Rosalyn Liss et al. v. Milford Partners, Inc. et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

I

The fifty-seven plaintiffs ¹ are current or former owners of various units at Caswell Cove Condominium, a forty-one acre parcel of land at the end of BIC Drive in Milford that fronts the Housatonic River.   The property is located at the intersection of Oronoque Road and Caswell Street and is bordered on the west by Caswell Cove and the Housatonic River and on the east by the defendant, BIC Corporation (BIC), although railroad tracks separate the properties.   A number of corporate entities including BIC and the former defendants, Jordan Realty, LLC (Jordan Realty), Northeast Electronics Corporation (Northeast Electronics), Gas Equipment Engineering Corp. (Gas Equipment), DJJ Corporation (DJJ) and Milford Power Co., LLC (Milford Power),² are located in the area.

The complex was developed in two phases.   The first phase consists of fifty-five units that were built on or about September 1987, by the former defendants, Meadow, Inc., doing business as Milford River Associates, LLC, and Danvers, Inc., doing business as Milford Rivers Associates, LLC (collectively, Milford River Associates).   The second phase expanded the development to the current 211 units, in March 1992, by the former defendant, Milford Partners, Inc., which acquired title to the property as a result of a foreclosure of Milford River Associates' mortgage.   The condominium complex now contains eleven buildings:  phase one consists of buildings 100, 200, 300 and 400 and phase two consists of buildings 500, 600, 700, 800, 1100, 1200 and 1400.   The buildings are known by their street addresses of Popes Island Road and Windward Road.

The plaintiffs allege a diminution of property value as a result of the presence of trichloroethylene (TCE) ³ vapors in the basements of some of the condominium buildings.   The plaintiffs maintain that the TCE volatilized from the polluted groundwater in and through the soil and then through cracks or joints in the foundations into the basements.   Initially, the plaintiffs sued individuals, mainly the original developers, and corporate entities asserting that groundwater pollution, either known ⁴ or caused by the various defendants and not disclosed to the plaintiffs, has caused and continues to cause property damage and financial loss.   The plaintiffs allege negligence, nuisance, trespass and violation of the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act of 1971 (CEPA), General Statutes § 22a–14 et seq.⁵

A trial in this matter was held throughout November 2010.   Subsequently, the parties submitted post-trial briefs and memoranda in reply.   Notwithstanding the different elements of each cause of action all require causation ⁶ and this court addresses that component first.

II

A.

In the late summer of 2003, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) began testing the area around the Milford Power site after receiving a complaint of illness due to exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs).   The DEP ordered BIC, Northeast Electronics, Gas Equipment, along with Milford Power and Jordan Realty, to investigate soil and ground water to determine whether they were a source of VOC contamination.⁷  On September 18, 2003, the DEP took water samples at 75 Caswell Street ⁸ revealing trichloroethene ⁹ at 18 micrograms per liter (ug/L) ¹⁰ which was in excess of the then drinking water action level of 5 ug/L established by the state Department of Public Health (DPH).  A groundwater sample collected on September 22, 2003 at Gas Equipment, to the west of Shelland Street, revealed TCE at 120 ug/L. On October 3, 2003, the DEP began installing monitoring wells and soil gas points next to the Caswell Cove Condominium buildings.   The DPH issued a press release on October 9, 2003, which is part of a final report issued by the DEP on October 10, 2003 and revised on October 27, 2003 and November 6, 2003, discussing the contamination findings.   The parties agree that the plaintiffs had no knowledge of the VOC contamination until this announcement.

The DEP has promulgated a set of classifications for groundwater;  “GA” means groundwater suitable for drinking without treatment and “GB” means groundwater within an industrial area that is unfit for drinking without treatment.   The DEP has also created a standard known as a pollutant mobility criteria (PMC) for remediation purposes.  Sections 22a–133k–1 through 22a–133k–3 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, adopted January 1, 1996, are known as the Remediation Standard Regulations or RSRs. The residential ground water volatilization criterion for TCE is 219 parts per billion (ppb) although the proposed criterion of 27 ppb was used by DEP for remedial measures.   The soil RSR serves to protect the groundwater from being polluted by the soil.   The soil criterion for the GA PMC is 100 ppb and for the GB PMC it is 1000 ppb.   The RSRs require remediation for GA classification because of the bedrock matrix.

The criteria for soil gas is a proposed residential limit of 140 ppb and a proposed industrial limit of 260 ppb.   The results in the final report by the DEP on October 10, 2003, revised on October 27, 2003 and November 6, 2003, indicated TCE soil vapor readings of 946 ppb, 1970 ppb and 811 ppb near building 100;  2750 ppb near building 200;  353 ppb and 287 ppb near building 300;  and 71.7 ppb near building 400.   The TCE vapors diminished in a southerly direction so that the samples taken near buildings 1000 through 1400 were below the standard or even not detected (ND).  There were readings of 1,1,1 trichloroethane (TCA) of 72.4 ppb near building 100 and 57.2 ppb near building 200, but they were well below the proposed residential limit.

The ground water criteria tests revealed that the ground water was flowing west and that TCE was diminishing in both south and west directions.   The highest concentration of TCE was found at monitoring well (MW) GP–3, east of building 100, at 450 ppb with additional readings of 57 ppb near building 300;  130 ppb near building 400;  and 180 ppb near building 500.   At MW GP–7 near building 100, the reading was 8.3 ppb and, at MW GP–8 near building 1200, the reading was ND.

As a result of these soil gas and groundwater findings, the DEP ordered the installation of sub-slab depressurization systems (SSD)—pipe through the slab that is vented at the roof line to ensure that the soil gas would not enter the indoor air – in buildings 100, 200, 300 and 400.   They became operational in April 2004, and, subsequently, an SSD system was installed in building 500, which became operational in May 2005.   There is no issue concerning the effectiveness or adequacy of the SSD systems.

B.

The plaintiffs' theory of liability is straightforward.   BIC utilized TCE as a degreaser in its manufacturing process in, and perhaps before, the 1970s.   Through careless use, the TCE found its way into the groundwater that flows directly to their downgradient properties.   The polluted ground water impacts the soil gas that lies above and manifests itself as soil vapor pollution which then finds its way into the plaintiffs' homes.   This scenario is very plausible.   There is evidence of historic use of TCE and other VOCs at BIC in significant volumes,¹¹ as well as references to inattentive employees causing or allowing spills and floods of the chemical.   The court received exhaustive evidence and heard testimony concerning soil and groundwater testing on the BIC site that confirms the presence of TCE in both the soil and the groundwater.   The plaintiffs' expert, Theodore Stevens, opined that for a number of reasons, all of which will be discussed herein, BIC was a source of the TCE groundwater contamination.

The eastern portion of the BIC site consists primarily of thin till while the western portion consists of sand and gravel;  there is a parabolic cone-shaped overburden aquifer only in the westerly portion of the BIC site under building four and part of building three with a westerly groundwater flow.   The metamorphic bedrock under the site is known as Oronoque Schist.¹²  The groundwater classification is GB, but the classification for the area east of building two is GA. In the northerly area where there is no overburden aquifer, soil quality must achieve the standard for GA classification.

Stevens reviewed historical reports, taken by BIC's environmental consultant, HRP Associates, Inc. (HRP), from former BIC employees who recalled spills and floods in the buildings near the degreaser site.   Some of those interviewed remembered using a solvent to clean parts over the drains that went to the settling pond or to the river.   Others recalled wiping up solvent with rags or using speedi-dry and placing that in the trash.   Additionally, Stevens examined DEP reports and questionnaires, including those from the DEP air compliance unit in 1974–75, which show that BIC utilized TCE as a degreaser storing it in a 4,000–gallon tank in the basement of building three.   Evidence shows that BIC may have utilized up to ten gallons a day and operated at least one degreaser, a Branson Ultrasonic Cleaner, for seventy hours per week.   The waste VOCs were apparently incinerated according to the air compliance documents or transported offsite.

BIC utilized TCE as a degreaser, as did many other companies, for vapor degreasing and phased out its use, as did other companies, for a variety of reasons.   These reasons included a change in environmental air compliance regulations concerning ozone and, perhaps, newly discovered health concerns.   DEP air compliance unit records indicate that BIC changed over to 1,1,1 TCA by at least August 27, 1977 and then to methylene chloride by October 1977.¹³  BIC also had at least two settling ponds on the premises that were used to treat turbidity in wastewater and to manage storm water discharge.   One still exists to the west of building four and the other was filled in when building four was built;  the current septic system is south of the settling pond.   Stevens opines that, as a result of the significant TCE spills, which occurred in BIC buildings one and three, and the high groundwater contamination concentrations downgradient from these buildings, “cause and effect” factors support the conclusion that BIC is a source of the TCE contaminated groundwater that flowed in the overburden soils in a westerly direction to Caswell Cove.

C.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs will agree that BIC was not the only possible source of contamination.   Approximately 2000 feet northeast of and ninety feet higher in elevation than the plaintiffs' properties is the site of significant “midnight dumping” of TCE on vacant land ¹⁴ once owned by the Beard Company, which was transferred to Jordan Realty in 1997.¹⁵  A portion of the vacant land was then transferred to Milford Power in 1999 and, commencing in 2001, it began operating a 540 megawatt power plant.

Prior to purchasing the property, it conducted an environmental investigation that revealed the TCE contamination.¹⁶  It retained an environmental consultant, Tighe & Bond, to prepare certain investigatory studies ¹⁷ to determine the amount and extent of contamination.   Tighe & Bond utilized a number of prior studies of the area, all of which were introduced into evidence on a limited basis for their soil and groundwater testing results.   One such study, by Mann Environmental, Inc., dated April 1999, noted bedrock groundwater samples of TCE in monitoring wells MW–16 at 53,000 ug/L and MW–17 at 60,000 ug/L near or at the dumping site and an overburden sample in monitoring well MW–5 of 12,000 ug/L. Soil samples at the site contained concentrations as high as 100,000 ug/kg.¹⁸  The exact TCE release site remained on Jordan Realty's property, straddling the Milford Power site, and became part of a roadway known as Shelland Street;  the TCE dumping or release site is now referred to as the Shelland Street site.

Between August and September of 2006, Milford Power removed 8,378 tons of contaminated soil from the Shelland Street site, but did not remediate the groundwater.   Soil testing taken during remediation revealed TCE levels as high as 87,000 ug/kg.

The plaintiffs' properties are downgradient from this site and they acknowledge that their pollution problems derive, in part, from groundwater transport of TCE from the Shelland Street release site to Caswell Cove. The groundwater in the overburden aquifier flows under the influence of gravity pursuant to Darcy's Law.¹⁹ Indeed, there is no argument that this site was not a major source of the Caswell Cove pollution.

Stevens maintains that the likely release points from BIC were from the floor drains, directly through the floors, or from the septic system ²⁰ or retention pond.   According to him, the high soil gas readings under building three are consistent with the usage and the historical testimony of spills and “floods.”   He believes that BIC's soil sampling was insufficient to determine the full picture because soil sampling only measures a particular point whereas groundwater and soil gas sampling are better because they provide wider measurements of contamination.   He also states that monitoring wells on the BIC property continue to show high VOC readings from presumably the unremediated BIC areas of concern.

In contrast, after the remediation project at Shelland Street, the readings for the wells within the southwesterly flowing plume have declined.   Stevens notes that for the contaminating source to be solely the Shelland Street site, the plume would had to have flowed in a southerly direction toward BIC while the evidence indicates that the major plume flowed southwesterly to the cove and a second plume stopped at the north side of BIC Drive under building five.   Moreover, he concludes that the clearly defined TCE plume in the bedrock shows a west to southwest gradient which controls groundwater flow and contaminant transport.   Stevens states that other consultants that reviewed the data agree with the conclusion that the VOC plume from the Shelland Street site flows in the southwesterly direction.

Stevens also opines that BIC's plume has a different chemical signature from the northerly plume.²¹  He maintains that the northerly Shelland Street plume is clearly distinguished from the BIC plume because it contains TCA and its breakdown product 1,1,1 Dichloroethane (DCA) while those chemicals are absent in the BIC plume.²²  He cites the monitoring wells at Milford Power, MW–19, and on the northerly side of BIC's building five, MWBR–4 and MW–4 and finally at MW–1 through MW–4 some 300 to 600 feet westerly that all show a similar footprint in both the bedrock and overburden aquifer.   He observes that, while TCE is found in fairly high concentrations in the monitoring wells west of BIC ²³ at levels ranging from 210 to 1,600 ug/L, TCA or DCA are not found ²⁴ in those wells or the nearest monitoring wells on the Caswell Cove property.²⁵  Hence, he concludes that BIC was a source of the contamination at Caswell Cove.

D.

BIC has a different theory.   It too performed many investigations of its site and this court received numerous studies, as previously mentioned.   The fifty-acre BIC complex has grown from one building ²⁶ to the five buildings that presently exist,²⁷ where it has manufactured pens, shavers and lighters, among other things.   The DEP issued its order to BIC on August 27, 2003 to investigate its site and, as noted, BIC appealed that order, but also entered into a partial consent order, SRD–153, on June 8, 2004, under which it has performed several investigations.   Daniel Titus,²⁸ a licensed environmental professional and a regional manager of HRP, prepared the Phase I, II, and III reports.²⁹  From 2004–2010, BIC has investigated its complex, collecting over 718 soil samples, installing thirty monitoring wells, investigating over 109 potential release areas and conducting multiple soil gas studies at a cost of over $1.6 million.

This court notes that Stevens never conducted a site assessment or any testing on the BIC property, but relied on those studies produced by HRP and other consultants to formulate his opinions.   Indeed, at the time of Stevens' original report, in December 2007, HRP had not yet finished its Phase III study although Stevens noted that “information to be generated from the Phase III Investigations ․ is expected to more conclusively link TCE releases at [BIC and the former corporate defendants] properties with the TCE contamination present in groundwater at the Caswell Cove Condominiums.”

BIC admits that it used TCE and that TCE has been found in both the groundwater and the soil on its premises.   Moreover, it acknowledges that it has generated various wastes from its manufacturing processes including inks, oils and solvents.   It disputes that it used TCE in any large quantity;  rather, it maintains that it only used TCE in limited amounts for a short period of time in the 1970s.   Notwithstanding, it argues, based upon its conceptual site model,³⁰ that there is no credible evidence it was the source of the contamination which has caused the problems at the Caswell Cove.

HRP took 241 soil samples during the Phase II study, some down to twenty-three feet below grade, and another 364 soil samples in the Phase III investigation.   Of all these samples, 68 had detectable concentrations of TCE averaging around 10–12 ppb but only one exceeded the VOC criterion for TCE with a reading on 118 ppb.   Despite these tests, there were no glaring findings concerning amounts or types of VOCs that were directed into the retention ponds.   Had there been a discharge into the pond(s), the soil samples should have reflected the TCE just as they did at Shelland Street since the soils are all the same sand and gravel.   Similar findings came from the testing of the soils for the septic system areas.   In the former system now under building four, only low concentrations of TCE were found—significantly below the RSR criterion.   In terms of building three, besides the one 46 ppb sample, Titus found no evidence of any release from the soil samples or from the thirteen deep boring samples.

In the Phase III study, HRP sampled twenty-eight monitoring wells.   Certain wells, MW–3 and MW–4 located on the northeast section of the site, contained TCE, but there is no evidence of TCE use in that area.

BIC argues that the low levels of TCE found in its soils, generally not exceeding concentrations of 12 ppb with a high of 46 ppb, are caused by the volatilization of the TCE in groundwater similar to that being experienced at Caswell Cove, rather than from onsite releases.   While noting that the soil gas rates are high under building three, Titus posits that the building acts as a cap to contain the gas which contributes to the high concentrations.

Titus notes that there is no overburden aquifer at the Shelland Street site;  the TCE found its way directly through the sand and gravel into the bedrock aquifer.   This large source of TCE is known as dense nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) or as “pure product,” which is a liquid that is denser than water and does not dissolve in it, but passes straight through it.   Titus references well data collected by Marin in his 1999 Phase III report.   Specifically, the samples of 60,000 and 53,000 ppb are indicative of DNAPL because it was not fully dissolved in the groundwater.   While the Shelland Street soil was remediated, the bedrock aquifer was not.   Indeed, the extent of the DNAPL has never been studied.

While Stevens emphasized the southwesterly groundwater flow from Shelland Street to Caswell Cove, HRP stresses that what occurred in the northerly plume moving in the overburden aquifer is not relevant to the bedrock movement.   Certainly, all agree that some of the TCE flowed up into the overburden aquifer farther to the west and moved southwest to the cove.   Nevertheless, in the bedrock, groundwater or dissolved phase contaminate can move randomly through fluid bearing fractures.   According to geophysical data collected on site and the U.S. Geological Survey, the fractures trend from north-northeast to south-southwest.   Thus, unlike the overburden aquifer, bedrock fracture flow can move laterally and vertically.   Boreholes into the bedrock revealed that fluid bearing fractures were contaminated with TCE (MWBR–1010), but boreholes without fluid bearing fractures contained no TCE (MWBR–1015).   Some of the most conductive bedrock fractures were on the southwestern portion of the BIC site—the area closest to the condominiums.   The bedrock transport explains the presence of TCE in monitoring wells MWBR–3 (529 ug/L on September 27, 2005) and MWBR–4 (402 ug/L on September 27, 2005) on the northerly side of building five when there is no evidence of any use of TCE in that building or at that location.   As noted earlier, TCE was found at 75 Caswell Street in a pumping well that was both to the south of the Shelland Street dumping site and upgradient from the BIC operations;  its presence can be explained by movement through bedrock fracture.

Titus analyzed more than 150 groundwater samples.   Monitoring well data showed a vertical flow gradient from the bedrock to the overburden aquifer.   Indeed, he concluded that because of the upward vertical gradient it would be unlikely for a release to the overburden aquifer to contaminate the bedrock aquifer.   Based upon these findings, he concluded that the source of contamination was the bedrock aquifer from an offsite release and not from BIC's operations.

Titus also disputes Stevens' TCA fingerprint theory distinguishing between the northerly and southerly plumes.   Stevens maintains that only the northerly plume contains TCA;  Titus counters that TCA is only found sporadically.   He refers to data from twenty-nine monitoring wells on the Milford Power property which indicate that TCA or DCA was not found in the sixty-two of 153 samples collected over a ten-year period where TCE was detected.   Additionally, data collected from twenty-eight monitoring wells on the BIC property between 2005 and 2009, revealed TCA or DCA in six wells (MW–4, MWBBR–1006, MWOB–1007, MWBR–1016, MWBR–1003 and MWOB–1005).   Well tests to the southeast of the Shelland Street release and northerly of BIC also revealed an absence of TCA. Titus believes that the sporadic findings of TCA have more to do with the minimum detection levels and the breakdown of VOCs depending on environmental factors than anything else.   He notes, however, that solvents were often combined prior to disposal.   There is, of course, no specific evidence of the solvent dumping at Shelland Street concerning the amount, dates, type, etc.   Thus, he posits that there is insufficient data from which one can conclude that there are two plume sources.   Rather, he maintains that the small amounts of the alkanes in both plumes indicate that they emanate from one source.

III

The plaintiffs' four claims against BIC are all based upon the premise that operations at BIC are responsible for the TCE that flows into the plaintiffs' properties.   The plaintiffs, however, have failed to meet their burden in establishing that BIC is the cause of the contamination.

Obviously, the starting place must be the massive Shelland Street release that all parties agree is certainly a cause of the contamination.   The overburden aquifer runs directly to the plaintiffs' properties through the Milford Power site.   The pathway is clear and the evidence, including the diminishing amounts of TCE as a result of the Shelland Street remediation, all support this finding.

The plaintiffs, of course, maintain that BIC is a secondary cause of the TCE contamination.   On the one hand, as described earlier, the plaintiffs posit that VOC spillage, primarily from degreaser use in building three, permeated through the floor into the groundwater, or found its way into the drainage system, and then into the retention ponds and finally into the ground water, which flowed westerly to the plaintiffs' properties.   BIC argues, on the other hand, that there is no evidence of any VOC spillage or release at BIC that could cause the amount or levels of contamination that has flowed to the condominiums.   Indeed, it argues that the TCE contamination at BIC stems from the Shelland Street DNAPL which has found its way southerly to BIC through bedrock fractures and then has moved westerly where it meets the overburden aquifer to the condominiums.

This court finds that the evidence supports HRP's conceptual site model.   First, HRP's testing, approved by the DEP, revealed only eleven percent (eighty-three of 718) of soil samples containing TCE,³¹ at a relatively low concentration, i.e., an average concentration of 10–12 ppb with the highest at 46 ppb and only one questionable sample exceeding the RSR. There is no soil sample that supports either of the plaintiffs' theories—whether a release from operations in buildings one or three through the concrete or a discharge from buildings one or three through the drainage systems into one of the settling ponds or septic systems.   The 103 samples from the two septic systems revealed no TCE. The seventy-five samples from the settling ponds only revealed one sample containing TCE at 5 ppb.   The contaminate levels at the site never exceeded any DEP remediation criteria which means, according to the criteria, and Stevens agrees, could not cause groundwater contamination.   While the concentration levels certainly did not have to reach the extraordinary levels of 87,000 ppb at Shelland Street, they should presumably be in excess of the DEP action criteria.

These soil samples, contrasted with the presence of low level soil gas readings throughout the site, belie the assumption that a significant release occurred.   The soil gas can be evidence of a release from above or, as indicated by Titus and Stevens, a measure of the vapors coming from the groundwater.   TCE was found in forty-three of forty-four samples all over the BIC site, even in places where it was not used.   HRP explains that it emanates from the groundwater and at different concentrations depending on whether it originates from the overburden aquifer or strictly from the bedrock aquifer.   Stevens only maintains that the high readings under building three evidence a release there.   In fact, as noted earlier, this presence of soil gas is similar to that occurring at the plaintiffs' property.   Indeed, the TCE concentration levels exceed the RSR residential criterion of 140 ppb with a 2007 sample high of 780 ppb under building five.

This finding is also supported by the continuously high bedrock groundwater contamination levels as more fully illustrated in the deep boring cross section of exhibit 605 ³² reflecting, in part, the unremediated, pure product in the bedrock.   The fluid bearing fractures (MWBR–1010) contained TCE and the non-fluid bearing fractures (MWBR–1015) had readings of ND for all VOCs. The evidence was undisputed that there was an upward vertical flow gradient from bedrock to overburden aquifer on the western portion of the site.   HRP's theory is further buttressed by the TCE findings around 75 Caswell Street upgradient of BIC or at building five (MWBR–3;  MWBR–4;  MWBR–1016) where there is no overburden aquifer and where there is no evidence of any TCE usage.   Indeed, the building was built after the use of TCE was stopped.

HRP's conceptual site model that the diminished levels of TCE at MWBR–3 and MWBR–4 after the soil remediation support the connection to Shelland Street and refutes the plaintiffs' theory.   As there has been no remediation at BIC, Stevens posits that the concentrations should remain the same;  yet, the TCE groundwater levels at BIC are declining since the 2006 Shelland Street remediation.   This court notes, notwithstanding certain readings, that the samples show a downward trend despite the short term increase from the Shelland street remediation slug.³³

Stevens' TCA footprint argument is also less than persuasive as TCA is only found in certain wells and even then only sporadically.   Particular Shelland Street wells, MW–1, for example, contain TCA findings only part of the time.   One reasonable explanation was that there could have been several releases on the Jordan property with different chemical components;  the initial or parent release is unknown.   Further, to the extent the TCA mixed with the TCE in a certain concentration ratio,³⁴ TCA/DCA would not always be detected in the BIC sampling;  the TCE findings were just too low ³⁵ to detect TCA/DCA.   Finally, TCA is indeed found in the BIC monitoring wells.

The evidence of contamination from Shelland Street is overwhelming.   It is not nearly so in regard to BIC. Ultimately, the plaintiffs' theory is based on speculation that there was a significant BIC spill or release that moved into the groundwater without leaving a real trace in the soil.   BIC may have used TCE, but this court finds, for the reasons discussed above, that the plaintiffs' have not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiffs' TCE contamination, or a portion thereof, was or is caused by BIC. See Marandino v. Prometheus Pharmacy, 294 Conn. 564, 592, 986 A.2d 1023 (2010) (“Expert opinions must be based [on] reasonable probabilities rather than mere speculation or conjecture if they are to be admissible in establishing causation ․ To be reasonably probable, a conclusion must be more likely than not.”  [Internal quotation marks omitted.] ).   The historical interviews were used by BIC to determine where to investigate;  none of the former employees testified at trial.   Their untested comments do not conclusively prove that a TCE release occurred at BIC. TCE was used—maybe even in substantial quantities despite BIC's evidence to the contrary—and some may have spilled to the floor as is common in industrial operations, but there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion alleged by the plaintiffs.   The Caswell Cove Condominium contamination more likely originates from the major unlawful activity at Shelland Street, which has now become a continuing source of DNAPL in the bedrock groundwater.   BIC is just as much a victim of the Shelland Street dumping as the plaintiffs.   Fortunately, the SSD system installed by the DEP has remedied the gas infiltration.

In light of this finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove causation or unreasonable pollution, as required by § 22a–16, this court need not address the other aspects of the causes of action or the evidence concerning the diminution of property values.   Judgment enters for BIC.

Berger, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. On May 26, 2005, the court, Sferrazza, J., denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.   The plaintiffs are Rosalyn Liss, Harvey Merrick, Joseph LaGaipa, Joy Kiss, Betsy Ratner, A. Karen Anasson, Frank Baranowsky, Jr., Mary Caffrey, Mark Cipriano, Barbara Collins, Jeffrey Coppelman, Skye Cornell, Leroy Edwards, Robert Fecteau, Lorraine A. Fecteau, Robert Filicko, Eileen Filicko, Myron Geller, Alan Goodman, Gwendolyn Haley, Benjamin Hess, Rosalie Hess, Phillis Kluft, Maryanne Krzewicki, Michael Laganza, Dominic T. Leone, Don Mathieson, Mauren Mathieson, Gertrude Carlson, George Moffett, Suzanne Moffett, Robert Cunningham, Carolyn E. Nisita, Phyllis Kluft, Patricia Schein, Zina Shaffer, Kimberly Smith, Joy Soleiman, now known as Joy Callahan, Robert Zolczer, Anne–Marie B. Zolczer, Daniel Arenovski, Michael Wellner, Deborah Weinstein, John Kucej, Joanne Kucej, Helen Kanganis, Pilot Corporation of America, Dean Ayer, Mark Holmberg, Dorothy Bateman, Carmela Tucci, Todd Papia, David Reinholt, Rosario Manuel, Edgardo Natera, Christina D'Arcangelo and Patricia Jacobsen, executrix for the estate of John Clark..  FN1. On May 26, 2005, the court, Sferrazza, J., denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.   The plaintiffs are Rosalyn Liss, Harvey Merrick, Joseph LaGaipa, Joy Kiss, Betsy Ratner, A. Karen Anasson, Frank Baranowsky, Jr., Mary Caffrey, Mark Cipriano, Barbara Collins, Jeffrey Coppelman, Skye Cornell, Leroy Edwards, Robert Fecteau, Lorraine A. Fecteau, Robert Filicko, Eileen Filicko, Myron Geller, Alan Goodman, Gwendolyn Haley, Benjamin Hess, Rosalie Hess, Phillis Kluft, Maryanne Krzewicki, Michael Laganza, Dominic T. Leone, Don Mathieson, Mauren Mathieson, Gertrude Carlson, George Moffett, Suzanne Moffett, Robert Cunningham, Carolyn E. Nisita, Phyllis Kluft, Patricia Schein, Zina Shaffer, Kimberly Smith, Joy Soleiman, now known as Joy Callahan, Robert Zolczer, Anne–Marie B. Zolczer, Daniel Arenovski, Michael Wellner, Deborah Weinstein, John Kucej, Joanne Kucej, Helen Kanganis, Pilot Corporation of America, Dean Ayer, Mark Holmberg, Dorothy Bateman, Carmela Tucci, Todd Papia, David Reinholt, Rosario Manuel, Edgardo Natera, Christina D'Arcangelo and Patricia Jacobsen, executrix for the estate of John Clark.

FN2. The plaintiffs withdrew their complaint against all defendants except for BIC before trial began..  FN2. The plaintiffs withdrew their complaint against all defendants except for BIC before trial began.

FN3. TCE is a chlorinated volatile organic compound (VOC) that was widely used by many industries as a solvent for cleaning and degreasing from the mid–1930s to the late 1970s..  FN3. TCE is a chlorinated volatile organic compound (VOC) that was widely used by many industries as a solvent for cleaning and degreasing from the mid–1930s to the late 1970s.

FN4. Evidence was produced at trial that there was some knowledge as early as 1986 about the contamination.   Specifically, exhibit 39, an environmental site assessment prepared for Milford River Associates by Goldberg–Zoino & Associates, Inc. (GZA), dated April 8, 1986, indicated that TCE, dichloroethene (DCE), trichloroethane (TCA) and dichloroethane (DCA) were found in five monitoring wells on the site.   On page ten, the report stated that “it is GZA/Heller's opinion that volatile organic compounds are present in the groundwater beneath the northern portion of the site.”   Exhibit 40 is an assessment report evaluation to Milford River Associates from NEPCCO, dated June 3, 1986, that discusses the GZA report in terms of further testing and monitoring during the excavation phase of construction..  FN4. Evidence was produced at trial that there was some knowledge as early as 1986 about the contamination.   Specifically, exhibit 39, an environmental site assessment prepared for Milford River Associates by Goldberg–Zoino & Associates, Inc. (GZA), dated April 8, 1986, indicated that TCE, dichloroethene (DCE), trichloroethane (TCA) and dichloroethane (DCA) were found in five monitoring wells on the site.   On page ten, the report stated that “it is GZA/Heller's opinion that volatile organic compounds are present in the groundwater beneath the northern portion of the site.”   Exhibit 40 is an assessment report evaluation to Milford River Associates from NEPCCO, dated June 3, 1986, that discusses the GZA report in terms of further testing and monitoring during the excavation phase of construction.

FN5. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that BIC violated General Statutes § 22a–16.   The statute, in relevant part, provides:  “The Attorney General, any political subdivision of the state, any instrumentality or agency of the state or of a political subdivision thereof, any person, partnership, corporation, association, organization or other legal entity may maintain an action in the superior court for the judicial district wherein the defendant is located, resides or conducts business ․ for declaratory and equitable relief against the state, any political subdivision thereof, any instrumentality or agency of the state or of a political subdivision thereof, any person, partnership, corporation, association, organization or other legal entity, acting alone, or in combination with others, for the protection of the public trust in the air, water and other natural resources of the state from unreasonable pollution, impairment or destruction ․”On April 22, 2005, the court, Sferrazza, J., pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine;  see Waterbury v. Washington, 260 Conn. 506, 546, 800 A.2d 1102 (2002);  stayed action on the CEPA count pending a completion of the administrative process at the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).   That process was not completed by the start of this trial, but this court lifted the stay and decides the count herein.   It is noted that no one from DEP testified during the trial..  FN5. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that BIC violated General Statutes § 22a–16.   The statute, in relevant part, provides:  “The Attorney General, any political subdivision of the state, any instrumentality or agency of the state or of a political subdivision thereof, any person, partnership, corporation, association, organization or other legal entity may maintain an action in the superior court for the judicial district wherein the defendant is located, resides or conducts business ․ for declaratory and equitable relief against the state, any political subdivision thereof, any instrumentality or agency of the state or of a political subdivision thereof, any person, partnership, corporation, association, organization or other legal entity, acting alone, or in combination with others, for the protection of the public trust in the air, water and other natural resources of the state from unreasonable pollution, impairment or destruction ․”On April 22, 2005, the court, Sferrazza, J., pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine;  see Waterbury v. Washington, 260 Conn. 506, 546, 800 A.2d 1102 (2002);  stayed action on the CEPA count pending a completion of the administrative process at the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).   That process was not completed by the start of this trial, but this court lifted the stay and decides the count herein.   It is noted that no one from DEP testified during the trial.

FN6. “The essential elements of a cause of action in negligence are well established:  duty;  breach of that duty;  causation;  and actual injury.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Sturm v. Harb Development, LLC, 298 Conn. 124, 139, 2 A.3d 859 (2010).   Insofar as the plaintiffs assert negligence per se, “a plaintiff must show that the defendant breached a duty owed to her and that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's injury.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Shukis v. Board of Education, 122 Conn.App. 555, 583, 1 A.3d 137 (2010).  “To establish a nuisance four elements must be proven:  (1) the condition complained of had a natural tendency to create danger and inflict injury upon person or property;  (2) the danger created was a continuing one;  (3) the use of the land was unreasonable or unlawful;  (4) the existence of the nuisance was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries and damages.”  Filisko v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 176 Conn. 33, 35–36, 404 A.2d 889 (1978).  “The essentials of an action for trespass are:  (1) ownership or possessory interest in land by the plaintiff;  (2) invasion, intrusion or entry by the defendant affecting the plaintiff's exclusive possessory interest;  (3) done intentionally;  and (4) causing direct injury.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Bristol v. Tilcon Minerals, Inc., 284 Conn. 55, 87, 931 A.2d 237 (2007).   To establish a prima facie case under § 22a–16, the plaintiff must show “that the conduct of the defendant, acting alone, or in combination with others, has, or is reasonably likely unreasonably to pollute, impair or destroy the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state ․” General Statutes § 22a–17(a)..  FN6. “The essential elements of a cause of action in negligence are well established:  duty;  breach of that duty;  causation;  and actual injury.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Sturm v. Harb Development, LLC, 298 Conn. 124, 139, 2 A.3d 859 (2010).   Insofar as the plaintiffs assert negligence per se, “a plaintiff must show that the defendant breached a duty owed to her and that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's injury.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Shukis v. Board of Education, 122 Conn.App. 555, 583, 1 A.3d 137 (2010).  “To establish a nuisance four elements must be proven:  (1) the condition complained of had a natural tendency to create danger and inflict injury upon person or property;  (2) the danger created was a continuing one;  (3) the use of the land was unreasonable or unlawful;  (4) the existence of the nuisance was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries and damages.”  Filisko v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 176 Conn. 33, 35–36, 404 A.2d 889 (1978).  “The essentials of an action for trespass are:  (1) ownership or possessory interest in land by the plaintiff;  (2) invasion, intrusion or entry by the defendant affecting the plaintiff's exclusive possessory interest;  (3) done intentionally;  and (4) causing direct injury.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Bristol v. Tilcon Minerals, Inc., 284 Conn. 55, 87, 931 A.2d 237 (2007).   To establish a prima facie case under § 22a–16, the plaintiff must show “that the conduct of the defendant, acting alone, or in combination with others, has, or is reasonably likely unreasonably to pollute, impair or destroy the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state ․” General Statutes § 22a–17(a).

FN7. The pollution abatement orders were issued on August 27, 2003 to BIC, Jordan Realty, Milford Power and Northeast Electronics;  the order to the latter was subsequently revoked.   All entities appealed their orders.   A fifth order was issued to Gas Equipment on October 22, 2003, which was also appealed.   Partial consent orders were later entered into in July of 2004, but the matters remained opened at the time of this trial.   In order to avoid duplication and recognizing the complexity of the investigatory task, these entities joined together in both a Cooperative Quality Assurance Project Plan, dated March 2005, concerning all aspects of soil, groundwater, and soil gas sampling, and a Cooperative Subregional Bedrock Aquifer Evaluation and Common Methodology Development, dated July 2, 2007, for bedrock sampling protocol..  FN7. The pollution abatement orders were issued on August 27, 2003 to BIC, Jordan Realty, Milford Power and Northeast Electronics;  the order to the latter was subsequently revoked.   All entities appealed their orders.   A fifth order was issued to Gas Equipment on October 22, 2003, which was also appealed.   Partial consent orders were later entered into in July of 2004, but the matters remained opened at the time of this trial.   In order to avoid duplication and recognizing the complexity of the investigatory task, these entities joined together in both a Cooperative Quality Assurance Project Plan, dated March 2005, concerning all aspects of soil, groundwater, and soil gas sampling, and a Cooperative Subregional Bedrock Aquifer Evaluation and Common Methodology Development, dated July 2, 2007, for bedrock sampling protocol.

FN8. Seventy-five Caswell Street is located on the north side of Caswell Street to the east of building five.   It is upgradient from all BIC operations..  FN8. Seventy-five Caswell Street is located on the north side of Caswell Street to the east of building five.   It is upgradient from all BIC operations.

FN9. Trichloroethene is the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) name for tricholorethylene or TCE..  FN9. Trichloroethene is the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) name for tricholorethylene or TCE.

FN10. Micrograms per liter or ug/L is essentially the same as a part per billion (ppb), therefore, 1 ug/L=1 ppb..  FN10. Micrograms per liter or ug/L is essentially the same as a part per billion (ppb), therefore, 1 ug/L=1 ppb.

FN11. A report from the Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START), dated October 13, 1998 (Exhibit [Exh.] 11), notes that BIC was deemed a large quantity generator by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) on August 18, 1980.   Nevertheless, the report also notes, among other things, that “[t]here were no indications that hazardous substances used, generated, or stored on the property posed a threat to the surrounding environment.”.  FN11. A report from the Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START), dated October 13, 1998 (Exhibit [Exh.] 11), notes that BIC was deemed a large quantity generator by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) on August 18, 1980.   Nevertheless, the report also notes, among other things, that “[t]here were no indications that hazardous substances used, generated, or stored on the property posed a threat to the surrounding environment.”

FN12. See generally Exhs. 660 and 661.  “Oronoque Schist” is defined as “[g]ray to silver, medium-to fine-grained, well-layered to laminated schist and granofels, composed of quartz, oligoclase, or albite, muscovite or sericite, biotite, or chlorite, and in western belt local garnet, staurolite, and kyanite.   Small lenses of amphibolite or greenstone.”   United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, Mineral Resources On-line Spatial Data, available at http:// tin.er.usgs.gov/geology/state/sgmc-unit.php?unit=CTOo0̄ (last visited March 24, 2011)..  FN12. See generally Exhs. 660 and 661.  “Oronoque Schist” is defined as “[g]ray to silver, medium-to fine-grained, well-layered to laminated schist and granofels, composed of quartz, oligoclase, or albite, muscovite or sericite, biotite, or chlorite, and in western belt local garnet, staurolite, and kyanite.   Small lenses of amphibolite or greenstone.”   United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, Mineral Resources On-line Spatial Data, available at http:// tin.er.usgs.gov/geology/state/sgmc-unit.php?unit=CTOo0̄ (last visited March 24, 2011).

FN13. One RCRA manifest indicates that 165 gallons of TCE was removed from BIC on February 5, 1985..  FN13. One RCRA manifest indicates that 165 gallons of TCE was removed from BIC on February 5, 1985.

FN14. At trial, some evidence was presented that there was a dirt road to a dumping site on the property where tires, automobiles, appliances, scrap metal and the like were placed.   Jordan or its predecessors evidently were aware of the dumping.   Aerial photographs show a barren spot, devoid of vegetation, where TCE was dumped.Utilizing the photographs, Stevens discusses in his affidavit, attached to the plaintiffs' supplemental disclosure of expert witness, dated October 8, 2010, the historical use of the Jordan property from 1962 through 1994 noting that “[a] prominent (apparently well-traveled) dirt road leads into Jordan's property from Caswell Street.   The entrance to this area is across Caswell Street from the area of the present BIC # 4.”   In an affidavit dated July 30, 2010, attached to the supplemental disclosure, he further states that “Jordan operated or allowed operation of a dump on their property from at least 1965 until at least 1985 ․”Despite this implicit suggestion, there is no direct allegation or evidence that the TCE came from BIC. On the contrary, this court received evidence that BIC was named a potentially responsible party (PRP) in the Superfund action concerning the Southington landfill because of disclosures by its waste hauler.   Exhibit 666 indicates that various amounts of waste were removed from BIC almost monthly between September of 1965 through February of 1968, totaling 19,415 gallons as well as additional amounts in 1981–82..  FN14. At trial, some evidence was presented that there was a dirt road to a dumping site on the property where tires, automobiles, appliances, scrap metal and the like were placed.   Jordan or its predecessors evidently were aware of the dumping.   Aerial photographs show a barren spot, devoid of vegetation, where TCE was dumped.Utilizing the photographs, Stevens discusses in his affidavit, attached to the plaintiffs' supplemental disclosure of expert witness, dated October 8, 2010, the historical use of the Jordan property from 1962 through 1994 noting that “[a] prominent (apparently well-traveled) dirt road leads into Jordan's property from Caswell Street.   The entrance to this area is across Caswell Street from the area of the present BIC # 4.”   In an affidavit dated July 30, 2010, attached to the supplemental disclosure, he further states that “Jordan operated or allowed operation of a dump on their property from at least 1965 until at least 1985 ․”Despite this implicit suggestion, there is no direct allegation or evidence that the TCE came from BIC. On the contrary, this court received evidence that BIC was named a potentially responsible party (PRP) in the Superfund action concerning the Southington landfill because of disclosures by its waste hauler.   Exhibit 666 indicates that various amounts of waste were removed from BIC almost monthly between September of 1965 through February of 1968, totaling 19,415 gallons as well as additional amounts in 1981–82.

FN15. According to the evidence, Jordan Realty was owned by Bob and James Beard;  the aforementioned deed from the Beard Company was signed by Robert D. Beard, president..  FN15. According to the evidence, Jordan Realty was owned by Bob and James Beard;  the aforementioned deed from the Beard Company was signed by Robert D. Beard, president.

FN16. Even before this 1999 study, there was information about the TCE contamination.   See footnote 4..  FN16. Even before this 1999 study, there was information about the TCE contamination.   See footnote 4.

FN17. Such studies are done in phases according to the DEP's Transfer Act Site Assessment Guidance Document.  (Exh. 623.)   In Phase I, the likelihood of a release of hazardous waste is evaluated;  in Phase II, it is determined whether a release has occurred;  and, in Phase III, the degree, extent and rate of migration of soil and water contamination in release areas (RAs) and potential release areas (PRAs) is defined..  FN17. Such studies are done in phases according to the DEP's Transfer Act Site Assessment Guidance Document.  (Exh. 623.)   In Phase I, the likelihood of a release of hazardous waste is evaluated;  in Phase II, it is determined whether a release has occurred;  and, in Phase III, the degree, extent and rate of migration of soil and water contamination in release areas (RAs) and potential release areas (PRAs) is defined.

FN18. Micrograms per kilogram or, ug/kg, is the same as ppb;  thus, 1 ug/kg=l ppb.   See footnote 10..  FN18. Micrograms per kilogram or, ug/kg, is the same as ppb;  thus, 1 ug/kg=l ppb.   See footnote 10.

FN19. Darcy's Law, according to Titus, is the scientific theory which describes the process of groundwater movement through unconsolidated material..  FN19. Darcy's Law, according to Titus, is the scientific theory which describes the process of groundwater movement through unconsolidated material.

FN20. BIC connected to the municipal-sewer system in 1987..  FN20. BIC connected to the municipal-sewer system in 1987.

FN21. Stevens added this theory in his affidavit of July 30, 2010..  FN21. Stevens added this theory in his affidavit of July 30, 2010.

FN22. According to Stevens, TCE and DCE are chlorinated alkenes;  TCA and DCA are chlorinated alkanes.   Because they have a different molecular structure, one does not break down to the other.   Thus, the degradation of TCE will not result in TCA, but, rather, TCE breaks down to DCE and, ultimately, ethylene.   Similarly, TCA degrades to DCA and then ethane..  FN22. According to Stevens, TCE and DCE are chlorinated alkenes;  TCA and DCA are chlorinated alkanes.   Because they have a different molecular structure, one does not break down to the other.   Thus, the degradation of TCE will not result in TCA, but, rather, TCE breaks down to DCE and, ultimately, ethylene.   Similarly, TCA degrades to DCA and then ethane.

FN23. These include MWBR–1010, MWOB–1009, MWBR–1003, MWOB–1004, MWOB–1000 and MWOB–1024..  FN23. These include MWBR–1010, MWOB–1009, MWBR–1003, MWOB–1004, MWOB–1000 and MWOB–1024.

FN24. Stevens notes that one sample, at MWBR–1003, revealed a reading of 5.1 ug/L of DCA on June 23, 2009, but he dismisses it as a false positive in light of the companion sample which did not reveal the presence of TCA or DCA..  FN24. Stevens notes that one sample, at MWBR–1003, revealed a reading of 5.1 ug/L of DCA on June 23, 2009, but he dismisses it as a false positive in light of the companion sample which did not reveal the presence of TCA or DCA.

FN25. These wells are GP–10 and GP–11 near buildings 400 and 500..  FN25. These wells are GP–10 and GP–11 near buildings 400 and 500.

FN26. BIC purchased it in 1963 from a military parts manufacturer whose chemical use is unknown..  FN26. BIC purchased it in 1963 from a military parts manufacturer whose chemical use is unknown.

FN27. Evidently, BIC sold buildings one through four in 2005, but filed a Form III, pursuant to the Connecticut Transfer Act, General Statutes § 22a–134 et seq., acknowledging that it would be responsible for any environmental investigation and remediation..  FN27. Evidently, BIC sold buildings one through four in 2005, but filed a Form III, pursuant to the Connecticut Transfer Act, General Statutes § 22a–134 et seq., acknowledging that it would be responsible for any environmental investigation and remediation.

FN28. Unlike Stevens, Titus has a degree in geology/hydrogeology with a focus on contaminate transport..  FN28. Unlike Stevens, Titus has a degree in geology/hydrogeology with a focus on contaminate transport.

FN29. These investigations were all to be performed in accordance with the DEP Site Characterization Guidance Document.  (Exh. 626.)   The DEP reviewed and approved each of the three studies..  FN29. These investigations were all to be performed in accordance with the DEP Site Characterization Guidance Document.  (Exh. 626.)   The DEP reviewed and approved each of the three studies.

FN30. A conceptual site model is “a representation of an environmental system” and is more fully described in Exhibit 627, Environmental Professionals' Organization of Connecticut, “Conceptual Site Modeling:  A Process for Effective Site Characterization.”   It is the environmental consultant's scientific hypothesis or a differential diagnosis..  FN30. A conceptual site model is “a representation of an environmental system” and is more fully described in Exhibit 627, Environmental Professionals' Organization of Connecticut, “Conceptual Site Modeling:  A Process for Effective Site Characterization.”   It is the environmental consultant's scientific hypothesis or a differential diagnosis.

FN31. This is contrasted with twenty-six of twenty-eight groundwater samples..  FN31. This is contrasted with twenty-six of twenty-eight groundwater samples.

FN32. For instance, compare the June 2009, reading of MWBR–1003 at 1600 ppb of TCE with its companion MWOB–1004, both in the middle of the leaching field, at 230 ppb, along with the deep soil borings in the intermediate zone between the upper fifteen feet of surface soil and the soil above the bedrock showing almost a total ND. This court notes that there is a 2.0 ppb reading at approximately sixteen feet down and 3.7 ppb at the bedrock DB–13 and DB–15 with again mostly ND except for 2.4 ppb at twenty-four feet down..  FN32. For instance, compare the June 2009, reading of MWBR–1003 at 1600 ppb of TCE with its companion MWOB–1004, both in the middle of the leaching field, at 230 ppb, along with the deep soil borings in the intermediate zone between the upper fifteen feet of surface soil and the soil above the bedrock showing almost a total ND. This court notes that there is a 2.0 ppb reading at approximately sixteen feet down and 3.7 ppb at the bedrock DB–13 and DB–15 with again mostly ND except for 2.4 ppb at twenty-four feet down.

FN33. “Slug” is sometimes used to describe a short-lived contaminate load occurring right after remediation..  FN33. “Slug” is sometimes used to describe a short-lived contaminate load occurring right after remediation.

FN34. Here, according to Titus, it is 181 to one..  FN34. Here, according to Titus, it is 181 to one.

FN35. The highest recorded BIC TCE sample was 1600 ppb compared to 60,000 ppb of TCE with 330 ppb of TCA and 61 ppb of DCA at Shelland Street..  FN35. The highest recorded BIC TCE sample was 1600 ppb compared to 60,000 ppb of TCE with 330 ppb of TCA and 61 ppb of DCA at Shelland Street.

Berger, Marshall K., J.