Report: Contamination worse than town said

EASTON — One of the Easton Village Store’s neighbors is raising concerns about an environmental report that he says shows the contamination from old fuel tanks there is worse than the town has said.

The three oil tanks, along with the fill around it, were removed in February. That dirt was held on a tarp on the Easton Village Store parking lot, until a separate contractor, who did not know it was contaminated, spread it on the back property line between the store and the property of resident Steve Montgomery.

Montgomery, who is also a member on the Conservation Commission, told the selectmen at their recent meeting that he contacted the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection after “about a month of really empty promises” to move the fill from the owner of the Easton Village Store, Marcel Hurbel, and no action from the town.

“Once DEEP got involved in the situation, within one week, the fill was removed,” Montgomery said at the meeting.

Montgomery said he largely considered the issue closed after that, but then a March report by the environmental specialist hired by Hurbel came to light containing troubling information about contaminates in the groundwater and soil there.

The report, Montgomery said, contradicts statements made by officials — including that the public water supply was never in danger, that there was no further contamination and that environmental officials were largely not concerned.

Decades-old leaks

In the document, which was obtained by Hearst Connecticut Media, Advanced Environmental Redevelopment reports that petroleum was found on the water surface about eight to 10 feet down. The report also says the groundwater and soils remaining on-site still have contaminates in them.

The contamination comes from leaks from previous tanks that were removed about 25 years ago, according to Hurbel and town officials.

Reached by phone on Monday, Hurbel said the process took so long because he had to ship the fill to New Jersey since the Connecticut site for contaminated fill was closed. He said he does not know if the soil and groundwater are still contaminated and will leave it in the hands of officials from the town and DEEP, as well as environmental officials. He added that whatever needs to happen will get done.

The report also includes the specialist’s recommendations, including testing the groundwater and soil more, as well as neighboring properties’ wells.

“Clearly this environmental engineer was concerned with conditions of the site,” Montgomery said. “In addition, DEEP is actively preparing an action plan regarding further steps that must be taken to test and possibly remediate the site. To say that no DEEP or environmental officials are concerned is simply not true.”

Paul Copleman, a DEEP spokesperson, said in an email that the DEEP Emergency Response Unit was notified of the improper soil use on July 8 and ordered the soil that was originally removed with the oil tank be taken away from the parking lot where it was reapplied. The unit’s report is in progress.

The department is also working with the owner and his consultant about more work on the site, including surveys and investigating the contaminated soil and groundwater remaining where the tank had been stored, Copleman said.

Copleman said nonresidential underground storage tanks, including those for oil, petroleum and chemical liquids, are regulated by DEEP to protect human health and the environment. He said releases from such tanks must be reported to the agency and remediation must be performed by property owners and licensed environmental professional-led contractors with DEEP’s oversight.

“Owners and operators are responsible for compliance, maintenance, testing, and eventual removal of their tanks,” he said.

Also of note, Copleman said there are no legal restrictions preventing municipalities such as Easton from being involved in tank removal.

“We always aim to work cooperatively and transparently with towns, and different towns may have differing regulations and enforcement mechanisms governing tank removal,” Copleman said. “While there are state and federallevel clean-up criteria applied to certain tanks there are not restrictions for local government involvement.”

Future steps

In early August, First Selectmen David Bindelglass said the main reason this issue took so long to get on the town’s radar is because municipalities do not have jurisdiction over commercial tank removals, only DEEP does. He said the town plans to take the steps it can to ensure something like this does not happen again.

Meanwhile, residents have shared concerns that the soil, which has since been removed, may have contaminated the wetlands, the wells of nearby residents and even the Easton Reservoir. Bindelglass and Hurbel have said that DEEP told them those concerns are mostly unwarranted.

At the selectmen meeting, Montgomery said he wants assurances that his family is not at risk because of contaminates and that any remaining pollution be remedied. He later noted his well has been tested and no contaminates have been found.

Bindelglass said in the meeting that the town could have helped push the issue to be resolved more quickly.

“We could have exerted more pressure,” he said.

Bindelglass said officials are discussing taking on the permitting of commercial tanks in Easton, but said it is unclear if that is statutorily allowed. He also said he meant in previous comments that the public water supply from the Easton Reservoir was not at risk — and was not speaking of neighboring properties.

“There are a number of things we need to do better,” he said.