A decision made by the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) finding that the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) could not deny a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request because of an injunction against the filer’s husband has been dismissed. The move is part of an agreement Jean Farricielli made with DEEP as part of ongoing litigation.
The FOIC recently dismissed a complaint filed by Farricielli, a Hamden resident who owns property near the Tire Pond remediation site. Farricielli is concerned that wells on her property were contaminated by soil DEEP brought onto the site as part of its remediation process. That soil came from the former Winchester Repeating Arms site in Newhall and is known to contain elevated levels of lead, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and arsenic. When the soil was moved to fill the Tire Pond site, DEEP argued the contaminated soil was not a concern because it would not be the final layer of fill and only needed to be commercial, rather than residential property.
But Farricielli’s concerns drove her to file a FOIA request for well water test results. It was blocked by DEEP, who argued that it would violate an injunction directing Farricielli’s husband to have no direct or indirect contact with the agency. Jean’s husband has been involved in litigation over his former management of the Tire Pond site for decades.
The FOIC rejected DEEP’s arguments and ordered them to produce the document. However, the agency appealed the ruling to superior court.
It’s an agreement from a status conference between DEEP and the Farriciellis that led Jean to notify the FOIC on March 5 that she wished to withdraw the underlying complaint, mooting the FOIC’s finding in her favor.
On March 12, the commission voted during a meeting to authorize staff to join a motion for remand in DEEP’s appeal of their ruling in Farricielli’s favor. On March 23, at their most recent meeting, the commission voted to adopt an updated final decision stating that the complaint was dismissed based on Farricielli’s withdrawal.
“In the absence of a contested case, the Commission lacks jurisdiction in this matter.” the FOIC’s decision stated.
While DEEP blocked Farricielli from receiving documents about well water testing conducted on her property, Inside Investigator filed requests for that information at the addresses Farricielli was concerned about, both with DEEP and the Department of Public Health (DEEP). DEEP did not have any responsive records and pointed Inside Investigator to DPH. DPH would not confirm whether they have any records for well water testing at remediation sites (they have a program to test private well water) outside of a FOIA request. A FOIA request confirmed that they had no responsive records.
Farricielli previously told Inside Investigator that she was required to conduct routine well water tests for the Tire Pond site while it was managed by her company. Based on the lack of responsive records from both DEEP and DPH, it appears the state is not monitoring water at that site.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Blessed be the fruit of Tire Pond:)
I think it’s probably best to consider the Farricielli Saga a teachable moment in journalism. The Farricielli’s were fighting several millions of dollars ($3.8mil) in civil penalties for illegal dumping which resulted in decades of soil, ground and surface water contaminated. Prior to the 2001 Supreme Court decision, DEEP spent decades attempting to enforce numerous legal actions (consent orders, cease and desist, stipulated judgements, etc.) against the husband for illegal activity and pollution but he refused to comply. Despite consent orders, cease and desist orders, administrative orders and stipulated judgements, Mr. Farricielli kept dumping toxic materials on the parcels without a permit, polluting the water supply, and ultimately, contaminating the drinking water. This story was never about concern over public drinking water well contamination or monitoring well results. The Farricelli’s don’t live on our near the contaminated parcels. Why do you think the Farricelli’s never hired a certified Licensed Environmental Professional (LEP) to conduct an independent comprehensive site characterization model, establish testing and sampling wells on and emanating from their parcel(s), and then submit those results to DEEP and the Department of Public Health under cover of an LEP verification? Because it’s not about protecting the environment, public health or safety. It’s about money. And it’s about money for DEEP.
I think it goes without saying that the fill dumped at the site was and continues to be a contributing source of harmful toxins and contaminants to the groundwater on site and any downgradient private drinking water well supplies within, at minimum, 500 feet. The fill was likely never tested or sampled prior to dumping. Polluted fill is significantly cheaper than clean fill, and while it’s doubtful DEEP checked the box next to “cheap polluted fill” as opposed to “premium clean fill” when ordering deliveries from their contractor, the lowest bidder is typically the contractor of choice, especially when it concerns DEEP’s money. Then it’s sort of out-of-sight-out-of-mind business as usual.
I think the Farricielli’s needed Inside Investigator to champion their case. It’s also reasonable to assume Jean would have strongly encouraged DEEP and/or DPH not to release any records to Inside Investigator in the chance some agreement might be reached in the weeks, days and hours leading up to adoption day, April 22, 2025. Once it became clear to Farricielli’s that the NEW Released-Based System, an concerted effort 20 years in the making, a lot changed, and quickly. You do not open the file cabinet in this new era; you burn it. You bury the file cabinet. You chuck it off a bridge into deep waters. And that’s what happened. That’s what this article is about.
I admire and respect the FOI Commission for their work and position on this case, and I respect Katherine for her FOI advocacy. The thing is, Farricielli was only looking to leverage a deal–a deal which, I fear she may soon learn, is far from the deal she believed it to be when she withdrew her complaint from the Commission.