Last night I attended a meeting of the Town of Vernon Board. The board had requested that two representatives from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) responsible for the closure approval and filling permits for the “Kaishian Property” come to the town to make a presentation regarding this issue. (If you’re not familiar with this property, please see the side note at the end.) Read this carefully please: they were requested to come to the town to make a presentation to inform the town of their action.
Instead, they got an inquisition. They were grilled by Tom Bird for over two hours regarding their review of this property in a manner that was completely unprofessional and uncalled for. He asked the same questions over and over again, picked on their minor inconsistencies, treated them with disdain if they gave any sort of pushback, etc. If you’re thinking of voting for Tom Bird, I suggest you watch the tape, all two hours and 20 minutes of it, and ask yourself, would I like to appear before a board that acts like this?
Tom Bird should be ashamed; but I know he isn’t. This was completely in character for Mr. Bird. In the end, the representatives from the DNR showed the town quite convincingly that they DID do their job, they did NOT leave any work unfinished, our ground water IS protected, but just in case they WILL continue to monitor groundwater samples during and after any filling occurs. In fact, they will continue to monitor when ANY land disturbance occurs on this site at any time in the future.
I spoke with both gentlemen after the meeting and told them that it WAS necessary for them to explain their findings to the town, and that we ARE concerned, but they DID NOT need to be treated in such a disrespectful manner by our board. I apologized to them.
Now, please do not misinterpret my words. I feel VERY strongly that the town needs to be well informed of issues such as these. There is no resource in our town that needs to more zealously guarded than our groundwater; especially when we’re dealing with chemical contaminates that don’t go away!
Through their reports and explanations they proved that the contamination does exist, but it IS contained within the dump site itself. None of the contamination has leaked from the site into the general groundwater flow. In fact, filling over the dump site would serve to further alleviate any concern. I’ve dealt with Jim Delwiche for the DNR before as a consultant. He is tough and thorough. He does his job and forces property owners and developers to follow the letter of the environmental protection laws. He’s a good man and great person to have on our side protecting our precious groundwater!
Of course all of the facts are very contrary to Dave Nowicki’s campaign flyer against me in the race for town chairman. Here is his flyer:
http://tinyurl.com/Nowicki1
Mr. Nowicki says that we should take legal action against the DNR to require them to complete their work…you can read the flyer. Based on the complete information provided by the DNR, this would be absurd. What I find a little amusing by his flyer is that his issue #2 is controlling legal costs. Now isn’t that interesting. We’re going to file legal action with the court to force the DNR to address an issue that has been put to bed, but we’re going to control legal costs too. He should really do his homework and not listen to Joe Reilly so much.
I ask that you please make an informed decision at the polls next Tuesday, April 5th, and select Doble, Gauger and Herried to serve you on your board! Also, please help re-elect Justice David Prosser to the Wisconsin Supreme Court!
(Side note: Mr. Kaishian owns the old transfer station located at S72 W23820 West National Avenue. It’s the metal building at the top of the hill on National just west of Hwy 164. The property is located in the Village of Big Bend. Mr. Kaishian was recently approved to fill a part of the east portion of this property near Hwy 164. He was approved by the Village and has permits from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. There are no immediate plans for development of this property, just the fill at the corner so he can market the property. The issue is that in the ‘80’s while this property was being used as a transfer station [not by Kaishian], some illegal dumping occurred and there are some nasties buried out there. The WI DNR continues to monitor the situation for any potential groundwater contamination, but has found none.)
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Exactly what is the land contaminated with?
ReplyDeleteIn essence, chemicals you would typically find in a car such as oil, some gas, antifreeze, but some solvents as well. NOT good stuff, but there are two monitoring wells, one downslope and one cross slope, near the waste that are being used to monitor the groundwater. IF they detect any of these chemicals in the groundwater, the owner is required to place more wells for monitoring and potentially take additional remediation action.
ReplyDeleteWhen they tested the ground water in the vicinity of the waste a couple years ago, these chemicals had been there a minimum of ten years and have shown NO signs of moving out of the dump site. Typically in cases like these you would find leakage to the groundwater within that period. Typically, if it hasn’t started leaking within 10 years, then there’s a good chance that the chemicals will stay put, but that’s what the continuing monitoring is for.
I like the fact that there is continuing monitoring in place and that IF there is a detection, then remediation work will have to be done.
My well is downstream from this waste too….
Dear Mr. Doble,
ReplyDeleteMy home is not downstream from the identified waste but I am concerned. Here are a few issues about the site that concern me.
1. The previous owner was cited for illegal burning of tires (twice) and ordered to remove "drums" containing unknown substances from the site.
2. A Village Trustee informed me that he was told that multiple "drums" were surreptitiously buried along a tree line on the property (unconfirmed). The content of those drums (If they exist) would be of great concern! Considering the facts listed in #1 it seems to match the former owners MO.
3. One of the initial 7 (possibly 6) monitor wells were drilled through the debris creating a potential conduit for the contaminants to travel into the aquifer.
4. All but 2 of the monitor wells were removed. One of the remaining wells was up gradient from the contaminates. Since water does not flow uphill (up gradient) I wouldn't expect any contaminates to ever be detected at that local.
5. The remaining monitor well was damaged by a farming operation (Coincidence?). It was located far to the east of the direction of flow of a possible plume. Because of its location any indication of contaminants would be of concern.
6. No monitor wells were installed in the path of or west of a potential plume (based upon identified ground water flow). To determine the size and contents of a suspected plume monitor wells would/should be placed in the direction of flow!
7. How does the DNR propose to monitor the site with one existing well which is located "up" gradient from the site?
On a positive note: Generally, marshy areas contain micro-organisms which remove natural toxins including volatile organic compounds (Those that you mentioned above). The direction of flow indicated by previous studies show that a plume (if it exists) would travel to the marshy area to the N/W of the property and natural attenuation would occur. However, manmade compounds are not digested by the micro-organisms( i.e. DDT) and are of greater concern (See #2 above… What was contained within the alleged “drums” and where are they located?).
Capping the contaminants with a parking lot or similar structure would decrease the groundwater flow in the area and slow the movement of a plume.
Mark Schlottke (Town of Vernon Water Committee)
Today Mark Schlottke from the water committee made a comment, see above. Thanks for your comment Mark! I really appreciate positive dialogue; especially where it’s here for all of the residents to see!
ReplyDeleteHere is what I know at this point. If I have “no comment” then I don’t have any additional information to add. I’m hoping to get a complete copy of his file on this subject; at the moment I feel like I only have bits and pieces.
Before I answer though, I work with the WI DNR quite extensively in my line of work. I find the folks at the DNR to be very competent in what they do, but please understand, their job is to enforce environmental law (typically contained in the state statutes) and DNR policy regarding environmental protection. I have worked with Mr. Delwiche in the past. He is a tough, but fair enforcer of the environmental protection laws. He will not allow our groundwater to become contaminated if the law allows him to do something about it. If the law does not allow, then we have recourse in the courts. Of course it would not be prudent for us to go to court unless there is evidence that the law has been violated in regard to contamination of the groundwater. To date there is NO contamination of groundwater!
1. OK, I did not know this.
2. That WOULD be of great concern, but as far as I know all of the investigations of the site and the sampling of the groundwater do not indicate any contamination has reached the groundwater. Plus, it doesn’t make sense that someone would dig near trees (and the roots!) when there was an open pit on the property. But, I we should investigate if there is any record of this or where it might be.
3. I don’t think it is typical practice to drill a monitoring well through a waste mass (does anyone know differently?), but I can only speculate that the extent of the mass may not have been known when they drilled the well. They did find contamination in the waste mass and/or the groundwater below the waste mass, but since NO other well showed any trace of contamination, it is speculated that the contamination was conducted to the groundwater by the monitoring well drilling itself. There is no potential for this abandoned monitoring well to become a conduit for the contaminants since monitoring wells are required to be abandoned with bentonite chips which will dissolve and harden like concrete when in the presence of moisture. Unlike concrete, cured bentonite is impervious to water. I’m confident that this properly abandoned well will not be a conduit for contaminates.
4. There are two monitoring wells in place, one down-slope and one cross-slope from the waste mass. In a situation like this where NO contamination was found outside of the waste mass in seven wells, then it seems very appropriate.
5. One of the wells remaining (the down gradient one) was damaged by plowing of the field. In essence, the top of the well was broken off. The DNR required that this well be repaired and it was. Today this well is in good condition and in working order. When the DNR requires testing quarterly, it will be inspected each time. If it’s not in working order when the samples need to be taken, the property owner will need to repair or replace the well. It’s right in the conditions of his permit.
6. This is not true. The well you mentioned in #5 is down gradient from the waste mass in the path of any potential contaminants infiltrating the groundwater (the plume). This is the opinion of the WI DNR hydro geologist. He really IS an expert in his field.
7. This is not true. See my comments on #5 and #6. Maybe the water committee should revisit this issue with the complete file and go through it? It’s something you might want to bring to the committee chair for consideration as an agenda item. I would be happy to attend as well to offer my two cents.