Groton Open Space Association

Wal-Mart Hearing To Resume October 8

By Joan Smith, GOSA Board Member

GROTON — Citing “volumes of materials to digest,” Chairman David Scott of the Town of Groton Inland Wetlands Agency has continued a hearing on the new application of Konover Acquisitions LLC to build a Wal-Mart Super Center on Route 184 near the Groton Utilities drinking water reservoir.

At the opening hearing Sept. 10, Konover attorney Diane Whitney described the new application as “minor changes to a previous application [that was], with your approval, also deemed minor.” She reported 437 people were notified of the hearing. She asked that all technical data from all previous applications be incorporated into the record.

The Sept. 10 hearing was continued to Oct. 8.

The new application represents Konover’s second attempt to get IWA approval for changes to the 2006 plan that the IWA had approved. The Planning Commission last year rejected the 2006 plan. And the IWA rejected Konover’s first application for changes in a June 11, 2008 decision.

Guy Hesketh, Konover engineer, presented a site plan showing different colors for each of the five receiving wetlands and their corresponding drainage areas, contrasting that map with the previously approved plan. He said that in-ground treatment and a large water-quality basin would remove more that the state-mandated 80% of total suspended solids (TSS). He referred to the original maintenance plans in the 2006 application when asked for details about inspection and maintenance procedures. Mr. Hesketh said treatment mechanisms would be checked annually through inspection ports and added that “sewer guys, who have equipment” would flush and clean the in-ground systems.

Robert Sonnicson, an engineer appearing for Konover, described roof run-off as clean, but said it will receive a high level of treatment through underground galleries. David Mitchell, an environmental consultant, said that the only concern for thermal impacts would be any cold water fishery and that “we do not have a sensitive fishery.” He described the “extraordinary care given” to the treatment train and stated 88% or more of TSS would be removed.

Agency Member Mary Ellen Furlong cited a recent memo by a town engineer which stated that storm water discharge from Basin 4 would increase by 300% from pre-construction levels. Ms. Whitney quickly rejoined that Basin 4 was not part of the application. Ms. Furlong responded that the memo was dated Aug. 25, 2008, and had been included in a packet prepared by the Office of Planning and Development Services for agency members ahead of the Sept. 10 meeting. Ms Furlong complained that the fragmented quality of the application created “problems with seeing the whole thing.”

Agency Member Eunice Sutphen asked why the application was for Drainage Areas 1, 3 and 5, but Areas 4, 6 and 7 have been changed dramatically. Ms. Whitney responded that Areas 4, 6 and 7 had been previously approved, and now show less flow. Deborah Jones, the town’s environmental planner, introduced several letters of intervention, and “no comment” memos from the Conservation Commission and the Planning Commission. She said that a memo from Groton Utilities (GU), a City of Groton entity that uses the nearby reservoir system to supply water to many communities in southeastern Connecticut, was similar to the one from 2006.

GOSA Board Member Joan Smith, read a statement from GOSA, and challenged Mr. Mitchell’s dismissal of thermal impacts. She said that because no environmental assessment had been performed on the area proposed for the super center, there is no basis for his dismissal of the idea of a sensitive cold water fishery. An environmental assessment is further needed to study a hydraulically isolated, potential vernal pool that is at risk of receiving storm water discharge, she said.

Sidney Van Zandt, another GOSA board member, resubmitted a memo from Dr. James Kremer, a University of Connecticut professor, expressing concern that receiving waters could reach a “tipping point” in their ability to absorb nutrients. Ms. Van Zandt resubmitted photographs showing the proposed Wal-Mart driveway’s proximity to Hempstead Brook and the brook’s direct connection to the Groton reservoir.

Marjorie Shansky, attorney for several interveners opposing the project, citing town regulations, described the project as “major,” rather than minor, as the IWA has categorized it. She asked, “When is a major activity minor?” And she requested the “missing ecological report.” She later read into the record a letter from Zell Steever, a water quality expert and Groton resident. Mr. Steever said in part that the project “as presently designed will not adequately remove total suspended solids or the dissolved organic and inorganic substances and compounds or other pollutants, wastes or materials in the storm water stream coming from the construction and operations of a Wal-Mart Super Center with extensive parking areas and driveways.”

Steve Trinkaus, an engineer for the interveners, reported many engineering problems with the proposed storm water treatment systems. He challenged assumptions concerning infiltration, water attenuation and cleaning efficacy of the infiltration systems. He pointed out discrepancies with standards of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

Mr. Trinkaus demonstrated short-circuited flows in the basins, and showed that the basins do not have the length or depth required to promote slow attenuation and plant uptake of nutrients. He said “you cannot make a leap of faith” that the basins will work. Further, he said it is a “stretch” to claim that bacteria exist in the stone surrounding the infiltration systems, as in a septic system. Only 30% TSS will be removed from flows to the state storm water system along Route 184, and very hot water will run from the roofs, parking lot and basins to receiving wetlands, he said.

Mr. Trinkaus asserted that a permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would be required for the underground galleries: without pretreatment, they would be considered injection sites, subject to federal approval. Further, he said, erosion would occur at the top of the steep slope next to the retaining wall. The fire pond, he said, would not receive firefighting chemicals from the front of the store. He supported the Town engineer’s figure of a 300% increase from Basin 4 that Ms. Furlong had cited.

Robert DeSantos, a water quality expert for a group of interveners, said the proposed site is 80 feet above the reservoir and noted that and water runs downhill. Resuspension of solids will be a problem after filters clog, he said. He noted that the life of a septic tank, for example, is only 30 years.

Michael Brown, who lives near the proposed building site, noted that the state of Connecticut settled with Wal-Mart in 2005 for $1.15 million in connection with environmental violations at many of its stores in the state. Mr. Brown quoted from a press release issued Aug. 15, 2005 by Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal:

“Wal-Mart’s environmental record here seems as low as its prices–proven violations at 22 stores in Connecticut. Big as it is, Wal-Mart failed to get it right… We’re holding Wal-Mart accountable for systemic, repeated violations across the state.” The full text of the press release follows this article.

At the end of the meeting, revised plans were distributed to the IWA members. Ms. Jones, the environmental planner, said that plans had been submitted the day before, on Sept. 9.