Norwich breaks ground on $200 million sewage treatment plant
Claire Bessette
Norwich ― Superlatives dominated the remarks made at
Wednesday’s groundbreaking ceremony to signal the start of construction of the
city’s new $200 million wastewater treatment plant.
Norwich Public Utilities General Manager Chris LaRose called
the plant the largest capital project in city history while Federal
Environmental Protection Agency New England regional administrator David Cash
said it is the largest sewer infrastructure project in the state. And Jason
Nickerson, chairman of Torrington-based general contractor CH Nickerson &
Co. said it is the largest project in his company’s 84-year history.
About 40 NPU employees, city, state and federal officials
gathered at the plant entrance on Falls Avenue Wednesday morning for the
groundbreaking ceremony, followed by a tour of the aging plant that will be
replaced piece by piece over the next five years. The project had been under
design for the past 20 years resulting in multiple revisions and cost
escalations.
State Rep. Derell Wilson, D-Norwich, recalled that he did
his high school senior seminar project in 2009 on environmental science and the
workings of the Norwich sewage treatment plant.
“To see it now come to fruition, 20 years in the making,
being a regional asset, an economic driver for both Norwich and our surrounding
communities is amazing,” Wilson said.
Mayor Peter Nystrom stressed the regional benefit of the
plant and the critical partnership between NPU and smaller surrounding towns,
with the increased Norwich plant capacity allowing Norwich to attract new
businesses and surrounding towns to extend sewer service to their residents and
businesses.
The plant is located on the narrow man-made island that
splits the east and west branches of the Yantic River as it feeds into Norwich
Harbor. The plant shares Hollyhock Island with Southeast Area Transit’s main
commuter bus terminal and the Thayer’s Marine boat sales and repair facility
and its related marine retail business.
Construction will be tricky, with large buses, boats on
trailers and dozens of workers traveling on Falls Avenue daily.
The plant must also remain in operation throughout the
construction, as aging sewage digesters, wastewater treatment buildings, large
sewage pipes and outflow pipes are replaced.
“Over the next five years, the island on which we are all
standing will be transformed into a modern, efficient wastewater treatment
plant that will dramatically improve water quality in the Yantic, Shetucket,
and Thames rivers,” LaRose said Wednesday. “Every community between Norwich and
Long Island Sound along the Thames River – Preston, Montville, Ledyard,
Waterford, Groton, and New London – will benefit from this project.”
The project is being funded with a combination of grants and
loans, with $72 million in grant funding through the state’s Clean Water State
Revolving Fund and $128 million in low-interest, 2% loans from the state Clean
Water Fund, to be repaid by NPU’s 10,000 wastewater customers over the next 20
years, NPU officials said.
Graham Stevens, bureau chief at the state Department of
Environmental Protection, said the project provides an environmental and
economic benefit for the city and southeastern Connecticut.
“No longer will we see the overflows of untreated and
partially treated sewage to our rivers,” Stevens said. “We are going to be able
to handle wet weather conditions, so when we have these intense rainstorms
throughout the summer, this new wastewater treatment plant and its systems will
be able to handle those flows.”
Danbury Proton renews push for cancer treatment center
Danbury Proton LLC has filed a new certificate of need
application with the state Office of Health Strategy to establish a proton
therapy center for cancer treatment.
The estimated $90 million center, if approved, would be
at 85 Wooster Heights Road, in Danbury.
The OHS previously denied Danbury Proton’s plan, citing
factors such as the financial feasibility of the project.
Danbury Proton re-applied for the certificate of need, or
CON, in documents filed Nov. 6.
Drew Crandall, a spokesperson for Danbury Proton, said
communication between it and OHS has been “significantly enhanced,” under OHS’
leadership since Dr. Deidre Gifford took over as executive director.
“In connection with this re-application, we will continue to
work with OHS staff to develop a proposal that OHS can support,” Crandall
said.
Proton therapy uses a high energy beam of protons to target
cancer. Proponents say it allows for safer and targeted delivery of radiation,
with less impact on healthy tissue and fewer negative side effects.
“The reduced side effects of proton therapy allow physicians
to prescribe higher doses to tumors, resulting in improved control of the
cancer,” the application states.
Crandall said the need for proton therapy in Connecticut is
“huge.”
“Right now, the closest facilities are in Boston and New
York City, and they are turning away patients,” Crandall said. “They cannot
handle the existing regional patient need.”
The Yale New Haven Health system and Hartford HealthCare
have secured OHS approval for an unrelated proton beam therapy center in
Wallingford.
Crandall asserted there is enough demand in the state for
both facilities.
"Our original estimate for Danbury Proton in April of
2020 was $80 million, but with the delays, inflation and construction cost
increases, our current estimate is $90 million," Crandall said. "We
do not have concerns about funding, which will be accomplished through
bonds."
CT GOP pushes pedal to metal opposing mandated shift to EVs
Republican lawmakers in the General Assembly on Wednesday
ramped up their opposition to regulations that would commit Connecticut to
phasing out sales of most new gas-powered vehicles by 2035, a goal intended to
reinforce market trends toward zero-emission vehicles.
The presentation comes two weeks before the legislature’s
Regulation Review Committee is to consider regulations implementing the latest
revisions to California’s clean air standards, which require manufacturers to
curb emissions by weaning the new vehicle market off gasoline from 2027 through
2035.
While the regulations proposed by the Democratic
administration of Gov. Ned Lamont stem from a law passed in 2004 under a
Republican governor, Senate Minority Leader Kevin Kelly, R-Stratford, says they
reflect the desires of “unelected bureaucrats.”
“The majority wants to believe that California is better for
Connecticut than Connecticut. Nobody represents us in Sacramento,” Kelly said.
House Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora, R-North
Branford, said Republicans are staking out a policy position, not framing a
wedge issue for the 2024 legislation session or reelection cycle.
“It’s certainly going to be an issue that continues to be on
people’s minds, but this is not about the introduction of the 2024 campaign,”
Candelora said. “This is about protecting the residents of Connecticut and
providing them choice.”
Adoption of the regulations is uncertain, at best. The
14-member Regulation Review Committee is unusual in that the majority and
minority parties have equal representation, meaning that a negative vote by a
single Democrat and the promised unanimous opposition by Republicans would kill
adoption.
Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, a member of the committee who
expressed doubts about the regulations in a Connecticut Mirror interview last
month, said Wednesday, “I’m still less than enthused.”
The 2004 law committing Connecticut to the California
emission standards for cars was not controversial, with unanimous passage in
the Senate and by a vote of 143-1 in the House. But a 2022 law expanding the
commitment to light- and medium-duty trucks had only a single Republican
supporter.
Republicans insisted Wednesday they remain committed to
clean air, even as issues of climate change and decarbonization have became
sharply partisan in Hartford and in Washington.
“I think it goes without saying that everybody here this
morning loves Connecticut, loves the beauty of our state, loves its
environment,” Kelly said. “And we all want clean air. We want better
communities. And we are not opposed to those issues. The question, however, is
how do we get there? We think that choice rests with the General Assembly. The
administration believes it rests with the bureaucrats.”
The administration’s position is that the regulations
offered by Commissioner Katie Dykes of the Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection do reflect the will of the General Assembly, as
expressed in the 2004 and 2022 laws.
The Republicans say setting a goal of eliminating new sales
of gasoline-powered vehicles, whether or not it was authorized by the 2004 and
2022 laws, is a major policy decision that deserves another look by the full
General Assembly.
House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, said he favors
passage of the regulations, but believes the new car market in Connecticut will
be dominated by electric vehicles by 2035 regardless of whether the regulations
are adopted, simply because the manufacturers will tailor their offerings to
the huge markets of California and New York.
New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts are among the states
complying with California’s advanced clean car standards.
“The shift to zero-emission vehicles is already here,”
Lamont said. “Consumers and car companies are both embracing the change, with
manufacturers significantly increasing electric vehicle sales and families
choosing to purchase those vehicles in increasing numbers. Following the
legislature’s direction and our neighboring states’ decision to adopt the
latest California emissions standards will help ensure a predictable, orderly
transition to a cleaner and healthier future.”
Ritter said the trucking industry has raised legitimate
concerns about the feasibility of shifting to zero-emission trucks by 2035. So
far, electric long-haul trucks have not proven practical. Diesel engines can be
adapted to run on clean hydrogen that would meet the new standard, but the
infrastructure for hydrogen fueling does not exist.
Dennis Lyons, who oversees the coach and tour group business
for Dattco, a New Britain bus company, said electric vehicles make sense for
its school bus business, with relatively short distances and ample time to
recharge between morning and afternoon runs.
One of its clients is requiring all-electric buses next
year. Another has shifted from buses powered by diesel to propane, which is a
fossil fuel but produces fewer emissions.
But Lyons said they are impractical for its coach business:
The distances are far too great, and the batteries are so large that the
coaches could not accommodate luggage.
Connecticut Republicans also questioned whether the electric
grid, as well as the network of charging stations, would be sufficiently robust
by 2035.
“Right now our electric grid can’t handle if every car were
electric. We don’t have the capacity,” Kelly said.
2019 to adopt a framework for modernizing the grid, though
the utilities have complained that PURA has shown little sign of approving
rates that would allow the utility companies to make the necessary massive
capital investments.
Republicans said they are wary of the cost of a shift to EVs
or what it would require in grid modernizations.
“I see it as a kind of a reverse Robin Hood, because we have
to subsidize the vehicles, we have to subsidize the grid,” said Rep. Patrick
Callahan, the ranking House Republican on the Environment Committee. “And it’s
forcing our middle and lower class to bear the brunt of the cost. And until we
have a real system where we can get cheap, clean electricity in Connecticut,
you’re simply trading tailpipe for smokestack.”
Connecticut generates about 95% of its electricity from
plants fueled by nuclear power or natural gas. It no longer burns coal.
Charles Rothenberger, a climate-and-energy lawyer with the
environmental group Save The Sound, said even in states that burn coal to
generate electricity, a switch to electric vehicles still offers a net gain in
cleaner air.
He said Republicans were engaging in fear-mongering,
especially when they suggest that gas-powered cars would disappear in 2035.
The regulations only would apply to new vehicles sold by
manufacturers and would not bar the continued use of gas vehicles or their
purchase in Connecticut. Also, plug-in hybrids, which burn gas after their
batteries are expended, are defined as zero-emission vehicles under the
California standards.
Rothenberger said the concerns raised by Republicans,
including unavailability of easy access to overnight charging by homeowners or
renters who have no off-street parking, are being addressed by the state.
The Republicans say there is no guarantee the current
planning will produce the necessary infrastructure by 2035.
Connecticut is one of 17 states that chose to adopt
California’s emission standards over the more permissive federal rules, an
option that reflects the policy initiatives of two Republican icons, former
Presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, and a time when environmental
issues crossed party lines. It is one of nine states that have either
adopted or are in the process of adopting the 2035 deadline.
Reagan was governor of California in 1967 when the state
created the California
Air Resources Board to set emission standards and curb the choking
smog generated by the state’s car culture. Nixon signed the Clean Air Act in
1970 and agreed to a provision that let California’s older rules stand and gave
other states the option of adopting them.
Former President Donald J. Trump attempted to end the
so-called California waiver.
Monroe Tractor Brings Case IH to New England
Monroe
Tractor is adding Case
IH's red equipment to Westborough and Woburn, Mass., and South Windsor,
Conn., locations.
With 72 years as a Case and Case IH dealer in New York and
Pennsylvania, Monroe Tractor has provided customers with red equipment to
handle their equipment needs. Now, it is offering its New England customers
more equipment choices with the addition of the Case IH Farmall series,
Maxxums, Vestrums, Puma 150, and round and square balers.
With horsepower ranging from 25 to 150, chores can be
tackled on everyone's to-do list, from hauling and mowing to loading and towing
and then some.
"We are proud to bring back the iconic Case IH brand to
Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Our knowledgeable staff looks forward to
helping customers get into the right size machine to fit their needs,"
said Dan Duhn Westborough / Woburn branch manager.
"We take pride in this exciting opportunity to
introduce Case IH equipment to the entire state of Connecticut and western
Massachusetts," said Rick Bisesto, Connecticut branch manager. "We
look forward to providing another line of equipment, top-notch parts and
service to our valued customers for years to come."
Monroe Tractor has 18 locations across New York State,
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont. It carries everything
from tractors, balers, skid steers, wheel loaders, backhoes, excavators,
portable screen machines, demolition attachments, precision products, and many
other fine brand names for any large or small construction site or farm. Its
late-model, low-hour construction equipment is available to purchase or rent by
the day, week or month.
"We're here to keep you working."
NYC tackles overdose deaths in construction
City agencies in New York are taking proactive measures to
address the alarming trend of overdose
deaths among construction workers, according to a New York City Department
of Buildings release.
Staff from the Health and Building departments will be
visiting construction sites to educate workers on substance abuse, the dangers
of fentanyl, proper use of naloxone for overdose prevention and overall work
site safety.
At least 269 construction workers died of an overdose in
2020, by far the most of any occupation included in the analysis, according to
the release. The initiative aims to directly provide critical information to
construction workers to enhance their safety both on and off construction
sites.
The decision to target the construction industry follows
data revealing construction workers accounted for the highest
number of overdose deaths among various occupational groups.
That mirrors national trends, as construction workers remain
particularly susceptible to fatal overdoses, according to the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control. The construction industry’s 162.6 deaths per 100,000 workers
were significantly higher than the 117.9 in food preparation and
serving-related occupations, which had the second highest rate, according to
the CDC.
“We know that an injury on the construction site is
sometimes just the first chapter of a tragedy, and along with our partners at
the Health Department we are committed to promoting the safety of our fellow
New Yorkers, both on and off the construction site,” said Jimmy Oddo, DOB
commissioner. “Through mandatory drug and alcohol awareness classes to qualify
for site safety training cards, and direct outreach on major work sites, we are
letting the industry know that help is available.”
DOB requires all construction workers on the larger and more
complex work sites in New York City to complete at least 40 hours of site
safety training courses provided by a DOB-approved training provider. The
training also requires construction workers to take a two-hour drug and alcohol
awareness class, in order to learn about the harms associated with chemical
dependence and how it may adversely affect lives.
To date, a total of 335,244 individuals in the construction
industry have taken the drug and alcohol awareness class as part of their
mandated safety training requirement. DOB will also conduct outreach to
contractors and site safety professionals in the city, asking construction
firms to include drug and alcohol safety information during morning meetings.
Hearing Turns Testy as Developers Seek Approval for 508 Apartments Along Merritt in Stamford
Angela Carella
STAMFORD – This week’s public hearing on a developer’s plan
to build multi-family housing in a largely vacant office park got testy all
around.
Residents said the developer’s representatives “browbeat”
them with false information about the effects of the 508-apartment complex
proposed for 900 Long Ridge Road, and fudged a study to make it look like the
added traffic won’t be bad.
The developer’s representatives said residents have no
facts, only opinions, and charged that the residents’ stated aim to protect the
“character” of their neighborhood may mask an ulterior intent.
Residents told Zoning Board members they should represent
the people of Stamford, not the developers. The Zoning Board chair chastised
residents for referring to apartment renters as “transients.”
And so the three-hour public hearing went. About 40
residents spoke, all of them opposed, with more watching on Zoom.
Joanne Mangione of Loughran Avenue said a complex with 508
apartments is “highly incompatible” with the neighborhood on the edge of woodsy
North Stamford.
“I moved here seven years ago with three children to live in
a quiet single-family home neighborhood where children could ride their bikes
and play ball with their friends,” Mangione said. “Please do not ruin my
family’s neighborhood. Are we only concerned about the developer making money,
and not the residents who live here?”
Miten Marvania of Maltbie Avenue addressed Rick Redniss of
Redniss & Mead, the land-use consulting company representing the developer,
Monday Properties, which wants to replace two four-story office buildings with
four buildings of similar height.
The new buildings, which will house 56 studios, 235
one-bedroom apartments, 202 two-bedrooms and 15 three-bedrooms, will be set on
36 acres just south of the Merritt Parkway. The site once was home to
Combustion Engineering and Nestle Waters, now BlueTriton Brands. Today
BlueTriton occupies one building and the other is vacant.
“I live right across the street from this project,” Marvania
said. “It takes me 30 minutes to get to the train station. … This is not about
making money. This is about people’s lives. You are not understanding what you
are doing to people’s lives.”
Looks like L.A.
In Stamford, where several thousand apartments have been
built in the last dozen years, traffic is becoming unbearable, residents said.
It’s not safe, said Martin Munitz, who lives on River Oaks
Drive, a mile from the development site. Long Ridge is a big state road, but
the neighborhood streets are the opposite, Munitz said.
The developer’s traffic study is “self-serving” because it
looks only at the volume expected to be generated by the project, Munitz said.
“We’re not talking about where else these cars are coming from and where
they’re going. We’re not talking about all the FedEx and DHL and Amazon
delivery trucks coming through these small intersections and going on these
narrow streets.”
The neighborhood “roads are becoming cut-throughs for people
trying to get where they are going,” said Human Khan of Shadow Ridge Road.
“It’s because Long Ridge is so congested. I lived in L.A. for a few years, and
this is starting to look like L.A.”
Long Ridge Road is a raceway, said Madge Kellick of Hunting
Lane, a cut-through to Wire Mill Road.
“Nobody does the speed limit on Long Ridge Road. From there,
we get tons of traffic flying through the residential streets,” Kellick said.
“I can’t get out of my driveway … what are these 508 apartments going to do to
help me get out of my house?”
Sarah Thalheim lives on Vineyard Lane, which motorists use
to avoid traffic backed up at the Merritt Parkway entrance.
“The aggressive driving reminds me of the Long Island
Expressway,” said Thalheim, a former New Yorker.
Counting car trips
Residents had many questions about the traffic study Monday
Properties commissioned from Kimley Horn, a design consulting firm. Redniss
said the firm’s report shows that the proposed development will generate about
the same number of trips as the office complex.
Residents on the Zoom meeting balked.
Patrick Kazley of Vineyard Lane said he read through the
study and found a footnote that says it is in the developer’s “vested interest”
to compare the number of trips that would be generated by the apartment complex
to what was generated when the office park was fully occupied – not the number
of trips since the offices are mostly vacant.
“Based on that, they are coming up with a number and saying
it will be the exact same traffic load,” Kazley said. “They disclosed that the
client’s commercial interest, not accuracy, drove the results of the study.”
His neighbors didn’t accept the results, either.
“I find it very challenging to think that a half-empty
office building has the same traffic as a 500-unit apartment building,” said
Julie Vasile of Vineyard Lane. “We need a completely independent company to
look at the actual traffic. I just don’t believe data from a company hired by
the developer.”
Redniss said the data is accurate and verified by the city’s
Transportation, Traffic and Parking division. It is based on an analysis by the
highly reliable Institute of Transportation Engineers, Redniss said.
But residents weren’t the only ones with questions. Morris
of the Zoning Board asked whether the data is based on actual number of trips
counted or an ITE projection. Redniss said the ITE numbers held up when they
were compared to traffic at a nearby development.
“The problem we have on the Zoning Board is that the number
can be wrong … but nobody ever wants to address that issue,’ Morris said.
“There are predictives,” Redniss said.
“I understand what you’re saying – we’re supposed to accept
that as reality. We hear, ‘Oh, we talked to [the city] and we talked to traffic
engineers and this is what it is,’” Morris said. “And then we hear from
residents.”
The ‘runaway train’
Vicki Wray of Hunting Ridge Road said residents have little
recourse other than the three minutes they are allowed to speak during the
limited public participation portions of Zoning Board meetings.
“I feel like I’ve spent this time being browbeat by Mr.
Redniss, in favor of any kind of development anywhere in Stamford,” Wray
said.
Development is “a runaway train,” said Paula Waldman of Old
North Stamford Road.
“The boards don’t listen to residents. Many can no longer
afford to live here. Condos don’t work for developers so they don’t build them.
Young people will never be able to own a home because they’re always paying
high rents,” Waldman said. “It’s baked in the cake … much of Long Ridge is
owned by a big developer, so this is just the beginning.”
The scene for the tense meeting was set two years ago, when
the Zoning Board changed the regulations to allow multi-family housing in the
city’s five office parks. They are largely vacant, so city officials have been
seeking ways to allow developers to repurpose them. The problem is that most of
them are situated along High Ridge and Long Ridge roads, surrounded by
single-family neighborhoods.
The distrust exhibited during the zoning meeting didn’t just
come from residents.
Redniss said residents “just make stuff up.” Some residents
said, for example, that 2,000 people would live in the apartment complex. In
fact, the project would have 748 bedrooms, so if 2,000 people live there, there
will be 2.7 people per bedroom, which makes no sense, Redniss said.
“It’s just amazing that we can be criticized for presenting
data verified by the city, but people can make blanket statements without
backup,” he said during the meeting. “If there’s an independent study, will
they say, ‘Oh, yeah, this is correct?’ No. They’ll think of other reasons not
to do it. … Facts don’t matter; people’s opinions matter.”
People, he said, “are not always right. That’s why this
board has listened and why most of the time housing gets approved.”
A call for decorum
Resident Maria Perez of Pepperidge Road said developers or
their representatives should not address taxpayers that way.
“It’s jarring to hear how they speak to the people of the
city,” Perez said. “We should have a say. We are educated about what we need.
We should not be spoken to like we have to be told that two plus two equals
four.”
Board member Gerry Bosak Jr. agreed.
“I really find it a little bit offensive, the sarcasm,”
Bosak said. “Members of the public are nervous, they fumble around to get their
points across in the three minutes they get to speak. It takes courage to get
on a call and talk about this. We need to encourage that. We need to be mindful
of how we represent ourselves on this board.”
The Zoning Board typically approves the large projects that
come before them. But when Chair David Stein asked board members to share their
thoughts about the Monday Properties plan, they showed they are leaning against
it.
“This is the type of building I expect to see downtown,”
Morris said. “To put it on this site is like a travesty.”
Member Rosanne McManus said she liked that the project would
use only 30 percent of the land, but “it’s not exactly what I had imagined in a
beautiful parklike setting.”
“I can’t imagine why anyone would want a studio out here,”
McManus said. “Maybe townhouses or single family homes.”
Board member Racquel Smith-Anderson agreed.
“I would like to see if the applicant could give us options
outside just apartments – if there is a pathway for home ownership,”
Smith-Anderson said.
But land-use attorney Bill Hennessey admonished the board
for thinking of their role in that way.
“It’s not appropriate for the Zoning Board to dictate the
form of ownership, condo or townhouse or co-op,” Hennessey said. “You have to
deal with the structures and the use, not the user. That’s important to
remember.”
The board also should not consider “character,” Hennessey
said. A state statute says projects cannot be rejected for incompatibility with
neighborhood character, since it has been used to discriminate against certain
populations, he said.
“The policy of the state is to create more housing, period,”
Hennessey said. “The reason housing is so expensive is because there’s such a
limitation on it and competition for it. The only solution is to provide more
product, and that’s what the statute addresses. We ask you to think long and
hard about everything you’ve heard.”
The Zoning Board did not vote on the project during the
meeting. They tabled it until after Thanksgiving. To see the schedule,
click here.