Unity Ground Water Investigation Steve Faryan, USEPA

Introductions DNR Tom Hvizdak – Remediation & Redevelopment Program Steve Janowiak, Glenn Falkowski – Drinking Water Program EPA – Steve Faryan Clark County Dept. of Health – Steve Moss Water Assistance Organizations Jeff LaBelle, Wisconsin Rural Water Association Tobi LeMahieu - West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Lisa Totten – Wisconsin Rural Community Action Program

Goals of Investigation/Removal Action Identify the extent of the ground water plume Identify the source of the ground water contamination Determine the local geology Change out of carbon units Preliminary cost estimates for water supply

Installation of Monitoring Wells

Installation of Monitoring Wells/Sampling Shallow Monitoring Wells installed at 8 locations above the granite bedrock Deep Monitoring Wells installed at 5 of the same locations drilled into the bedrock granite and screened in the fractures Soil samples collected near suspected source Ground water samples collected at all of the monitoring wells 42 Residential Well Samples collected

Former Dry Cleaner 102 N. Front Street Unity

Results of Ground Water Investigation Source of Groundwater contamination confirmed to be the former dry cleaner at 102 N. Front Street (soil and groundwater showed highest levels of chlorinated solvents) Ground Water Plume was drawn from sampling results from the Monitoring wells and residential wells Cross Section of local geology was prepared to show elevations and where water supply is found

Groundwater Cleanup Methods

Groundwater Pump & Treat Groundwater pump & treat with surface water discharge Advantages o Can be used to slow down plume expansion Disadvantages o High operation & maintenance costs o Noise o Reduces the amount of water in the aquifer which could result in contamination levels increasing in some private wells.

Permanganate Injection Advantages o Can be faster than other cleanup methods o Costs are low compared to active treatment Disadvantages o Turns the groundwater purple, not good for private wells o Difficult to maintain reaction zone in thin aquifers with fast through flow resulting in numerous injections o Not as effective in areas with a significant carbon source, such as petroleum contamination

Reductive De-chlorination Inject a material into the aquifer to consume all of the oxygen in the aquifer driving it anaerobic Advantages o Works well in areas also impacted by petroleum contamination o Cost effective Disadvantages o Injection wells tend to plug and need maintenance o Takes a long time o The temporary degradation compounds are as bad or worse than PERC  Trichloroethylene (TCE)  Dichloroethylene (DCE)  Vinyl Chloride (VC)

Questions Regarding Geology & Potential Cleanup Methods

Possible Solutions to Water Supply Problem Individual water softeners followed by carbon treatment systems Shared community water system for affected homes (i.e. trailer park system) Municipal well

Individual Carbon Treatment System Solution Installation Cost about $9,500 per well Only installed on homes currently receiving bottled water Annual maintenance cost about $1,000 EPA will service the existing systems this Fall Well owners will be responsible for maintaining the systems after 2016 if the Village or impacted well owners are NOT moving towards installing a shared or municipal water system

Preliminary Cost Estimates for a Shared Water System Shared Well/Community Well installed and hooked into approximately affected wells Impacted well owners will be required to form a legal association to maintain the system and collect user fees The Village cannot own, partially own, or be involved with maintenance and fee collection Water from this system will have to be sold/given to the Village to serve the municipal buildings Will require purchasing property about a mile west of town to install the shared well

Preliminary Cost Estimates for Public Water Supply Municipal Water Supply for Unity (including design costs, wells, building, treatment, water mains, water tower): $3.0 Million Two wells will be required installed about 1 to 2 miles west of town

Benefits of a Public Water Supply Health Benefits of clean water Lower homeowners insurance (due to fire protection services/hydrants) More attractive for Industry and Business’s (due to sprinklers and hydrants) Increased Property Values Eliminate Long Term Maintenance Costs of Private System

Miscellaneous grant & Assistance Programs Wisconsin Well Compensation Program – WDNR Wisconsin Community Development Block Grants – Wis. DOA Rural Development Program - USDA Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants – USDA

Path Forward at This Moment Village needs decide if it wants to pursue the application process for funding from USDA, WDNR & Wis. DOA, and after all funding information is collected If Village decides not to pursue the application process, and a legal association cannot be formed to install a shared well, then the individual well owners will be responsible for their water quality after 2016

Web Site for more information Steve Faryan, USEPA

USDA Contact Julie Giese Rural Development USDA 2912 Red Fox Run Portage, WI (608) Ext