This is the eighth in a series of blog posts discussing key features of Connecticut’s new release-based cleanup regulations (the “RBCRs”), R.C.S.A. § 22a-134tt-1 et seq. 

As remediation projects are planned and performed, the big question is: “How clean is clean enough?” This post discusses remediation standards under the RBCRs, and how those standards will change from the standards in use today.

Sites being remediated under the Transfer Act must achieve compliance with the Remediation Standard Regulations or RSRs set forth at R.C.S.A. § 22a-133k-1 et seq. The RSRs set forth the concentrations of various substances that are permitted to be present in soil and groundwater. 

These standards vary depending on context. For example, at a site that is limited to industrial or commercial use, soil contamination is permitted at higher levels than would be the case for a site that might be in residential use. This is because soil standards are set based on exposure assumptions, and a child playing in the yard would have greater exposure to soil than an adult at work. Similarly, when a site has groundwater that is used or may be used as drinking water, the standards are more stringent than when the groundwater has already been deemed not suitable for drinking.

The RSRs also provide a number of pathways to compliance that serve as alternatives to achieving the numerical standards set forth in the regulations. For example, soil that is contaminated above the numerical criteria is permitted to remain in place, subject to a restriction recorded on the land records called an environmental use restriction (or EUR), when it is under a building and therefore protected from human exposure and movement caused by rain.

These familiar features of the RSRs will remain in place after March 1, 2026. In fact, substantially all of the text of the RSRs will be moved from where it currently resides in R.C.S.A. § 22a-133k-1 et seq. to the new RBCRs at R.C.S.A. § 22a-133tt-1 et seq. The existing RSR sections will be replaced with a cross-reference to the new location in the RBCRs where substantially the same text will reside.  In other words, sites being remediated under the Transfer Act, and releases being remediated under the RBCRs, will be working toward the same set of standards.

Changes to Remediation Standards and Approaches

There are a few changes being made to the remediation standards as we transition from the RSRs to the RBCRs. In addition to the familiar residential and commercial/industrial categories, the RBCRs provide numerical soil standards for two new land use categories:

  • Managed Multifamily: The managed multifamily criteria will be available for parcels with 4 or more dwelling units, provided such dwelling units are managed by an association or a professional property management company. The idea is that such a professional management company can provide rules (like no vegetable gardening for example), intended to keep people safe from residual soil contamination.
  • Passive Recreation: The passive recreation criteria apply to sites subject to an environmental use restriction or conservation easement prohibiting any residential use except passive recreation. Currently, recreation is considered to be a residential activity. Therefore, a property traversed by a bike trail would not be eligible for industrial/commercial standards, because the bike trail would be said to constitute a residential use. Passive recreation is recreation that uses trails or roads for activities such as running, hiking, biking, and horseback riding. Use of specific areas for a sustained period of time, like sports fields and beaches, are not considered passive recreation. Once again, the idea is that these sorts of low-touch activities are less risky than true residential use of property. 

The RBCRs also provide a streamlined process for allowing certain impacted soil to remain in place if it is inaccessible under a building, or a concrete or asphalt surface. If specified criteria are met, such soil can remain in place provided the property owner maintains the covering in good condition, regularly inspects it, provides reports on its maintenance, and properly manages soil that might be exposed during a maintenance activity. An affidavit explaining the situation must be recorded on the land records, but this is expected to be a simpler process than the process required to secure an environmental use restriction. A similar streamlined pathway is available to allow on-site management of historically impacted material, i.e., soil that has been historically intermixed with coal ash, wood ash, coal fragments, coal slag, coal clinkers, or asphalt paving fragments.

With that context, we can clear up a common source of confusion. Many have wondered if the RBCRs are applicable to Transfer Act sites. While certain provisions of the RBCRs are not applicable to Transfer Act sites (like reporting and tiering), the remediation standards of the RBCRs, including the new provisions, are applicable to Transfer Act sites.

In our next posts, we will discuss closure documentation.

On December 5, 2025, Craig J. Pritzlaff, Acting Assistant Administrator of the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), issued an internal memorandum instituting a “Compliance First” approach, immediately effective for all civil enforcement and compliance activities. This memo claims to introduce a policy shift: prioritizing timely and effective compliance over punitive enforcement and expansive regulatory interpretations. EPA’s goal is clear, swift, and efficient compliance, achieved by the “clearest, most defensible interpretations of our statutory and regulatory mandates.”

Key Elements of the “Compliance First” Policy

  1. Compliance Assistance Toolkit
    Enforcement is not the only tool. Proactive outreach, technical assistance, voluntary audits, and self-reporting are highlighted as means to encourage regulated entities to “find and fix” issues before enforcement becomes necessary.
  2. State and Tribal Coordination
    The EPA is committed to deferential, collaborative engagement with authorized states and tribes. Civil enforcement activities will avoid duplication and promote consistency by coordinating closely with local agencies, providing them with technical support, and ensuring states lead where they have primary jurisdiction.
  3. Transparent Communication and “No Surprises”
    Open, transparent dialogue is mandated throughout inspections and enforcement. The EPA pledges a “no surprises” approach and wants regulated entities to proactively identify and address potential compliance issues, building trust, and avoiding unexpected enforcement escalation.
  4. Clarity and Legal Precision in Findings
    Findings of violation must be “clear and unambiguous” and based on the “best reading” of statutes and regulations. Expansive or creative interpretations that create uncertainty or deviate from precedent are expressly rejected, especially in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. Material legal ambiguities must be elevated to national EPA leadership for resolution, ensuring consistent application across regions.
  5. Timely and Efficient Compliance
    EPA staff are directed to focus on rapid resolution of violations, with compliance – not punishment – as the North Star. Prolonged or punitive strategies are deemphasized to avoid delaying environmental protection and economic operations. Formal enforcement and injunctive relief (such as administrative or judicial action) will be used only when informal or compliance assistance measures are insufficient or in emergencies. Remedies must be narrowly tailored, directly tied to specific violations, and based on clear legal requirements. EPA’s April 26, 2021 memorandum (Using All Appropriate Injunctive Relief Tools in Civil Enforcement Settlements), which focused on expansive injunctive measures and supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), is also rescinded, pending new guidance. OECA Assistant Administrator approval is required for non-standard remedies like third-party audits.
  6. Reasoned, Transparent Decisions Using LEAPS
    The memo introduces the LEAPS framework for enforcement decisions:
    • Law: Use the clearest statutory/regulatory interpretation;
    • Evidence: Rely on solid, unequivocal facts;
    • Analysis: Apply logic and connect facts with law;
    • Programmatic Impact: Consider effects on EPA programs; and
    • Stakeholder Impact: Assess how actions affect states, tribes, and regulated entities

The memo states that EPA is aiming for transparent, reasoned decisions anchored in LEAPS to make enforcement predictable and defensible.

Practical Implications for the Regulated Community

  • Potential for more opportunities for rapid, voluntary compliance and proactive technical assistance.
  • Legal disputes over novel or ambiguous regulatory interpretations should be elevated to national leadership, potentially providing regulated entities with a new escalation pathway.
  • Formal remedies such as SEPs and wide-ranging monitoring should be restricted, and enforcement actions should now be both more predictable and tied tightly to statutory requirements.
  • EPA will soon issue a single guidance document to harmonize enforcement practices agency-wide, offering more clarity and consistency for regulated parties.

Final Thoughts

While this “new” policy shares similarities with prior EPA enforcement guidance and does not create legally binding rights, the intent appears to portray a shift in EPA enforcement philosophy to prioritizing clarity, efficiency, and cooperation over adversarial posturing or creative statutory interpretations. While it is too early to know what practical implications this will have for enforcement actions, EPA’s memo is a helpful reminder for regulated entities to review their compliance programs, prepare for inspections, and document legal positions carefully to align with the “best reading” standard now embedded in EPA practice.

On December 8, 2025, a Massachusetts federal court ruled that the Trump administration’s ban on permit application review for offshore and onshore wind projects was illegal.  While the ruling will not necessarily result in the issuance of new permits, it lifts the moratorium on review and processing of applications. In May 2025, a coalition of 17 states, the District of Columbia, and the Alliance for Clean Energy filed suit in federal court to overturn an executive order announced in the early days of the administration that placed all federal permitting of wind projects on hold. In granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, Judge Patti Saris agreed that the executive order was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). 

The administration had argued both that the executive order was a lawful action within the President’s authority to set energy policy and the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The court was not persuaded.  Defendants overcame the administration’s standing challenge by providing adequate evidence of ongoing or imminent injuries due to the moratorium, including project delays and the states’ inability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With a “scant” administrative record to review, Judge Saris then determined that because “the sole factor the defendants considered in deciding to stop issuing permits was the president’s direction to do so,” the Government had not reasonably considered all relevant issues or reasonably explained its decision, as required by the APA. The administration may appeal the decision.

Even if the ruling withstands a challenge, it will not result in fast tracking or green-lighting new permit applications. While the administration can no longer decline to consider wind projects pursuant to the executive order, nothing compels federal agencies to approve them.

This is the seventh in a series of blog posts discussing key features of Connecticut’s new release-based cleanup regulations (the “RBCRs”), R.C.S.A. § 22a-134tt-1 et seq. 

Under the Transfer Act, the majority of site remediation efforts are led by licensed environmental professionals (LEPs).  For a minority of sites with especially serious contamination, remediation efforts are subject to direct oversight by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP).  This same basic framework continues under the RBCRs, with the majority of release remediation efforts led by LEPs. This post discusses how different releases are assigned to different “tiers” of oversight, and the impact of such tier assignment.

Some releases discovered and addressed under the RBCRs will be resolved in less than one year. For certain new releases and especially serious existing releases (called “significant existing releases” in the RBCRs) immediate actions are required as discussed in a prior post, and these immediate actions may be enough to completely resolve the release. Other releases will be closed within a year, even if not required, thanks to a straightforward remedial approach. 

If a release has not been closed within one year after occurrence or discovery, the RBCRs provide that it must be assigned to an oversight “tier” based on the risks posed by the release. This applies to both existing releases and new releases. As discussed below, the tier to which a release is assigned controls the oversight, deadlines, and fees associated with a release.

Tiers

In order to assign a release to a tier, an LEP must complete the Tier Checklist Form provided in the appendix to the RBCRs. This Tier Checklist Form must be completed within one year after the occurrence or discovery of the release. Tiers are assigned as follows:

  • Tier 1A: Releases that pose the highest risk and/or are poorly understood. If tier characterization (discussed in the last post) has not been completed, or if required immediate actions have not been completed, then the release is assigned to Tier 1A. Releases are also assigned to Tier 1A if receptors are not known and documented through completion of a scoping level ecological risk assessment, a drinking water receptor survey, and a vapor intrusion survey.
  • Tier 1B: Releases that are better understood than Tier 1A but still higher risk than other releases. These include releases that involve a groundwater plume migrating off the source parcel, releases for which a vapor intrusion pathway is present, and releases for which a drinking water receptor pathway is present. Even if none of the above conditions is true, a release is categorized as Tier 1B until a remedial action plan has been prepared.
  • Tier 2: Releases that pose a lower degree of risk than Tiers 1A and 1B but for which additional remediation is required. For example, Tier 2 releases are those that do not fall within Tiers 1A and 1B but still require soil remediation or the elimination of exposure pathways.
  • Tier 3: Releases for which groundwater is being addressed through monitored natural attenuation and no additional active work is required.

Impact of Tier Assignment

Releases assigned to Tiers 1B through 3 will be managed by an LEP much the way the majority of Transfer Act remediation projects are managed now. Tier 1A releases will be subject to direct oversight by DEEP, like a relatively small proportion of Transfer Act sites today require DEEP to approve the remediation.

Different tiers of releases are subject to differing fees.

 Initial fee (due on tier assignment)Annual fee (due one year after tier assignment and annually thereafter)
Tier 1A$3000$3000 + ($300 x number of years since tier assignment)
Tier 1B$1500$1500 + ($150 x number of years since tier assignment)
Tier 2$1000$1000 + ($100 x number of years since tier assignment)
Tier 3$500$50 + ($5 x number of years since tier assignment)

As set forth in the RBCRs, the annual fee increases by 10% of the base fee amount for every year that has passed since initial tier assignment (i.e., when the Tier Checklist Form is submitted for the first time). In other words, a Tier 3 release would be subject to an annual fee of $70 four years after tier assignment.

Different tiers are also subject to different deadlines:

  • Tier 1A: Within one year after initial tier assignment, Tier 1A releases must either be closed or assigned to a lower-risk tier (i.e., Tiers 1B, 2 or 3).
  • Tier 1B: Within two years after initial tier assignment, Tier 1B releases must either be closed or assigned to a lower-risk tier.
  • Tier 2: Within four years after initial tier assignment, Tier 2 releases must either be closed or assigned to Tier 3.
  • Tier 3: Must be closed within five years after initial tier assignment.

The RBCRs provide that single one-year extensions may be requested for releases in Tiers 1A, 1B and 2. For Tier 3 releases, five-year extensions may be requested and approved as long as the groundwater plume remains in a diminishing state that is naturally attenuating consistent with the conceptual site model.

In our next posts, we will discuss remediation standards and closure documentation.

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has been busy reissuing its suite of general permits (GPs) for wastewater and stormwater discharges. In October, DEEP reissued the Commercial Stormwater General Permit, Industrial Stormwater General Permit, and Pretreatment General Permits for Significant Industrial Users and Non-Significant Industrial Users. Below are highlights of significant changes to each reissued GP, as well as important compliance deadlines and considerations for regulated entities.

1. The Commercial Stormwater General Permit (CSGP) covers commercial sites with 5 or more acres of contiguous impervious surface, including shopping centers, business parks, schools, retail complexes, car dealerships, and financial and health services with large campuses. The reissued CSGP includes the following notable changes:

    • Expanded Industry Coverage: The new CSGP uses an updated definition of “Commercial Activities” referencing Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and capturing a broader range of commercial activities than the previous permit. Businesses should review Appendix A of the CSGP to determine if their SIC/NAICS code is listed.
    • New Registration Requirements: Online registration through a yet-to-be-announced platform; $625 fee.
    • Stormwater Management Plan: Required for all registrants, with expanded control measures and annual analytical plus quarterly visual monitoring.
    • Other Updates: Updated control measure requirements including new measures on deicing practices, spill prevention and cleanup, and lawn and garden center Best Management Practices. New quarterly visual monitoring and annual analytical monitoring of 19 parameters to better assess water quality impacts.
    • Deadlines: Registration opens December 1, 2025. Existing permittees must register by April 1, 2026. Existing sites without permit coverage (not previously registered) must register by December 1, 2026. New sites must apply at least 60 days before beginning discharge.
    • Potential Compliance Traps: Many facilities not previously regulated (e.g., large retail, educational campuses) may now be required to register. Failure to review the new SIC/NAICS applicability could result in unintentional noncompliance.

    2. The Industrial Stormwater General Permit(IGP) covers industrial facilities, as defined by SIC/NAICS codes in Appendix A to the IGP, that discharge stormwater to waters of the state. Industrial facilities should check their SIC/NAICS code against Appendix A to the IGP. The reissued IGP includes the following notable changes:

    • Alignment with EPA’s 2021 MSGP: Incorporates new “Resilience Measure” requirements in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) tracking the federal government’s Multi Sector General Permit.
    • Corrective Actions Framework: New requirements for documenting and implementing corrective actions.
    • Annual Reports: Now required each April for the prior calendar year.
    • Electronic Reporting: Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) must be submitted via NetDMR; online noncompliance reporting is now mandatory.
    • Registration Fees: $1,250 for larger companies; $625 for smaller companies, federal, state and municipal-operated industrial activities
    • Signage: Facilities must post a sign indicating permit coverage.
    • Deadlines: Registration opens November 1, 2025. Existing permittees must register by April 1, 2026. New sites must register at least 90 days before discharge.
    • Potential Compliance Traps: If stormwater contacts industrial materials, activities, or operations, it is likely that the facility needs coverage. If all industrial facilities are fully sheltered and qualify under related DEEP rules, such facilities may qualify for a No Exposure Certification. In addition, the expanded monitoring, reporting, and corrective action requirements are more rigorous. Facilities must update SWPPPs and ensure timely electronic submissions to avoid enforcement.

    3. DEEP also reissued two Pretreatment General Permits for Significant Industrial Users (SIU GP) and Non-Significant Industrial Users (Non-SIU GP). The SIU GP covers indirect discharges from significant industrial users (SIUs), including metal finishing, process, and non-process wastewaters, as well as dewatering and remediation wastewaters to sanitary sewers. The Non-SIU GP covers non-significant industrial users (Non-SIUs) not subject to federal categorical standards. DEEP issued a Pretreatment Permit Decision Chart to aid entities in determining which pretreatment permit may be applicable. The reissued Pretreatment GPs include the following notable changes:

    • Updated Definitions: Flow thresholds now based on average monthly flow (≥25,000 gpd of all process wastewater for SIUs).
    • Expanded Coverage: Dewatering and remediation discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) are now included in the SIU GP.
    • Application Fees: For SIU GP, between $1,000 and $6,250 depending on the discharge type. For the Non-SIU GP, there is no DEEP fee but the POTWs reserve the right to collect fees associated with initial submission of a Notification Form.
    • Effluent Limits: New limits for mercury, PFAS, pH, temperature, and PCBs. Facilities may need to invest in new treatment or monitoring technologies to meet these limits.
    • Streamlined Process: Certification of No Change is a registration option for existing permittees; Non-SIU GP registration is notification-only.
    • Deadlines: Registration opens December 1, 2025. Existing SIUs and Non-SIUs must register by March 1, 2026. New SIUs must register at least 180 days prior to discharge. New Non-SIUs must submit a Notification Form at least 60 days prior to discharge.
    • Potential Compliance Trap: The removal of Qualified Professional Engineer (QPE) and Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) certification requirements is intended to streamline the process, but new effluent limits (especially for PFAS and mercury) may require operational changes.

    Important Considerations and Practical Tips

    The reissued GPs bring significant changes and expanded coverage to stormwater and pretreatment permit requirements. Regulated entities should carefully review the reissued GPs to determine if their activities are subject to permitting registration and compliance requirements, including electronic registration, updated reporting requirements, application fees, and expanded monitoring, BMPs, and corrective action requirements. Facilities should review and update their plans (e.g., SWPPP, SMP, SPCP) and train staff accordingly. Existing permittees must pay close attention to registration deadlines to maintain interim coverage.

    DEEP has also made it abundantly clear that, in an effort to increase permit processing timelines, incomplete applications will be rejected and a new application, with a new fee, will need to be submitted. DEEP has shared that the most common reasons for incomplete applications in the past were missing or improperly signed Registrant Certification and missing or incomplete sampling data.

    Robinson+Cole’s Environmental group will continue to monitor developments and provide updates concerning DEEP’s general permit and other discharge permitting requirements for stormwater and wastewaters.

    On November 20, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army published their proposed rule to revise the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Following more than a decade of litigation and WOTUS “repeal and replace” rulemaking, the current administration promotes this proposal as fully implementing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the “significant nexus” test that extended WOTUS status to wetlands and other features if they were found by the agencies or courts to significantly affect the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of traditional navigable waters.

    The proposed rule would establish a narrower scope of federal CWA jurisdiction through several revisions.

    • Actually Navigable and “Relatively Permanent” Water Bodies: Beyond traditionally navigable waters like rivers, lakes, and oceans, WOTUS jurisdiction would only extend to other tributaries, lakes, and ponds if they are standing or continuously flowing surface waters year-round or at least during a wet season.
    • Adjacent Wetlands: WOTUS wetlands would be limited to those abutting (touching) such jurisdictional waters and having continuous surface connections at least during their wet seasons.
    • Interstate Waters: Water features that simply cross state lines would no longer automatically qualify as WOTUS.
    • Clarify Exclusions: The definitions of excluded items such as ditches, prior converted cropland, and waste treatment systems would be clarified. Groundwater would be added to the expressly excluded features.
    • New Definitions: Other important terms like “tributary,” “continuous surface connection,” and “relatively permanent” would be newly defined.

    Recent Guidance and Historical Context

    This proposal follows a series of regulatory and judicial developments, including:

    • March 2025 Guidance: The EPA and the Army Corps issued field guidance on implementing the “continuous surface connection” standard post-Sackett.
    • 2023 Conforming Rule: After Sackett, the agencies amended the January 2023 WOTUS rule to remove the “significant nexus” test and align with the Court’s interpretation.
    • Prior Swings: The WOTUS definition has shifted over the course of multiple administrations – from the Obama administration’s 2015 Clean Water Rule, to the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule issued during President Trump’s first term, and finally to the Biden-era revisions adopted in 2023.

    Why It Matters

    The definition of WOTUS determines which waters are subject to federal permitting and enforcement under the CWA, including:

    • Section 402 “NPDES” permits required for the point source discharge of pollutants, including certain stormwater discharges;
    • Section 404 “dredge and fill” permits required for construction and other activities disturbing wetlands; and
    • Section 311 oil spill prevention and response requirements.

    What’s Next

    Expect robust public engagement and continued litigation as this rule moves forward. While EPA and the Army Corps now have the Supreme Court’s direction thanks to Sackett, technical and legal disputes will inevitably arise. The agencies acknowledge that this proposed WOTUS definition would result in significant reductions to the WOTUS features subject to CWA permitting, though they have declined to quantify those ecological and regulatory impacts at this time.

    The focus of the interpretive debate will likely shift to the revised rule’s new standard, “at least during the wet season,” serving as the temporal test that would be required for “relatively permanent” standing or continuously flowing surface water. Though undefined, the agencies indicate that they intend this season to include each extended period when a geographic feature has predictable, continuous surface hydrology, year after year, except for any periods of extreme drought.

    Stakeholders should review the EPA’s proposed rule and fact sheets, take advantage of the agencies’ virtual meetings and other public outreach efforts, and consider submitting comments during the open period ending January 5, 2026. Robinson+Cole’s Environmental Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and provide updates concerning these and other CWA programs.

    This is the sixth in a series of blog posts discussing key features of Connecticut’s new release-based cleanup regulations (the “RBCRs”), R.C.S.A. § 22a-134tt-1 et seq. 

    The RBCRs require that, following discovery of a release, the “nature and extent of the release must be determined” so an appropriate remediation strategy can be designed and the release can be closed. This process, called “characterization,” is explained in this blog post and the companion Release Report video. 

    Characterization is required for both new and existing releases. The last few posts in this series have discussed old and new releases separately: the second and third posts in this series discussed discovery and reporting of old or existing releases, and the fourth and fifth posts in the series discussed reporting of new releases and immediate actions in response to new releases and especially serious existing releases. This post, and those posts that follow in the series, will apply to both new and existing releases.

    Characterization Process

    Characterization requires the development of a conceptual site model, defined by the RBCRs as a three-dimensional representation “of environmental conditions at a release area that is developed through a multi-phased investigative approach” validated by facts and observations. Information relevant to the development of a conceptual site model includes historical information, physical setting (e.g., site topography and geology), chemical properties of the substance(s) discovered, receptor pathways and potential receptors (e.g., water supply wells and occupied buildings), and sampling results. Development of a conceptual site model is a technical and fact-specific endeavor that requires the expertise of a licensed environmental professional (LEP).

    The RBCRs specify that characterization must be accomplished in accordance with “prevailing standards and guidelines.” Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has released a draft “Release Characterization Guidance” which might be updated before the effective date of the RBCRs (and will be updated at DEEP’s discretion thereafter). The Release Characterization Guidance Document has many similarities with the familiar Site Characterization Guidance Document that outlines the prevailing standards and guidelines for characterizing Transfer Act sites. 

    The titles of the documents highlight an important difference in approach: the Site Characterization Guidance Document applies to the characterization of sites as a whole under the Transfer Act, while the Release Characterization Guidance reflects the release-by-release approach of the RBCRs. In contrast to the Transfer Act, the RBCRs do not require site-wide investigation.  Note that sites already in the Transfer Act as of March 1, 2026, must still complete site-wide investigation.

    Characterization Milestones

    Characterization is by nature an iterative process. A Phase I site assessment or other set of visual observations can identify an area where a release may have occurred. A Phase II or other limited subsurface investigation can answer the question of whether a release has in fact occurred, and further sampling (e.g., in a Phase III) can delineate the vertical and areal extent of the contamination. Characterization begins when a release is first suspected, discovered or witnessed and it may not end until multiple rounds of sampling are complete.

    That said, the RBCRs set forth two important characterization milestones:

    Tier Characterization: A release that takes one year or more to remediate is assigned to a risk-based tier that determines the level of oversight applicable to the remediation process. These oversight tiers will be discussed in the next post. To assign a release to the appropriate oversight tier, “tier characterization” must be completed within the first year after the discovery or occurrence of the release. 

    Tier characterization requires that contamination be delineated to identify the extent of each substance present at more than 50 percent of the applicable cleanup standard (or to the laboratory reporting limit if that is higher). Pesticides must be characterized only to the extent necessary to determine if they are present due to the application of pesticides for their intended purpose (rather than an accidental spill). A streamlined characterization approach is also available for polluted fill, as will be discussed in a future post.

    Closure Characterization: A release cannot be closed under the RBCRs until closure characterization is complete. Closure characterization requires that the horizontal and vertical extent of a release be delineated to the point that such release is no longer detected, or that the extent of the release has otherwise been determined in a manner consistent with prevailing standards and guidelines.

    Once a release has been characterized, the remediation program can be planned and carried out. Remediation and closure under the RBCRs will be discussed in forthcoming posts. In our next post, we will discuss the oversight tiers assigned after the tier characterization process. 

    The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has issued a new general permit for remediation contractors, known as the General Permit to Act as a Contractor to Contain or Remove or Otherwise Mitigate the Effects of Certain Releases (Registered Existing Release Response Contractor) (Remediation GP). This new Remediation GP supplements the well-established spill response contractor program under Connecticut General Statutes § 22a-454 and addresses a source of ongoing confusion for remediation professionals.

    By statute, a permit is required for any person engaged in the business of “collecting, storing or treating waste oil or petroleum or chemical liquids or hazardous wastes or of acting as a contractor to contain or remove or otherwise mitigate the effects of discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of such substance or material or waste…” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-454(a). 

    For many years, DEEP has maintained an individual permit program under § 454 covering emergency spill response contractors. Remediation contractors (i.e., those who physically remove impacted soil during a remediation project) have not necessarily held such spill response permits. Because spill response contractors respond to emergencies, there are several requirements (e.g., 24-hour availability, access to boats, and specialized equipment) relevant to emergency spill response that are not relevant to remediation of pre-existing soil contamination.  In recent years, however, DEEP has increasingly taken the position that the remediation of pre-existing soil contamination requires a spill response permit. Given the mismatch between the spill response permit requirement and the soil remediation business, the spill response permit was not a comfortable fit for soil remediation contractors.

    The new Remediation GP is intended to bridge the gap between the requirements applicable to spill response contractors and the reality of soil remediation projects. Registrants under the Remediation GP are permitted to contain, remove, or otherwise mitigate pre-existing contamination of soil (including saturated soil below the groundwater table) with waste oil, petroleum, chemical liquids, and/or hazardous waste at sites being investigated or remediated under specified statutory and regulatory programs including:

    • State Brownfields Programs:
      • Brownfield Liability Relief Program (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 32-764)
      • Abandoned Brownfields Program (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 32-768)
      • Brownfield Remediation and Revitalization Program (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 32-769)
      • Municipal Brownfield Liability Relief Program (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-133ii)
      • Voluntary Remediation Programs (Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 22a-133x, 22a-133y);
    • The Transfer Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-134 et seq.)
    • After March 1, 2026, the Release-Based Cleanup Regulations (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a- 134tt et seq.; Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (R.C.S.A.) § 22a-134tt-1 et seq.); and
    • The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERLCA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., commonly known as “Superfund”), though as discussed below, new releases reportable under CERCLA are not eligible.

    Such soil remediation must be conducted under the supervision of a licensed environmental professional (LEP) in regular communication with the registrant, though a LEP does not needto be physically present for the duration of the work. Such soil remediation must also be performed in compliance with safety regulations and by personnel using appropriate personal protective equipment.

    Registrants under the Remediation GP are not permitted to address the following types of releases regulated under the:

    • Connecticut Release Reporting Regulations (R.C.S.A. § 22a-450-1 et seq.), which relate to reporting of present-day emergent releases;
    • Federal Release Reporting Regulations (CERCLA or the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 11001 et seq.);
    • Connecticut Underground Storage Tank Regulations (R.C.S.A. § 22a-449(d)-1 et seq.);
    • Permits issued under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-449(b) to construct and operate a marine terminal; and
    • Federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S. Code § 2601 et seq.), i.e., certain releases containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

    Any release subject to one of the above programs must be addressed by a spill response contractor holding an individual permit under General Statutes § 22a-454. In addition, registrants may not contain, remove, or otherwise mitigate releases from surface water or groundwater, as such activities also require a spill response permit. The Remediation GP specifies, however, that installation, operation, and maintenance of in situ remediation systems (e.g., groundwater pump-and-treat, air sparging) do not require a permit.

    As noted above, the new Remediation GP is relevant to activities undertaken in connection with Connecticut’s new Release-Based Cleanup Program, which will go into effect a few short months from now on March 1, 2026. A number of recent and forthcoming posts on this blog discuss in detail various important aspects and considerations related to the new Release-Based Cleanup Program and associated regulations.

    This is the fifth in a series of blog posts discussing key features of Connecticut’s new release-based cleanup regulations (the “RBCRs”), R.C.S.A. § 22a-134tt-1 et seq. 

    The last post in the RBCR series discussed reporting of new releases under Connecticut’s March 2022 spill regulations. This post discusses immediate response actions required for new releases (and especially serious existing releases) under the RBCRs.   

    Spill Response Today

    As previously discussed, the spill regulations at R.C.S.A. 22a-450-1 et seq., provide reporting requirements for new releases. They also require responsible parties to “act immediately to contain and remove or otherwise properly mitigate such release” to DEEP’s satisfaction “using properly trained personnel.” Some facilities employ in-house personnel properly trained to respond to some releases. Anyone in the business of responding to such releases must hold a spill response contractor permit under Conn. Gen. Stat. §22a-450.

    When DEEP personnel and spill response contractors respond to the location of a release, they take immediate action to contain or remove the material released. Once this immediate emergency condition has been corrected, the release is marked “closed” in DEEP’s spill incident database. That said, such release may not have been investigated and remediated to the same standards as existing releases, and compliance with remediation standards may not have been achieved. One of the most significant changes being implemented through the RBCRs is to integrate the characterization, remediation, and closure process for both old and new releases.

    Immediate Actions Under RBCRs

    The RBCRs provide new requirements for actions that must be taken in the immediate wake of a spill (called an “emergent reportable release” or “ERR” under the RBCRs). These requirements also apply to the discovery of a “significant existing release” or “SER,” i.e., an especially serious existing release like a contaminated drinking water well. Significant existing releases are discussed in more detail in the third post in this series.)

    Immediate actions must begin upon discovery of the emergent reportable release or significant existing release, and no later than two hours after discovery. For ERRs, such required actions include removing the release from the land and waters of the state “to the maximum extent practicable” and removing the release from improved surfaces like pavement and concrete. For SERs, it may not be possible to remove the material released right away (as it may have spread over time) and necessary actions will depend upon the site-specific and material-specific circumstances. For both SERs and ERRs, the responsible party must implement measures to prevent migration of the release (e.g., placement of barriers) and must identify and eliminate the source of the release. The RBCRs also provide specific actions that must be taken in specific circumstances. (For example, an alternate water supply must be provided when a drinking water well has been contaminated.)

    Closure and/or Longer-Term Remediation

    Some emergent reportable releases to improved surfaces (like an asphalt road) can quickly be cleaned up, and some emergent reportable releases to soil can quickly be addressed by excavating impacted soil before the release has an opportunity to spread. For these types of releases, the required closure documentation can be prepared by a new class of environmental professionals, the Permitted Environmental Professional or “PEP.” It is expected that PEPs may include some of the same people and businesses presently permitted as spill response contractors. Training and licensing materials for PEPs are still under development, and more information will be shared when it is available. 

    Other releases that cannot be closed by a PEP will be addressed by the existing cohort of Licensed Environmental Professionals or “LEPs.”

    Next Steps

    When an ERR or SER cannot be fully remediated within one year (for example, because it has impacted groundwater), it will be characterized and remediated under the process set forth in the RBCRs. Those characterization and remediation steps will be discussed in future posts.

    This is the fourth in a series of blog posts discussing key features of Connecticut’s new release-based cleanup regulations (the “RBCRs”), R.C.S.A. § 22a-134tt-1 et seq. 

    The new RBCRs set forth requirements for the characterization, remediation, and closure of both old and new releases. The last few posts in this RBCR overview series have related to the discovery and reporting of old or existing releases. This post provides a refresher of the spill regulations that went into effect in March of 2022 (R.C.S.A. § 22a-450-1 et seq.), as those spill regulations provide the requirements for reporting new releases.

    Reporting New Releases

    By statute, the person responsible for a vessel, vehicle or site which experiences the “discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of oil or petroleum or chemical liquids or solid, liquid or gaseous products, or hazardous wastes” which pose “a potential threat to human health or the environment” must immediately report the release to DEEP. Regulations went into effect in March of 2022 that set forth the specific parameters regarding such reporting.

    The reporting thresholds depend upon the material that has been released. A release must be reported if it involves five or more gallons of petroleum, or one and a half gallons or ten pounds of a material other than oil or petroleum. Releases below these thresholds also are reportable unless the release has been contained and removed, or otherwise properly mitigated, within two hours after discovery.

    Certain releases are always reportable, regardless of the quantity released. These include:

    • A release that enters a wetland, waterway, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, or catch basin;
    • A release from an underground storage tank;
    • A release of unknown material;
    • A release of material that contains PCBs or PFAS; and
    • A release of material that contains a listed extremely hazardous substance.

    Other types of releases are exempt from reporting. These include:

    • A release authorized by law, regulation, or permit;
    • A release from a consumer or industrial product being used as intended (for example, VOCs released from paint as it dries); and
    • Pesticides and fertilizers applied in a manner consistent with their labels.

    DEEP’s website provides reporting instructions. The first step is a call to DEEP’s 24-hour emergency phone line (1-866-DEP-SPIL/1-866-337-7745).

    Applicability of the RBCRs

    The spill regulations focus on reporting, and the RBCRs provide detailed requirements setting forth what must be done after a new release is reported, as we will discuss in the next post. That said, not all releases reportable under the spill regulations are subject to the RBCRs.

    The RBCRs apply to releases to the land and waters of the state, but not all reportable spills reach the land and waters of the state. The RBCRs provide that the following types of reportable releases are not subject to the RBCRs:

    • A release to the air;
    • A release to secondary containment, when the release does not contact soil;
    • A release indoors, provided that it does not come into contact with soil and substantially all of the material released is removed from any surface to which it was released no more than two hours after discovery.  For example, suppose a grocery store mishap results in several gallons of dish soap being spilled on the linoleum floor.  Such a release would be reportable but would not require documentation under the RBCRs if it is cleaned up within two hours.

    Next Steps

    After a new release is reported, certain immediate response actions are required, as we will discuss in our next post. Any contamination still present after the immediate response actions are completed must be characterized and remediated through the same process applicable to existing releases. These characterization and remediation requirements will be covered in future posts.