Council on Environmental Quality Meeting Minutes

Minutes of the May 28, 2025, meeting of the Council on Environmental Quality (Council) held via Zoom.

MEMBERS PRESENT: (remote) Keith Ainsworth (Acting Chair), Denise Rodosevich, Linda Bowers, Christopher Donnelly, Aimee Petras, and William Warzecha.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Paul Aresta (Council - Executive Director), Ryan Carboni (Council – Environmental Analyst), Jordan DiDomenico (Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP)), Justine Phillips-Gallucci (Office of Policy and Management (OPM)), Bruce Wittchen (OPM), and Lisette Stone (Department of Public Health (DPH)). 

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

2. Approval of minutes of April 23, 2025
Donnelly made a motion to approve the draft meeting minutes from April 23, 2025; seconded by Warzecha. The motion was approved unanimously.

3. Citizen Comment Period
There were no citizen comments.

4. Citizen Complaints and Inquiries Received

• Carboni reported that the Council received an inquiry regarding the siting of a trash to energy facility in Plainfield. He added that Council staff responded that the facility would need a number of permits and authorizations from DEEP and the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC), and there would be opportunities to provide public comment.
  
  
• Carboni reported that the Council received a few emails regarding Tilcon’s proposed expansion of their quarry operation in Plainville. He added that Council staff responded and provided contact information for various departments within DEEP, and the local health department. He noted that news reports indicate that the proposed application in Plainville has been withdrawn.
  
  
• Carboni reported that the Council received a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for purchase orders issued over the last 4 ½ years. He added that Aresta forwarded the request to DEEP’s financial office and DEEP provided the requested information.
  
  
• Carboni reported that the Council received a complaint regarding vibration that was suspected to be caused by blasting at the Tilcon operation in Plainville. He noted that Council staff responded that the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) have a provision where the State Fire Marshall can require the use of seismic monitoring. He added that Council staff provided contact information for the Office of the State Fire Marshall.
  
  
• Carboni reported that the Council received an inquiry about rinsing vehicles in a parking lot in a shoreline town. He added that Council staff responded that DEEP does not regulate the rinsing/washing of individual/personal vehicles, and provided 1) a link to DEEP’s website that includes information for the proper management of vehicle washing wastewaters, and 2) contact information for DEEP’s water quality section.
  
  Warzecha noted that he developed a guidance document for municipal officials on blasting that is hosted on DEEP’s Remediation Division website.

5. Executive Director’s Report

• Draft findings for pesticide gap identification
  Aresta noted that a draft internal review has been prepared to address a motion approved by the Council to identify what information is known, what information is needed, and what approaches should be taken, to better understand what pesticides are being applied in the state and where they are being applied. Warzecha expressed concern about the sampling and testing of well water in areas where pesticides were used and the importance of reporting such information to local and state agencies. Aresta noted that the draft internal review identified the fact that there is no centralized database for water sampling results and that data is not available to the public. Rodosevich noted that it could be helpful if the required annual reporting requirements include proximity to wetlands and watercourses. Donnelly noted that information regarding the location(s) of the application of pesticides is required to be recorded and that DEEP could access that information if needed. Petras noted that it is sometimes difficult for pesticide applicators to obtain the required approval to allow for targeted pesticide application within a riparian corridor. Donnelly noted that there is a statutory provision for a Pesticide Advisory Council that could provide advice to the Commissioner of DEEP regarding pesticide policies in Connecticut.
  
  
• Review of the Council’s Comments 
  Carboni reported that Council staff completed an assessment of the Council’s comments to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) for various applications and petitions for 2024. Carboni and Aresta summarized the process used to assess if the Council’s comments were being considered by the CSC, and noted that most times the CSC considered and/or specifically addressed the Council’s recommendations in the CSC’s decision package, interrogatories or staff report.

6. State Agency Actions 
a. DEEP

• General Pretreatment Permit for Non-Significant Industrial User Discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (Non-SIU GP)
  Aresta summarized the distinction between a “significant industrial user” (SIU) and a “non-significant industrial user” (non-SIU) regarding the applicability of the draft general permits. He added that the provisions of the SIU General Permit and Non-SIU GP are designed to protect publicly owned treatment works (POTW) from pollutants that may cause interference with sewage treatment plant operations or harm to human health or the environment. He summarized the type of wastewater discharges that could be authorized by the Non-SIU GP.
  
  
• General Pretreatment Permit for Significant Industrial User Discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (SIU GP)
  Aresta summarized the types of discharges that could be authorized by the SIU GP. Aresta noted that draft comments have been developed regarding certain provisions within the Non-SIU GP and SIU GP. 
  
  Rodosevich questioned if the references to federal laws within general permits could be applied if the federal law is revised or repealed. Ainsworth acknowledged that the federal government could revise those laws, and noted that the state has the authority to develop and implement laws to protect the environment 
  
  Warzecha made a motion to approve the draft comments for the Non-SIU GP and SIU GP; seconded by Donnelly. The motion was approved unanimously.
  
  
• Draft amendment to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-20(a), (b), and (aa)
  Carboni reported that DEEP has prepared a draft amendment to the RCSA sections that would reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in Connecticut. He added that these efforts will contribute to progress toward ozone attainment in Connecticut, satisfy reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements, and reduce exposure of hazardous air pollutants to environmental justice communities.

b. Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) 
Comments recommended:

• Petition 1663 (energy storage and fuel cells, Hamden)
  Aresta reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from VFS, LLC to construct and operate two (2) fuel cells and a 1.99-megawatt (MW) battery energy storage system (BESS) at the Quinnipiac University campus located on Sherman Avenue in Hamden. He reviewed some environmental characteristics of the proposed site and noted that draft comments have been developed that address the provision of environmental information, noise, and protection of the public water supply.
  
  
• Docket 536 (telecom, Norfolk) 
  Carboni reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from Tarpon Towers and Verizon to construct a tower and facility in Norfolk. He added that a portion of the proposed access road and facility compound could impact a medium core forest block. He noted that a draft comment has been developed that addresses potential impacts to the core forest.
  
  
• Docket 538 (telecom, Lebanon)
  Carboni reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from The Towers LLC to construct a tower and facility in Lebanon. He and Aresta noted that there would be both direct and indirect impacts on wetlands. He reviewed some of the environmental characteristics of the site and noted that draft comments have been developed that address wetland mitigation and wildlife.
  
  
• Petition 1664 (energy storage and fuel cells, North Haven)
  Aresta reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from VFS, LLC to construct and operate two (2) fuel cells and a 1.99-MW BESS at the Quinnipiac University campus in North Haven. He reviewed some environmental characteristics of the proposed site and noted that draft comments have been developed that address the provision of information and noise.
  
  
• Petition 1665 (solar, Old Saybrook)
  Aresta reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from Tritec Energy Development, LLC to construct and operate a 1.0-MW solar photovoltaic (PV) facility in Old Saybrook. He reviewed some environmental characteristics of the proposed site and noted that draft comments have been developed that address wildlife and best management practices for the existing vernal pool. Bowers expressed concerns regarding the development of the proposed facility on the proposed site. Ainsworth noted that he would recuse himself from discussion on this proposed project. There was general discussion regarding the proposed development on the proposed site and whether the Council should recommend approval or denial of a proposed project. Rodosevich suggested adding a sentence to the draft comments that the Council notes it is better to use previously developed sites than those that have ecological significance.
  
  Bowers made a motion to approve the draft comments for CSC Petition 1665, with an addition to the first paragraph that the Council notes it is better to site solar projects on previously developed sites as opposed to those that have ecological significance; seconded by Warzecha. Donnelly suggested amending the motion to also note that the number of state-listed species that have the potential to be found on the proposed site suggests that location would have higher ecological value than other sites and deserves increased consideration by the CSC. The amended motion was approved unanimously with Ainsworth abstaining.
  
  
• Petition 1666 (energy storage and fuel cells, Hamden)
  Aresta reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from VFS, LLC to construct and operate six (6) fuel cells and a 1.99-MW BESS at the Quinnipiac University campus located on Mount Carmel Avenue in Hamden. He noted that draft comments have been developed that address the provision of information, noise, and protection of the public water supply.
  
  
• Petition 1668 (fuel cell, Ansonia)
  Aresta reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from Johnson Controls, Inc to construct and operate a 3.9-MW fuel cell facility at a former industrial site located at 25 North Main Street in Ansonia. He added that last year, the Connecticut Siting Council approved a fuel cell facility at 35 N. Main Street (Petition 1595, approved February 16, 2024). He reviewed some environmental characteristics of the proposed project and site and noted that draft comments have been developed that address potentially contaminated soils/material and noise. Warzecha questioned the applicability of the laws/regulations pertaining to “significant environmental hazards” for the proposed site/project.
  
  Bowers made a motion to approve the draft comments for CSC Petition 1663, Docket 536, Docket 538, Petition 1664, Petition 1666, and Petition 1668; seconded by Rodosevich. The motion was approved unanimously.

No comments recommended at this time:

• Docket 537 (telecom, Stonington) 
  Carboni reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from The Towers to construct a 150-foot tower and facility in Stonington.
  
  
• Petition 1667 (telecom, Enfield)
  Carboni reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from Verizon Wireless to install an antenna(s) on an existing telecommunications tower and expand the facility compound in Enfield.
  
  
• Petition 1669 (fuel cell, Bridgeport)
  Aresta reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from VFS, LLC to construct and operate one (1) fuel cell to be located at Housatonic Community College in Bridgeport. He noted some environmental characteristics of the proposed site and project.

c. Legislature

• Status of proposed legislation for which the Council provided testimony 
  Aresta summarized the status of proposed legislation for which the Council provided testimony for. Ainsworth provided additional information regarding the legislative process.

7. Other Business 

Aresta noted that the Council’s next regular meeting is scheduled for June 25, 2025, and it will be a hybrid (in-person/remote) meeting.

Petras made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:25AM; seconded by Warzecha. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was concluded.

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