Date: Fri 16-Apr-1999

Publication: Bee

Author: CURT

Quick Words:

edink-Fairfield-Hills

Full Text:

ED INK: Digging Up Dirt On Fairfield Hills

A whiff of volatility on the issue of Fairfield Hills has blown into the

selectmen's office in the form of an environmental site assessment of the

22.6- acre property at Fairfield Hills conveyed to the town last year by the

state.

The report, prepared for the town by consulting engineers Fuss & O'Neill,

details something that has been part of the official record since 1995: when

two underground gasoline storage tanks at a garage on the property were

removed in 1994 along with 130 tons of contaminated soil surrounding the

tanks, residual soil and groundwater contamination were left behind. This fact

was duly noted in the environmental reporting associated with the removal of

the tanks, but it did not seep to the surface when the selectmen and the

Legislative Council decided to accept the property from the state two years

ago.

Last month, the state Department of Public Works (DPW) was once again

investigating the gasoline tank "graves" at the site and found that the

residual contamination still lingers in the soil. This is just the kind of

information opponents to the possible town purchase of the adjacent 186-acre

core campus of Fairfield Hills have been waiting for. They can present it as

evidence both of the duplicity of the state in unloading polluted property on

the town and of the kind of problems the town can expect to find many times

over in and around all the other buildings at Fairfield Hills. They can start

planting red flags all over Fairfield Hills.

This latest twist in the continuing saga of Fairfield Hills does have a

context that suggests neither duplicity nor environmental calamity. When the

state gave the 22.6-acre property and Watertown Hall to the town in 1997, it

was conveyed "as is;" no guarantees or false representations were made

regarding the environmental purity of the buildings or the land. In fact, some

members of the council had their suspicions at the time and voiced them. But

the council and selectmen went ahead with the deal anyway. And while the

residual pollution remaining on the site exceeds Department of Environmental

Protection standards for soil and groundwater, it is just the remnants of a

larger problem that was dealt with four years ago by the state. And in its

report to the town, Fuss and O'Neill notes that DPW has preliminary plans to

address the remaining contamination. A spokesman for DPW confirmed this week

that the state agency would indeed arrange and pay for the clean-up of the

remaining contamination.

It seems at this juncture, yellow flags of caution would be more appropriate

that red flags at Fairfield Hills. This recent report of groundwater and soil

contamination underscores the town's need for a complete environmental

assessment of potential hazards at Fairfield Hills. We can be sure that any

private developer of the site will have one before agreeing to a purchase

price, and the town should have one as well. We should use this information as

a tool for planning our best course of action instead of simply running scared

at the first whiff of trouble.