Log In


Reset Password
Archive

Date: Fri 17-Oct-1997

Print

Tweet

Text Size


Date: Fri 17-Oct-1997

Publication: Bee

Author: KAAREN

Quick Words:

Mile-Hill-water-contamination

Full Text:

STATE SAYS WATER AT MILE HILL CONSTRUCTION SITE NOT CONTAMINATED

BY KAAREN VALENTA

Groundwater at the site of the temporary bridge on Mile Hill Road at Fairfield

Hills does not appear to be contaminated with gasoline, a state environmental

official said Wednesday.

Greg Dorosh, project engineer in the DOT's Environmental Compliance Section,

said results of water quality testing did not show pollution so groundwater

treatment will not be required. But he said workers digging holes for new

bridge abutments last week did find a "pocket" of soil which appeared to

contaminated with gasoline.

"It was in the side wall of the excavation," he said. "They dug it out and it

may or may not have to be removed from the site."

David Anderson, the DOT's bypass inspector at the site, said Thursday that

"about three or four truckloads" of soil had been removed. The soil has been

removed to a storage area away from the river where it is sitting on plastic

sheeting and covered with plastic, he said. It eventually will be sent to an

approved hazardous waste disposal facility, he added.

Workers from the Dayton Construction Company of Watertown, the contractor for

the $3.2 million bypass road project, were digging footings for a new bridge

over the Pootatuck River when they discovered traces of gasoline in the soil

last month. At the time, they speculated that the rollover of a gasoline truck

at the on-ramp of I-84 at Exit 11 in October 1986 could be responsible. The

crash spilled 3,900 gallons of gasoline, part of which reached the river

located about 500 feet downhill from the ramp.

Mr Dorosh said the local and state health departments and the state Department

of Environmental Protection had been notified about the recent discovery of

the gasoline contamination. He did not believe the DEP had sent anyone to the

site, probably because it involved an old spill with little contamination and

because the DOT was handling the investigation.

"Essentially we saved the state some money," he said. "[The DOT] looked at our

results and was satisfied."

Comments
Comments are open. Be civil.
0 comments

Leave a Reply