100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

September 30, 2020 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

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

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan