talk about environmental issues at the old Fire House in Lakeville. He spoke of costs that might be involved should housing be the chosen option for that site. He even consulted with his good buddies at Fuss and O’Neill for support on this topic.
I requested these communications from the First Selectman and received this reply on February 15, 2012.
From: “Curtis Rand” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:00 AM
To: “Michael J Flint” <email@example.com>; “Jim Dresser” <firstname.lastname@example.org>; “bobby Riva”
<email@example.com>; “Mark Lauretano” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Fwd: FireHouse and Additional Buidling
Hello Here is the email from Fuss re: former firehouse. Fuss did the original Phase 1, but these are invalid after some period of months, so it would need to be re-done. The 2 big issues are groundwater sampling in the event of conversion to residential, and removal of the tank (not mentioned in the Fuss email).
In my phone conversation with Fuss after their inspection of the building, I think they suggested that tank removal might add $15,000- $20,000 on to this estimate below.
The tank is registered with DEP, in good order and not leaking (it is a newer, walled tank), but because there was an earlier spill then Fuss would need to do the groundwater sampling to ensure that vapors had not penetrated the building. If there were any vapors evident, then a remediation plan would need to occur – this cost is an unknown and is not factored into the Fuss email below.
There are other concerns about conversion to residential, but these were not problematic to the 2 proposals to continue use of the building as a garage. In the case of Frank Gallogly, he was prepared to deal with all the environmental issues at his own cost.
Conveniently Mr. Rand creates some of his answers by attempting to recall phone conversations which occurred back in 2008. Rather than producing documents, it is phrased as ‘I think’. While I was requesting data, all I could hope to obtain was what Mr. Rand thinks someone said to him years ago.
Mr. Rand also mentions some ‘other concerns’, but never elaborates. The other interesting mention is the registered oil tank, which while not mentioned by the environmental people, according to Mr. Rand it might have to be remediated due to a prior spill.
Attached was the email response of September 29, 2012 (just a few days before the SAHC made their uninformed decision). Mr. Don Wilson responds to Mr. Rand based on phone conversations of earlier in the day, again something without documentation meaning that I have no idea what the questions were or how they might have been manipulated to obtain the correct answer. How convenient!
Subject: FireHouse and Additional Buidling
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:56:32 -0400
From: Don Wilson <DWilson@fando.com>
To: Curtis Rand email@example.com
Per our conversations today, to further investigate the 9 and 9A Sharon Road Sites since there is proposed renovations to these buildings for possible residential occupancy, the following would be recommended with the following costs:
Update the 2008 Phase I ESA – $2,200
Complete a Phase II ESA – $ Cost range $8,000 to $12,000,
Biggest issue for investigation would be, since residential occupancy is proposed and there is a potential offsite upgradient VOC source that might cause vapor intrusion into the current buildings.
Thus, to make sure that this is not an issue, groundwater would have to be evaluated at the site. If the site is just sold for commercial use, there would be no real need to look at the offsite VOC issues.
Hazardous Building Material Surveys for Firehouse – $4,000 to $7,000
Additional Building -$2,000 to $3,000
Total costs range would be about $18,200 to $24,200
Hope this helps,
Fuss & O’Neill, Inc | 146 Hartford Road | Manchester, CT 06040
860.646.2469 x5224 | firstname.lastname@example.org | cell: 860.933.3975 | www.fando.com
I decided to look at the 2008 Phase I ESA so that I could see for myself what it said. I was curious about where the ‘up gradient’ VOC source might be located and was wondering how someone could have missed the oil clean up that occurred and resulted in the ‘registered tank’ being installed after remediation in 1992. This occurred after reports of fuel oil in the brook, a definite problem.
While I could present a healthy number of documents on this subject (solid facts as opposed to some obscure memory), the distortions in these email can be clarified by reading the conclusions (p. 14 & 15) of the 2008 Phase I ESA which was done by Fuss and O’Neill.
8.0 DATA GAPS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1 Data Gaps
Standard Practice 1527 -OS requires the identification and evaluation of data gaps or data failures, which are defined as a lack of or inability to obtain information required by the practice despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information. No significant data gaps were identified during the completion of this investigation.
8.2 Findings and Conclusions
Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. prepared this Phase I ESA report in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-05. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Appendix A of this report.
This assessment has revealed two RECs in connection with the subject site:
• Former UST: A 1 ,000-gallon heating oil UST was removed from the site in July 1992, and was found to have leaked. Soil was excavated subsequent to removal of the tank, and a new 550- or 1,000-gallon UST was installed. In a phone conversation with Mrs. Sheila Gleason at the CTDEP on May 13, 2008, she stated that an associate, Mr. Robert Robinson, was present the day the tank was removed and observed the collection of confirmatory soil samples taken from the tank grave. However, no analytical data was available to support that all contaminated soil was removed from the tank grave. The involvement of CTDEP staff in the UST removal indicates a low probability of significant residual petroleum being present in the former UST area, although the lack of analytical data leaves open the possibility that impacted soil remains in the UST area.
• Overfilled 275-AST: An oily residue was observed along the side of the 275-AST, with a small associated stain on the plywood floor beneath the tank, which the site contact attributed to a minor overfill. A crawl space is present beneath the floor, and the magnitude of the observed staining indicates a low potential for spilled oil to have
migrated through the floor and been released to soil underlying the crawlspace. A
definitive determination would requite gaining access to the crawlspace and/ or
collection of soil samples. Based on the extent of the staining to the plywood and the
release mechanism, it is likely that any impact to underlying soils would be minor and
limited to the top few inches of the soil immediately below the point of release.
Potential off-site concerns:
• Historical petroleum releases were identified on parcels adjacent to and inferred to be up gradient of the subject site. These releases appear to have impacted groundwater on the 6 Sharon Road parcel based on the results of test wells monitored periodically by the Aquarion Water Company.
It is extremely important to understand that the 2008 Phase I ESA was done for the three pieces of property that were owned by the Fire District. 9 and 9a Sharon Road are the Fire House and the White Building. The other parcel, 6 Sharon Road, is Community Field.
The conclusions above indicate ‘oily residue’ in the White Building.
It also indicates the the up gradient releases (petroleum) have impacted Community Field. You know … the place where our children play?
Truth … Something which seems to illude our Community Leaders when they are on their blind missions.