For the last twenty years, Stratford has been dealing with the soil contamination left behind by Raymark Industries—and it has been a bumpy road.  The latest chapter is now unfolding with a proposal by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consolidate the soil from over twenty sites into 1-3 sites in Stratford and cap them to prevent health risks.  However, I believe this course of action was arrived at too quickly and without considering alternatives.  Therefore, I am calling on the EPA to slow down their process to consider alternatives and listen to the concerns of Stratford residents.

The history of the Raymark properties are known to most in Stratford.  Raymark Industries operated for 70 years on East Main Street, making brakes, clutches, and other manufacturing parts.  They used a system of lagoons around the area to dispose of waste—much of which seeped into the soil and contaminated it with various chemicals. 

In the 1990’s, the EPA capped and remediated the main site (where Home Depot and WalMart now stand), as well as many residential properties.  However, there are still over 20 locations around Stratford that contain uncapped contaminated soil.

The EPA is proposing digging the soil up from these two dozen properties and consolidating them in 1-3 locations in south Stratford.  The EPA will then “cap” them in these consolidated locations with non-contaminated soil to prevent public exposure to the contaminants. 

Stratford still has $21 million in the federal Superfund designated for cleaning up these contaminated sites it in the federal Superfund, and the EPA claims their proposal will cap all the remaining Raymark waste while staying within the current budget. 

While this sounds good, there are many problems with the proposal.  First, there are huge health concerns with moving contaminated soil around town.  We aren’t talking a few trucks here; we are talking tons of dirt.  Airborne particles, spilled dirt on roads, and a number of other health concerns could result from a massive consolidation.  Health concerns could impact the entire town, not just the immediate area.  Second, many residents living near the consolidation sites are not too excited about moving more toxic chemicals near their house.  Finally, such a massive consolidation would disrupt daily life in Stratford, with essentially twenty construction sites happening at once in a small geographic area.  So while there is definite pro argument for consolidation (it caps all the material in a cost effective manner), the consolidation is not without serious cons.

The issue I have is that there has not been a public debate about the alternative ways to clean up the Raymark facilities.  Not being a scientist, I cannot speak to which of these is best for public health.  But I believe the EPA owes it to Stratford to present all alternatives and allow a debate on what would be best for the community.

Alternative #1:  Moving Dirt out of Town.  The best idea for public health is to remove the dirt from town entirely.  Removing the contaminants entirely is probably the best way to secure public health in the long term.  The EPA has established containment sites for soil like this around the country, including one in Buffalo, NY.  However, the EPA has said in the past that moving this amount of dirt to one of these sites is prohibitively expensive—which might be true.  However, a detailed cost analysis of how much this would cost has never been presented publicly.  Similarly, you could picture a proposal that takes some of the most contaminated soil and moves it out of town.

Alternative 2:  Selective Capping in Place.  Another alternative is to use the $21 million to cap the worst polluted sites and leave the rest uncapped until we can find more money.  The sites have various levels of pollution, and some are statistically worse than others.  We could cap the worst sites in place, and leave those with less pollution for when we can find more money.  The obvious problem with this idea is that it leaves some sites uncapped with no funding secured (and quite honestly I’m not sure if there will be additional funding available).  However, this seems to me to be the best compromise that would cap the worst sites while not exposing any contaminants to the general public by moving tons of polluted dirt around town.

Alternative 3:  Doing Nothing.  A final alternative would be to do nothing—keeping the situation status quo until the funding is secure to cap everything in place.  The EPA has previously said that the contaminants in the soil present no clear and present danger to residents (because the worst sites were handled in the 1990’s).  Thus, an option could be to try to secure the funding to cap all the properties in place.  However, I believe the EPA and state DEP will be opposed to this option, because they will want to spend the remaining $21 million to deal with at least part of the remaining properties.

Many groups are currently debating this issue.  The Raymark Advisory Committee (RAC), which is appointed by the Town Council, is currently drafting recommendations on how to ensure any project has safety measures in place for public health.  A group of concerned citizens have founded SaveStratford.org to oppose the current EPA proposal.

State Representative John Harkins and I have sent a letter to the EPA and DEP outlining the fact that we need to have a full consideration of the alternatives—including moving the dirt out of town, selective capping in place, and doing nothing until more funding is secure.  Stratford deserves to consider all the options and determine the right course for cleaning up the Raymark site.  The EPA should not be imposing a solution on the town without fully exploring and debating the logical alternatives to consolidation.

Dan Debicella is the State Senator representing Stratford, Shelton, Monroe, and Seymour.  If you have feedback for him or want to talk about the issues, he can be reached toll-free at (800) 842-1421 or by e-mail at dan.debicella@cga.ct.gov.