Non-profit, PSEG Question Groundwater Testing In East Hampton Publication: The East Hampton Press By Erica Thompson Jan 5, 2015 4:38 PM Jan 6, 2015 12:50 PM Both the Public Service Enterprise Group Long island and a local nonprofit are firing back at East Hampton Town and East Hampton Village officials after the municipalities jointly released a statement in mid-December deeming the area’s groundwater free of a chemical wood preservative used on utility poles installed last year. The town and village together hired an environmental consulting and engineering firm to test the water and soil around three of the 267 utility poles installed by PSEG last year, for any traces of the chemical pentachlorophenol, commonly known as penta. The results, according to the consultant, the FPM Group, showed that while the chemical was not found in the groundwater, the soil surrounding the poles contained nearly 12 times the amount of penta allowed for by the Department of Environmental Conservation. But Long Island Businesses For Responsible Energy disagreed with the findings. The East Hampton-based nonprofit—which is in the midst of its own class-action lawsuit with PSEG for alleged damages caused by the installation of the new utility poles—claims that the report released by the town is flawed. The group’s co-chair and spokeswoman, Rebecca Singer, wrote in a press release that “other suspected carcinogenic chemicals, which are components of the penta formulation used to treat the poles, were detected in East Hampton’s groundwater at concentrations up to 48 times higher than the NYSDEC standards.” Prior to the FPM Group’s report, the civic group hired Dermody Consulting to test the soil and water around the utility poles, finding that “several semi-volatile organic compounds were detected in the soil and groundwater in the vicinity of the poles and it appears that these chemicals are components of the penta formulation used to treat the poles. These SVOCs include suspected cancer-causing chemicals. Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell said that he was open to the idea of having the firm revisit its findings. “We’ll certainly have our firm take a look at that,” he said of Dermody Consulting’s statement. “They can review the comments that were made by Peter Dermody. I don’t recall that [our firm] spoke to compounds, but like I said, we’ll take another look.” In the town’s press release, which emphasized the excessive amounts of penta in the soil, officials demanded that PSEG clean up the contaminated soil and replace it with new, clean soil. The release additionally requests that PSEG test the soil surrounding all 267 utility poles PSEG installed in 2014. But the utility company claims FPM Group’s findings are consistent with the nationwide standard, and thus it is not responsible for any cleanup. “The Penta identified in a small halo immediately around the base … of the treated poles is fully consistent with the phenomenon recognized and accepted by USEPA, other regulators and experts in the field, whereby some of penta in the poles migrates downward to the immediate vicinity around the pole where it helps protect the pole from rot and insects, thereby extending the life of the pole and saving the ratepayers money,” PSEG’s managing director and vice president of legal, Vaughn McKoy, said in a letter addressed to Mr. Cantwell and Deputy Mayor Barbara Borsack. The letter goes on to highlight that Penta is immobile in soil and “photo-degrades, thereby making it unlikely that it will migrate within the environment” even though it has trickled down from the pole into the soil. This was also noted in FPM Group’s report. As for taking legal action against PSEG to force the company to clean up the poles, Mr. Cantwell said the town would take things “one step at a time,” and declined to comment on PSEG’s letter of response. The town is already involved in litigation with the utility company after a stop-work order was issued by the town last April at an electrical substation in Amagansett, after the town claimed the company needed site plan approval and a building permit to proceed with any work at the site. The utility company tried to get the stop-work order removed by asking the State Supreme Court in Riverhead for an injunction, but was denied. PSEG then tried to appeal the decision, but was denied again. The company additionally requested a summary judgment—asking the judge to rule on the merits of the case—over the summer, but no decision was made, Mr. Cantwell said. PSEG made additional arguments in front of the judge about a month ago and both parties are awaiting a decision. In September, State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. and State Senator Kenneth P. LaValle introduced legislation at the state level to ban the use of “harmful, industrial wood preservatives” on utility poles. “In essence, we’re proposing to prohibit the use of PCP [penta] to treat utility poles for anywhere that gets their drinking water from aquifers, which is all of Long Island,” Mr. Thiele said previously. “And for those that are already in the ground, it would require the utility company to post a notice on every other pole about the dangers of PCP.” Mr. Thiele does not anticipate any discussion on the proposed bill until the spring. “I think the disconnect on this, is that PSEG is hanging its hat on the fact that utility poles, in industrial situations, they allow the use of penta,” he said by phone on Monday. “The fact of the matter is that you’re not in an industrial environment in a neighborhood. Typically, these types of poles aren’t in people’s front yards. From my perspective, we’re going to take the [town’s] report into account and I think it helps support the need for the legislation.”
Posted on: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 18:08:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015