The Norwalk Harbor Management Commission on Oct. 22 voted to transmit a letter of support for the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection's (DEEP) draft stewardship permit for the former power‑plant site, with a set of caveats and required clarifications.

The commission’s Application Review Committee (ARC) examined the stewardship‑permit package and recommended the commission express support for DEEP’s approach while asking for several clarifications, including an explicit statement that the permit’s definition of the ‘‘site’’ or ‘‘facility’’ includes intertidal and subtidal areas and that detailed remedial action plans (RAPs) will be submitted on a specified timeline and be subject to formal public review and comment.

"The stewardship permit sets forth the responsibilities for remediation and time periods and so forth, but it doesn't specify the means and the methods for doing so," said Jeff Stedman, the Harbor Management consultant, summarizing how the permit functions and why the RAPs will be critical. Commissioners said the permit's overview is appropriate but that the forthcoming RAPs will determine the remedial methods and any impacts to the harbor and shellfish resources.

Key commission requests to DEEP included:

- Clarify that the permit’s definition of the facility and project site explicitly includes intertidal and subtidal (marine) areas, not only uplands; ARC members said some maps in the draft appear to show upland boundaries only.

- Provide a firm timeline for submittal of the detailed Remedial Action Plans referenced in the permit and establish a formal public review and comment period for those RAPs; the stewardship permit's compliance schedule referenced only a conceptual plan within 360 days and did not define when full plans would be due.

- Ensure more frequent public progress communications than the annual report in the permit; ARC suggested quarterly updates or milestone‑based notifications to keep neighbors informed during multi‑year remediation work.

- Clarify coastal‑consistency review procedures under Conn. Gen. Stat. §22a‑98 and identify which remedial activities will trigger municipal coastal site plan review so Norwalk can coordinate local review.

- Confirm whether additional sediment investigations of intertidal and subtidal areas are planned and, if so, make those investigations subject to public review.

ARC members and other commissioners said they particularly wanted DEEP to make clear that the permit holder is responsible for contamination in marine sediments as well as uplands, and that financial assurance and long‑term monitoring commitments be sufficient.

Outcome: the commission voted to send a letter to DEEP that both supports the stewardship‑permit concept and transmits the ARC’s clarifying requests. Commissioners asked the ARC to circulate the final draft of the transmittal to the full commission before it goes to DEEP; staff agreed to circulate the draft in advance of the Oct. 30 public comment deadline.

Ending: commissioners noted the stewardship permit is only an initial framework; the detailed Remedial Action Plans, sediment investigations and municipal coastal reviews will be the major venues for public comment and technical review going forward.