Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Kenosha Wellfield 123118 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danbury moves to collect more detail on Kenosha well-field PFAS and VOC treatment plan
Summary
Danbury Public Utilities described a permanent Kenosha well-field treatment facility: carbon units for PFAS and air-stripping towers for VOCs, a phased plan to redevelop wells and a modest net increase in flood-storage. Commissioners asked for more detail on purge water handling and tabled the application for further documentation.
David Day, superintendent of Danbury Public Utilities, and design consultant Matt Morganelli described a proposed permanent treatment facility at 18 Christopher Columbus Avenue to treat low‑level volatile organic compounds and PFAS discovered in the Kenosha well field.
Day told the commission the Kenosha wells are important to maintaining the city's required margin of safety and that recent sampling found low‑level VOCs (about 4–5 parts per billion) and measurable PFAS. He said the proposed building (roughly 44 by 57 feet) would house carbon treatment for PFAS removal and site‑mounted air‑stripping towers for VOC removal; the project also includes infiltration measures sized for the 25‑ and 100‑year storms. "This is one of the most important water projects we have to complete at this point," Day said, arguing the facility is essential for Danbury to meet Connecticut DPH safe‑yield and margin‑of‑safety requirements.
Consultant Matt Morganelli described the work in more detail, including two air‑stripping towers for VOC removal, carbon filtration for PFAS and the need to rehabilitate and redevelop existing wells. The team reported the project lies in the 100‑year floodplain and that planned flood‑storage compensation would remove about 280 cubic yards of storage but add about 294 cubic yards, yielding a net gain of about 14 cubic yards of flood storage.
Commissioners focused on the practical issue of redeveloping wells and handling purge or redevelopment water that can contain higher concentrations of contaminants and fines. Commissioners asked whether redevelopment discharge should be routed to a temporary retention/settling basin or treated through the new facility. Day described a phased approach: build and commission the treatment system first, then redevelop wells and work with consultants to manage any hot purge water (options include frac tanks, settling basins, or routing through appropriate containment depending on concentration and turbidity).
No final permit decision was recorded; after technical questioning the commission voted to table Regulated Activity 123118 to the next meeting and requested additional information on purge‑water management, the planned sequence of operations, and any required monitoring.
