04 April 2012

KingCast says Clifford Pisano is correct once again, Revere Site Plan Review demands EPA 21-E information.

Here is your Back Story.
MGL 21E reads, in pertinent part: “Owner”, or “Operator”, (a) (1) in the case of a vessel, any person owning, operating or chartering by demise such vessel, (2) in the case of a site, any person owning or operating such site, (3) in the case of an abandoned site, any person who owned, operated, or otherwise controlled activities at such site, vessel, onshore oil facility, offshore oil facility, deepwater port, or pipeline, any person who owned, operated, or otherwise controlled activities at such site immediately prior to such abandonment...

16 Dec. 2011 sale.

25 Jan 2010 to 16 Dec. 2011 Mortgagor = 89-91 Clark Street Realty Trust, 
Vincent A. DiCesare, Geri Scoppettuolo as trustees.

..... Revere Neighborhood Developers ("RND") submitted a Site Plan Review request admitting that it had structured a Purchase & Sale Agreement (P&S) with 89-91 Clark Street Realty Trust, effective 11 April 2011, with the notation that "[T]he site will be acquired no later than Dec. 16, 2011." This was of course prior to the testing that Ira Novoselsky was aware of, as noted at the RND website relative to the minutes of the 24 May, 2011 meeting.    This testing was likely completed a long time ago, surely more than 120 days ago. During the testing they were ALL owners and operators pursuant to Statute. Therefore they meet the threshold ownership/management interest required by the case of In re Knott, Docket No. 2011-011, PAN-NE-11-3R001 ($10,787.00 fine for failure to report TCE, affirmed). Moreover, the City of Revere had held multiple liens on this property and arguably had a duty to report this matter to the EPA as well because it had actual and constructive knowledge of the issue since the tanks went into the ground back in 1924. A formal complaint will be lodged with Mass DEP on Monday, and here is the pertinent ownership/management history.

Query, why no fines in Revere?
I am riding over to McPhail Associates today to discover when they published their review.

Okay so the Site Plan Review Application, submitted by the Development team in November, 2011 contains a $25K budget line item for "Environmental Remediation" yet 525 Beach Street Ltd. claims in its EPA Notification that they had no knowledge of the contamination until 16 December, 2011.
Query, how did they arrive at the line item amount then?
Query, did it really take McPhail & Associates until December to notify them 
of the test results on testing that was being done in May, 2011? 
Watch today's movie from City Hall, up by 12a. or thereabouts.
Okay so the testing was being conducted back in May, 2011....
yet they tell EPA they became aware of the contamination on 16 Dec. 2011? 
Something fishy in Denmark, folks.
Also Ira Novoselsky knew all about it because he was at the meeting.
525 Beach Street Housing: Emily Loomis, CND Director of Real Estate, presented our real estate development strategy and described the proposed Beach Street development.......Presentation and discussion: (Questions are in italics) 525 Beach Street is an empty warehouse that once housed an auto-body workshop. We are proposing to build a three and four story building that has 30 apartments.

Where are we in the process? What’s the big picture and the likelihood that this will happen? The site is under agreement for CND and we are currently doing some testing on site to determine how much environmental remediation will be called for. The results will inform our decision to buy the property or not. More on this later.
2-Methylnaphthalene is no fun, not even in a Froot Loops box. The EPA says 1,2-Dichloroethane is not your friend, either. Trichloroethene (TCE) is the major contaminant at Wells G and H in the tragic Woburn, MA "Civil Action" case. I am looking to see what levels were present, if I could find my copy of the book it might help! My favorite line from Jonathan Harr's book was the Plaintiff's lawyer's mocking comment about the Defense expert's summary: "He says it's good for you." 

Maybe Ira thinks so too? Anyway here are the tables and cleanup references from the State of Washington, it appears that the 2.4mg/kg amount warrant a Method B cleanup. Here is a University of Idaho study that acknowledges TCE is linked to Leukemia and birth defects while questioning why the EPA only lists it as a "possible" carcinogen. Here is a good story on how Phase 1 and Phase 2 investigations occur. The story does not explain why Ira Novoselsky or anyone else in the City of Revere failed to bring this to the attention of Site Plan Review or ZBA even though the soup kitchen hightailed it out of there...... I'm headed out on my sometimes Trusty Triumph shortly to make further inquiry. 

I finally found the SPR regs. That was my job as a zoning manager in New England, find the regs. Follow the g-- d--- regs. So I'll not be taking any shit from anybody on this. And that notification and report that the EPA is due to receive had better be full and complete, see the $1.5M Decision in Chiacchia v. Lycott Envtl. Research, 4 Mass. L. Rep. 399 1995 because I got folks who can probably double check all of this. The EPA (MassDEP) tracking number is 3-30746. Goodnight.

Zoning coordinator in 2000, manager in 2009... Been there, done that.

17.17.060 - Materials for review—As may be required (for multifamily, commercial and industrial projects only).
General environmental impact: a report on the relationship of the proposed development to the major botanical, geological and hydrological resources of the site, and compatibility of the proposed development with adjacent or surrounding land uses and neighborhoods. The applicant shall submit such material as may be required regarding design features intended to integrate the proposed new development into the existing landscape and environment, to enhance aesthetic assets, and to screen objectionable features from neighbors. If applicable, a shadow study and an assessment report pursuant to Chapter 21E of the MGL.
If applicable, of course it is applicable.... you've got Federal and State funds on this project... and public health at issue.... and Ira Novoselsky knew of the contamination, having been present at the developers meeting waaaay back on 24 May 2011. Back story; small wonder the City was a no-show at last week's TRO hearing, then the Court had the nerve to trash talk me but I set it straight, folks.

1 comment:

Christopher King said...

So many times I have publicly asked, "how could this thing have got all the way through zoning without mention of the general (i.e. GASOLINE, etc) much less the specific types of contamination that are (over)due to be identified any minute now?

The first owner had an affirmative duty to notify the EPA at a maximum of 120 days of the testing, depending on the types of contaminants and the concentrations. This is serious shit folks, I watched my father monitor this type of thing on the foods we eat every goddamn day.

So to see people take such a cavalier attitude toward this, I will simply not tolerate. I will be in Revere today with that Canon 60D to ask a few questions.

I will be polite and professional and courteous as always and I expect nothing less in return.

Stay tuned for the movie this afternoon.

-The KingCaster.