The Village of Mineola approved a series of settlements with oil companies and fuel transporters at the January 18 meeting of the village board at the village hall.

According to village attorney John Spellman, Mineola has been involved for “several years” against major oil companies who added methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), a lubricant into their gasoline products.

“There came a point in time when they knew the potential of this substance leaking into groundwater and causing damage and as a result they have liability for having to continued to produce that,” Spellman said.

The village had joined with several hundred other water producers to sue oil companies and oil distribution companies based upon their addition of MTBE to gasoline products. The village has settled with virtually all the major oil companies for about $1 million, which was paid in installments. A portion of the money was said to have been earmarked for upgrades to the village’s water infrastructure.

“There are still some defendants that have not settled,” Spellman said, listing several companies that night for proposed settlements between them and the village, including CP Service Station Operating Corp., Tartan Oil Corp., Northrail Industries Corp., Bill Wolfe Petroleum Corp., Obvier Service Station, Inc., Camson Equities, LLC, Albertson Realty, LLC, Steven J. Chapkin and George Chapkin Jr. in the amount of $25,736.02, net of legal fees, which were $8,578.67.

“These particular defendants were involved in the transportation of the product and some of them were the owners of gasoline stations in which the product was located,” Spellman said.

Gas stations in which MTBE was found were located in Mineola, Carle Place, Hempstead, Albertson and Westbury.

The village first brought litigation against companies over MTBE in 2003 when the additive was detected in the soil and tanks under the old Ford dealership on Jericho Turnpike, which is now the site of the Chaminade Activities and Athletic Center. None of the village’s wells has tested positive for the additive, but legal action was able to be taken on the basis of potential for contamination.

“Little by little we’re whittling down the pool of defendants,” Spellman said, noting that some of them were third and fourth-party defendants, brought in by those initially sued.