About 50 people and public 

officials attended a virtual 
public 
hearing 
with 
the 

Washtenaw County Board of 
Commissioners, Ann Arbor 
City Council, Scio Township 
Board of Trustees and the 
Huron Watershed Council 
regarding the Gelman Plume 
Litigation 
Settlement 
on 

Thursday evening. U.S. Rep. 
Debbie 
Dingell, 
D-Mich., 

moderated the hearing. 

The 
Gelman 
Plume 
is 

the spread of the chemical 
1,4-dioxane into soil and 
groundwater in northwest 
Ann 
Arbor, 
polluting 

residents’ 
water 
sources. 

Gelman 
Sciences 
used 

the 
probable 
carcinogen 

1,4-dioxane to manufacture 
microporous filters from 1966 
to 1986 and did not dispose of 
their waste water properly. 
Unchecked use allowed the 
contaminant to spread into a 
large underground plume. 

In August, city officials 

proposed an agreement on a 
potential plan to clean up the 
Gelman Plume, which has 
been met with criticism from 
Ann Arbor residents. 
Thursday’s 
meeting 

aimed to inform the 
public 
about 
this 

settlement agreement 
and 
address 
pre-

submitted questions. 

Attorney 
Fred 

Dindoffer 
of 
Ann 

Arbor’s 
legal 
team 

explained 
that 

most 
of 
the 
new 

amendments 
fall 

within a document 
called 
the 
Consent 

Judgement and the 
stipulated 
order. 

Some 
key 
changes 

and additions include 
an expansion of the 
prohibition 
zone 

for pollution, a new 
exposure limit and 
increased 
pumping 

and 
treatment 
of 

polluted water.

Additionally, 

the 
new 
proposed 

agreement prohibits 
all city governments from 
requesting cleanup by the 
Environmental 
Protection 

Agency, and states Gelman 
Sciences is not liable for the 
contamination. 

“By 
entering 
into 

this 
Consent 
Judgment, 

Defendant does not admit 
any of the allegations of the 
Complaint, does not admit 
any fault or liability under 
any statutory or common 
law, and does not waive any 
rights, claims, or defenses 
with respect to any person,” 
the document reads. 

Dindoffer clarified why the 

Consent Judgment doesn’t 
explicitly hold Gelman at 
fault. 

“This CJ doesn’t require 

Gelman to admit that it’s 
liable or at fault,” Dindoffer 
said. 
“That’s 
a 
standard 

provision 
that’s 
put 
into 

virtually 
every 
consent 

judgement 
that 
we 
ever 

would see, the purpose is 
that if there’s ever a dispute 
about the CJ in the future 
and if there’s a breaking 
down of relations, Gelman 
can bring evidence in and 
force an opponent to prove 
that it’s actually at fault.”

Ann Arbor resident James 

D’Amour who is a member 
of the Coalition for Action 
on Remediation of Dioxane 
expressed his concern with 
the inability to work with the 
EPA if the Consent Judgment 
is accepted.

“Hundreds of thousands of 

dollars spent on legal fees and 
it appears that the proposed 
fourth 
consent 
judgement 

does not bring us any closer to 
cleaning up the plume, in fact 
it gives Danaher the ability 

to walk away from the mess,” 
Demoore said. “If this is 
accepted local governments 
waive the right to petition 
USEPA for complete cleanup, 
so we have the prospects of 
a larger exclusive zone with 
possibly less cleanup than 
before.” 

Dr. Larry Lemke, who 

said 
he 
has 
researched 

1,4-dioxane 
for 
over 
20 

years, gave a presentation on 
the proposed contamination 
clean up plan. 

“We know that there are 

multiple plumes, migrating 
in 
multiple 
directions 
at 

multiple depths, so this is 
truly a three dimensional 
problem,” Lemke said. “The 
proposed 
fourth 
amended 

CJ includes a number of 
additional monitoring wells 
in key positions... Are these 
wells going to completely 
delineate dioxane to 7.2 parts 
per billion everywhere? No, 
it’s not even close. Are these 
wells 
placed 
in 
sensible 

places however? Yes.”

The 
proposed 
Consent 

Judgement will have Gelman 
treat polluted groundwater 
and 
discharge 
it 
back 

into First Sister Lake at 
a rate of 200 gallons per 
minute. When asked about 

alternatives to this solution, 
Lemke explained there will 
always 
be 
many 
options 

available and none will be 
perfect.

“Other potential solutions 

might include a pipeline back 
to the Gelman treatment 
site, 
they 
might 
include 

reinjection of that water back 
down into the aquifer after 
its been treated, it might 
be piping it to somewhere 
else, 
another 
option 
is 

using the city’s sanctuary 
sewer,” Lemke said. “Every 
environmental solution has 
a trade off, there is an upside 
and a downside to every 
single one of those.” 

Ann 
Arbor 
resident 

Alexander Weinstein, who 
lives on Second Sister Lake 
and whose well would be 
directly affected by the new 
settlement, urged the public 
officials present to reject 
the proposal because of the 
pollution it would bring to 
his home and community. 

“The document gives the 

polluter permission to dump 
carcinogens 
of 
dioxane 

and bromate directly into 
the sister lake through the 
Park Lake well as one of its 
methods for disposing of the 
cleanup,” 
Weinstein 
said. 

“Most importantly there is a 
viable alternative, a pipeline 
could be run to the Gelman 
treatment 
site, 
it 
would 

be a cost but a completely 
reasonable one.”

Lemke 
continued 
to 

explain 
phytoremediation, 

which is the practice of 
removing 1,4-dioxane from 
the 
ground 
using 
trees 

and is part of the amended 
Consent 
Judgement. 
This 

is 
a 
relatively 
new 
and 

experimental 
plan 
and 

Lemke clarified it should be 
considered a trial. 

“This 
is 
an 
emerging 

technology so we should 
treat this as a pilot project 
and learn from it,” Lemke 
said. “The idea is that the 
dioxane 
moves 
with 
the 

groundwater 
to 
the 
tree 

roots and there it’s either 
transformed by bacteria in 
the roots into something 
that the tree can use, or 
it enters as dioxane that’s 
dissolved in the water, then 
it flows through the tree’s 
water transport system and 
eventually gets transpired to 
the atmosphere through the 
leaves.” 

Ann 
Arbor 
resident 

Jacqueline 
Courteau 

explained 
her 
hesitancy 

to support this particular 
plan without more concrete 
evidence.

“I’m 
wondering 
why 

there are no performance 
standards or metrics to assess 
how the phytoremediation 
is 
performing,” 
Courteau 

said. “I work with trees. I 
love trees, but I don’t think 
that 
just 
planting 
trees 

and hoping they’ll work is 
adequate.”

Lemke 
answered 

questions pre-submitted 
by members of the public 
about possible dioxane 
contamination of Barton 
Pond, Ann Arbor’s main 
drinking water source.

“The 
risk 
of 

1,4-dioxane moving up 
there is small, but the 
potential consequences 
are large and we can’t 
rule it out with complete 
certainty,” Lemke said. 
“If 
dioxane 
got 
into 

the 
subsurface 
north 

of M-14, west of Wines 
Elementary School, it 
could have a potential 
flow 
path 
down 
to 

Barton Pond.”

Members of the public 

were able to address 
the officials in an open 
forum, 
all 
of 
whom 

unanimously expressed 
their disapproval of the 
proposed clean up plan 
and urged them to not 

accept it. 

Ann 
Arbor 
and 
Scio 

Township 
resident 
Dan 

Bicknell was very vocal in his 
assurances that the proposed 
cleanup 
plan 
would 
do 

nothing to stop the dioxane 
pollution 
and 
strongly 

encouraged a rejection of it. 

“The 
proposed 
fourth 

amendment 
consent 

judgement is a continuation 
of the current CJ pollution 
remedy which will not stop 
the 
dioxane 
plume 
from 

expanding towards the Ann 
Arbor Township wells, Scio 
Township 
wells, 
Barton 

Hill village wells or Barton 
Pond,” Bicknell said. “The 
shallow plume will continue 
to travel through the city 
unabated.” 

Congresswoman 
Dingell 

ended 
the 
meeting 
by 

urging everybody involved 
to 
stay 
transparent 
and 

communicate openly to clean 
up the plume. 

“I would urge those who 

are participating that the 
more information they can 
make transparent the better 
it is, because people who don’t 
know what’s not being made 
public don’t understand why 
it’s not being made public 
and it contributes to people’s 
lack of confidence,” Dingell 
said. “Dissent and pitting 
people against each other is 
what we’ve seen happen at a 
national level for four years, 
let’s not let it happen in 
Washtenaw County, let’s get 
this cleaned up.”

Daily 
Staff 
Reporter 

Hannah 
Mackay 
can 
be 

reached at mackayh@umich.
edu.

The University of Michigan 

added outside testing counts 
to its COVID-19 dashboard on 
Thursday, more than doubling 
the total number of positive 
cases at the University since the 
start of the fall semester. 

The total positive case count 

since Aug. 30, the day before 
the start of the school year, was 
257 as of Thursday evening. On 
Wednesday afternoon, before 
the University started including 
off-campus tests that weren’t 
self-reported, the dashboard 
reported 117 positive cases in 
the same time period.

The University posted an 

update on its Campus Blueprint 
website to explain the new data. 

“University 
officials 
have 

seen a significant increase in 
positive cases this week with 
the majority of the increase the 
result of students being tested 
at off-campus facilities,” the 
update reads. “U-M launched its 
enhanced COVID-19 dashboard 
today to reflect new datasets, 
including outside testing from 
the county. This additional data 
caused a jump in cases.”

Most of these new cases are 

from students living in off-
campus, congregate housing, 
according to the update. In an 
email to The Michigan Daily, 
University spokeswoman Kim 
Broekhuizen said “it’s up to the 
county health department to 
officially identify off-campus 
clusters.”

The University’s dashboard 

previously reported only outside 
testing data that had been self-
reported to the University. The 
University is now reporting 
testing data connected to the 
University that are performed 
at off-campus testing sites, 
provided by the Washtenaw 
County Health Department. 

Before Thursday’s update, 

most of the positive cases 
identified on the dashboard 
were through University testing 
channels, such as University 
Health Service for students 
and 
Occupational 
Health 

Services for faculty and staff. 
Now, positive cases identified 
through outside testing make 
up more than half of all positive 
cases identified in the last two 
weeks. 

Susan 
Ringler-Cerniglia, 

communications 
and 
health 

promotion 
administrator 
of 

Washtenaw 
County 
Health 

Department, told The Daily 
the change in the dashboard 
does not reflect a change in 
the relationship between the 
University and the WCHD. In 
other words, all the cases now 
reported on the dashboard, 

while adding to the confirmed 
number of University-specific 
cases, were previously known 
to both parties.

“Do 
I 
think 
that 
(the 

dashboard 
update) 
changes 

represent 
cases 
that 
were 

unknown to either the county 
or the University? No, I don’t,” 
Ringler-Cerniglia said. “Is it 
better reflecting the scope of 
cases that are connected to the 
University? Yes, probably.”

According 
to 
Ringler-

Cerniglia, 
the 
Washtenaw 

County Health Department is 
made aware of all positive cases 
in the county, whether they are 
tested on campus or off campus. 
After case investigation and 
contact tracing, the department 
has a legal agreement to report 
to the University all cases that 
are confirmed to be connected 
to campus. 

Ringler-Cerniglia also said 

the health department helps 
the University conduct its own 
contact tracing.

“When the students were just 

returning, the University didn’t 
have enough contact tracers 
and case investigators up and 
hired and ready to go,” Ringler-
Cerniglia said. “So, we, as the 
health department, took over 
some of that initially, and then it 
shifted back. Now it sounds like 
there’s a little bit of an increase 
of cases that we’re helping out 
again.”

To determine if a positive 

case is linked to the University, 
the health department checks 
to see if the case is linked to 
an on-campus or near-campus 
address. 
Case 
investigators 

also flag tests conducted in the 
county that are linked to an 
out-of-state address, as Ringler-
Cerniglia said those are likely 
students using their permanent 
address instead of their campus 
address.

Business freshman Nathan 

Lewis said he turned to an off-
campus testing center to get a 
rapid test after he was exposed 
to the virus.

“(This urgent care) had a 

rapid test and I wanted a rapid 
test because I was exposed to 
the virus last week,” Lewis 
said. “I didn’t want to semi-
quarantine in my dorm and I 
didn’t want to not know exactly 
if I had it or not.”

Lewis 
said 
he 
was 
not 

planning 
on 
reporting 
his 

negative result to the University. 

“I’m not going to report my 

result because, to be honest, I 
don’t know where to report it,” 
Lewis said.

Ringler-Cerniglia said the 

health department is seeing an 
increase in students going to 
off-campus facilities for rapid 
testing. Because these tests 
are not to the same standard 
as the regular PCR tests, the 
health 
department 
reports 

rapid testing positive results as 

“probable cases.” 

While a rapid positive test 

result is trustworthy, Ringler-
Cerniglia said rapid tests have 
higher rates of false negatives. 
Though she understands that 
students may find same-day 
test results appealing, she’s 
worried students may put too 
much stock in a rapid negative 
test result. 

“What’s 
happening 
with 

this influx of cases — lately, it 
looks like there’s a number of 
them that were tested using 
rapid antigen testing at some 
of the local urgent cares,” 
Ringler-Cerniglia 
said. 
“... 

Let’s say they’re using this to 
justify going to a gathering. So 
I go and get my rapid test, and 
I go to a party. We’d be highly 
concerned that that could be a 
false negative.”

The 
availability 
of 
rapid 

testing for athletes is a major 
reason the Big Ten decided to 
reinstate the football season 
this fall. Each school in the 
league plans on testing players 
every day starting on or before 
Sept. 30.

Ringler-Cerniglia said the 

county receives only the number 
of positive cases, not the number 
of tests that are completed in 
total. So, the county does not 
know what proportion of tests 
being 
conducted 
are 
rapid 

result testing.

For 
the 
same 
reason, 

Broekhuizen 
said 
the 

University’s 
dashboard 
only 

reports 
positivity 
rates 
for 

on-campus testing, which last 
week was at 1.3 percent.

“Since 
only 
positive 
test 

results are required to be 
reported to the county/state, we 
do not know the total number of 
off-campus tests administered,” 
Broekhuizen 
said. 
“Without 

that number, we are not able to 
calculate the positivity rate.”

Residence hall data was also 

updated Thursday. As of Sept. 
19, the dashboard reports 64 
total cases discovered in the 
residence halls, with 36 of 
these cases discovered in the 
preceding week. As of Friday 
morning, 25 cases have been 
confirmed in residence halls 
since Sept. 19. 

All 
students 
who 
tested 

positive and all known contacts 
in residence halls have been 
moved 
to 
quarantine 
and 

isolation, the update said.

Last week, the University 

announced that 19 positive 
cases were discovered in South 
Quad, the first official cluster 
of 
COVID-19 
in 
University 

residence halls. The University 
tested 221 South Quad students 
after discovering the cluster, 
and all results came back 
negative, 
according 
to 
the 

University.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
 4 — Wednesday, September 30, 2020 

Off-campus COVID-19 
testing results included 
on University dashboard

 DOMINICK SOKOTOFF/Daily

U-M added COVID-19 tests administered outside of University Health Services to its total case number for the U.

CLAIRE HAO &
JOHN GRIEVE
Daily Nrws Editor & 
Daily Staff Reporter

Total number of positive cases at U-M since the start 
of the fall semester more than doubles following change

We know that 

there are multiple 
plumes, migrating 

in multiple 
directions at 

multiple depths, 
so this is truly a 

three dimensional 

problem.

Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com

Local politicians hit with 
backlash over proposed 
Gelman Plume settlement

HANNAH MACKAY

Daily Staff Reporter

Deal to resolve longrunning controversy over pollution 
in Ann Arbor’s groundwater draws criticism at forum

