6 homes affected by Gelman dioxane plume will be annexed into Ann Arbor
Betsy French lives on a township island within the city of Ann Arbor. At her west side home, she uses well water, has a septic tank and hires a contractor for garbage pick-up.
She likes being self sufficient, and the township address keeps costs for services and taxes down.
An amended clean-up agreement reached behind closed doors between Pall Life Sciences and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality in March is going to change that.
Homes in this west side Ann Arbor neighborhood are actually township islands within the city. Six homes will be annexed when they are connected to the city's water and sewer services due to concerns over dioxane pollution.
Angela J. Cesere | AnnArbor.com
Under the new agreement, six households won’t be able to use well or septic systems anymore because the new plan expands an existing prohibition zone within the city of Ann Arbor to include a swath of their west side neighborhood.
Thousands of households in the prohibition zone in the northwest section of Ann Arbor already can’t use groundwater or dig wells due to concerns over dioxane pollution.
Now French’s environmentally friendly septic system will be crushed and her well capped. She won’t be able to use the well water at all, even for gardening, though her well has been clear of 1,4-dioxane for a dozen years, tests have shown, she said.
And because the home is being hooked up to the Ann Arbor water and sewer systems, it will be annexed and taxes and fees will go up accordingly.
Angela J. Cesere | AnnArbor.com
“If something happens to the city’s water supply we’re stuck,” said French, whose Dexter Road home is about two miles from the Pall Life Sciences facility at 600 S. Wagner Road in Scio Township. “Our well is clean and it has been for 12 years.”
Pall purchased the Gelman Sciences in 1997 and inherited the responsibility to clean up 1,4-dioxane pollution created by Gelman in its manufacturing of medical filters; the source of the pollution is a solvent and probable human carcinogen.
Since then, Pall has removed over 84,000 lbs of 1,4-dioxane and purged 6.1 billion gallons of water.
Fees and connection charges for the six homes will cost $264,579, according to an estimate prepared by Ann Arbor, not including labor costs associated with hooking up the homes to the city main. French said she and other impacted residents were told at an April meeting the company would take care of all charges.
Pall declined to comment on any payment details involved in connecting residents to city services.
“It is company policy not to make the details of such arrangements public,” said Farsad Fotouhi, corporate vice president for Pall and a company environmental engineer, said via e-mail.
The prohibition zone exists due to a patchwork of contamination sites locals call the Gelman plume. It fans out in the groundwater from the Pall site both to the west into township and to the east in a swath under the west side of Ann Arbor. The plume is estimated to be roughly a mile wide and three miles long.
Some residents say the changes reached in March will push them out of their homes.
Rusty Andres' mother's documents pertaining to the Gelman plume sit on a coffee table in her house, located off of Dexter Road on Ann Arbor's west side in a township island within the city limits of Ann Arbor.
Angela J. Cesere | AnnArbor.com
Andres' mother lives on a fixed income and would not be able to afford higher taxes associated with city life - once her home of 62 years is annexed, she will probably sell it, he said.
“It’s mainly the higher taxes and the city thing,” Andres said “It’s not definite yet. We’re looking at options and things, but she’s not going to be out in the cold.”
His mother keeps a thick red binder full of articles and clips of information about the plume, including reports from Pall on dioxane levels in her well.
Pall has tested Andres’ mother’s well for dioxane-1,4 since 1990. Dioxane hadn’t been detected in her well for 10 years until January 2010, the report showed, when it showed up at 1 part per billion. But the most recent test from January showed the level jumped to 3 ppb.
According to that letter, the safe level for human consumption is 85 ppb.
Juliana Keeping covers general assignment and health and the environment for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at julianakeeping@annarbor.com or 734-623-2528. Follow Juliana Keeping on Twitter
Comments
Seasoned Cit
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 2:48 a.m.
Nice to see that at least one other comment pointed out the dirty little truth that the State would like to forget. The truth is that Gelman requested and received permission from the State to drill the deep wells to dispose the chemicals.....which I'm not sure have ever been offically something like a "suspected" carcinogen.
Roger Rayle
Sun, May 29, 2011 : 10:50 p.m.
People shouldn't confuse the "Deep Well" with the "Deep E Aquifer". The so-called deep E aquifer is the deepest fresh water aquifer layer from about 100-300 feet below ground down to the shale bedrock. The "Deep Injection Well" was reportedly a mile deep into a confined saltwater layer. Gelman Sciences constructed the deep well in 1981 and used it from 1987-1994 to dispose of untreated dioxane purge water. According to an Ann Arbor News article 8/14/94, Gelman sciences quit using the deep well and plugged it because it "was very expensive to operate". However, this was shortly after the US EPA, who administered the deep well program, was surprised to learn that Gelman had been injecting untreated dioxane purge water into the well as well as apparently injecting some chemicals that weren't allowed for that well. The deep well was probably not a major source of dioxane contamination to our fresh water aquifers... although there was at least one spill at the surface from piping for the well that did leak some dioxane. Most of the dioxane groundwater contamination came from other questionable disposal practices... the limits of which were sometimes exceeded by Gelman Sciences.
Mike Martin
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 7:50 p.m.
The annexation of these houses and the dioxane issue are not as linked as this article would suggest. The city has been actively pursuing the elimination of the township islands for years, more aggressively in the last few years after an agreement with Ann Arbor Township matured. Simply put, Ann Arbor wants the tax added base. When anything about a sewer or well water issue occurs in one of the township island areas, or even with an individual township island property, the city often forces the annexation issue. So, while this issue may have brought Ms. French's special township status to an end, that arrangement was overdue for resolution. Every resident in the township islands is aware that their status as township residents was not going to go on indefinitely. I am sure Ms. French was too, independent of the dioxane issue. She's lucky they are picking up the bill for the hookups. Many have been annexed and have to pay their own hookup fees.
EyeHeartA2
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 7:21 p.m.
Maybe the bigger question is why are taxes higher in the "city" than the "township". Are they getting that much less? or, do we just chuck more out the window?
lynel
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 11:20 p.m.
They don't pay for the city's art.
Roger Rayle
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 6:05 p.m.
Five of the six homes had no detectable levels of dioxane in their well water... the sixth only recently. The reason these have to be hooked up to municipal water an be annexed to the City now is that the DEQ approved Pall's Expanded Well Prohibition Zone in March 2011. The DEQ had rejected basically the same plan back in May 2009, but after 22 months of secret negotiations with Pall and without a prior public hearing to explain why, the DEQ approved the plan and made it part of the Consent Judgment governing the site. Pall convinced the DEQ that the dioxane, spreading to the north towards Barton Pond where Ann Arbor gets 80% of its water, would suddenly turn and go straight east. Pall agreed to install a few new monitoring wells to monitor this. Meanwhile, Pall gets to substantially reduce its cleanup and monitoring. More dioxane will be allowed to spread unremediated. How much more we don't don't know because the DEQ is not requiring the company to determine how much is left. The company has already removed more dioxane than they said was down there... but this does not mean they are done... there are still readings in the tens of thousands parts per billion. Pall has never made public any analysis of how much of the reported original 800,000 pounds of dioxane is still in the deeper plumes moving east through the City and north towards Barton Pond. We're still waiting for 2011 data via the DEQ from Pall's new database. More info at <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/srsworg/Home/news" rel='nofollow'>http://sites.google.com/site/srsworg/Home/news</a> , <a href="http://dioxane.wetpaint.com/" rel='nofollow'>http://dioxane.wetpaint.com/</a> and <a href="http://www.srsw.org" rel='nofollow'>http://www.srsw.org</a>
Kai Petainen
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 10:20 p.m.
Roger, it's nice to hear you on here. They should have asked you for a comment. You've done a lot of work on this...
John B.
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 7:13 p.m.
Dotdash, what exactly surprises you about the local 'media' and government not wanting to publicize this information? I'm surprised that anyone would be surprised, frankly.... I presume people know that this site was on the EPA 'Superfund' list and has been an ongoing cleanup issue for over a quarter of a century?
dotdash
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 6:48 p.m.
Thank you for posting this. It's frightening and I'm somewhat taken aback that this comes out of some citizen's posting, not from a reporter or government official knowing this.
Roger Rayle
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 6:19 p.m.
By the way, stop by the SRSW/C.A.R.D. table at A2 Green Fair, 6-9pm, Friday, June 10, and learn about this and general water issues.
Larry Works
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 3:32 p.m.
I find it disturbing an article involving the Pall/Gelman Plume was published without a reference or link to the excellent online documentation created by Roger Rayle of Scio Residents for Safe Water. It has data going back to 1986. For those of you who are interested in the timeline of activities and additional data, look here; <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/srsworg/" rel='nofollow'>http://sites.google.com/site/srsworg/</a>
leaguebus
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 2:50 p.m.
Chuck Gelman did just what the state told him he could do with this chemical. He also brought many jobs to this area and pioneered an industry worth billions today.
dotdash
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 6:51 p.m.
I don't believe you get to pollute community resources just because you also did some good. And I also don't think that, "I'm within EPA guidelines" gives you a free pass. Business people should act ethically even in situations where the government doesn't force them to. Either that or we need stricter regulations.
Bertha Venation
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 3:48 p.m.
You are exactly correct. It's the State of Michigan and City of Ann Arbor that got us in this mess.
DeeAA
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 2:31 p.m.
Can you give us a comparison of the difference in taxes on (for instance) a $150,000 home in Ann Arbor versus the townshiip? Would this be a huge difference, assuming the assessment stayed the same? I know on my single-family home in Ann Arbor the sewer and water run about $15 per month on average, whereas the sewer alone runs $25 flat rate in Livingston, and we still have to maintain the well, well point and pump for water. So, the overall cost for sewer and water is greater there than in Ann Arbor. And, if anything happens to your sewer or water, the City fixes it.
Larry Works
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 2:51 p.m.
I find it disturbing an article involving the Pall/Gelman Plume was published without a reference or link to the excellent online documentation created by Roger Rayle of Scio Residents for Safe Water. It has data going back to 1986. For those of you who are interested in the timeline of activities and additional data, look here; <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/srsworg/" rel='nofollow'>http://sites.google.com/site/srsworg/</a>
WonderWoman
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.
Kai Petainen: The link to your Forbes article is EXCELLENT! What happened to investigative reporting? Why do we know nothing about the source of the July 2010 spill into the Huron River? Regarding video #5599309129, where is the location of this leakage into the Huron River? Thank you for informing us. P.S. Everyone in Ann Arbor should click on his link to become informed.
Kai Petainen
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.
"Lot M-29 (drainage pipe located under asphalt parking lot which drains into the Huron River), 1400 Nichols Dr., Ann Arbor, MI" DPS report: <a href="http://a2docs.org/assets/files/2011/04/05/DPS.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://a2docs.org/assets/files/2011/04/05/DPS.pdf</a> "Source located from a large drain, north east parking lot of Nichols Arboretum. Requested U of M retrieve schematics for drain to find where it may be entering drain, its source which appeared to be from U of M properties." AAFD report: <a href="http://a2docs.org/assets/files/2011/04/05/AAFD_incident_report_on_spill.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://a2docs.org/assets/files/2011/04/05/AAFD_incident_report_on_spill.pdf</a> "James Teeple from Hospital Maintenance arrives on scene. Teeple unable to provide drainage schematics" DPS report: <a href="http://a2docs.org/assets/files/2011/04/05/DPS.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://a2docs.org/assets/files/2011/04/05/DPS.pdf</a> Photo of AAFD booms (via FOIA), placed at this location on the night of the spill. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahknaten/5601897448/in/set-72157626327517317" rel='nofollow'>http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahknaten/5601897448/in/set-72157626327517317</a> NOTE -- the water level is still low in that photo... if anyone tells you that the initial spill was caused by a rain event -- that is not true. The rain came later that night. The booms failed and the pollution was dispersed as a rain event, but the spill itself was not a rain event. More photos of outfall here: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahknaten/sets/72157626327517317/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahknaten/sets/72157626327517317/</a> Boom also placed at Gallup (it failed) <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahknaten/5601350489/in/set-72157626333585523" rel='nofollow'>http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahknaten/5601350489/in/set-72157626333585523</a> AAFD report: "returned to the scene to see if the containment made it through the night with the heavy rains that we had. It appeared that all of the booming materials had been washed away. The only boom that was left had a rope tied to it but it was not where we placed it." Timeline and map here: <a href="http://www.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=214077171585683577679.0004a32a200b94a621810&t=p&ll=42.280738,-83.71685&spn=0.039245,0.0842&z=14" rel='nofollow'>http://www.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=214077171585683577679.0004a32a200b94a621810&t=p&ll=42.280738,-83.71685&spn=0.039245,0.0842&z=14</a>
dotdash
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 2:16 p.m.
Great map, Jeff Renner. Am I understanding it right that the dioxane levels have increased and will continue to increase as the plume spreads? If that is right, it sounds odd to complain about not being able to use your well, which will get more and more tainted as time goes on. Andres' mother's tripled readings in the past year would be enough to convince me. Pity about the higher taxes, but an island of 6 houses in the middle of the city? Also odd.
Roger Rayle
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 5:33 p.m.
@loves_fall & @dotdash the current "acceptable" residential cleanup standard for dioxane in groundwater is 85 ppb (=micorgrams per liter). Up until 1995, it was 3 ppb. Under the Engler administration, the standard was raised to 77 then 85 ppb... not because dioxane (and other pollutants) got "safer" but because the State changed the acceptable cancer risks from 1 in a million over a 70 year lifetime to 1 in 100,000 over a 30 year lifetime... all under the guise of making it cheaper to clean up urban brownfields. But they applied the standards statewide allowing sites like Pall/Gelman to avoid cleanup costs. The when the standards were loosened, they went into effect almost immediately. Last August, the US EPA August 11, 2010, published the Integrated Risk Information System Assessment for 1,4 dioxane which showed that dioxane is more dangerous than previously thought. The new standard for Michigan ratchet should back to close to the pre-1995 standard of 3 ppb... but this may take two years or more under Michigan's weakened environmental rules. By the way, there are several examples of wells that started out at 1-3 ppb and then went on to much, much higher levels... <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/srsworg/Home/data" rel='nofollow'>https://sites.google.com/site/srsworg/Home/data</a>
dotdash
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 3:28 p.m.
You may be right about that, loves_fall -- maybe 1 ppm to 3 ppm is a statistically insignificant difference, and maybe 3 ppm vs. 0 is also, but I'd take a close look if it were me. It also depends on how the 89 ppm limit is set. Sometimes those limits are set looking at large-scale population risks using some acceptable levels of cancer risk. Just because it's acceptable to the EPA doesn't mean it's acceptable to me.
loves_fall
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 2:28 p.m.
"Triple" from 1 to 3 is pretty much a blip, though, compared to the 89 ppm that's still considered safe. I'm curious to know what the other factors are, because it seems to me that if the wells are testing well under established safe levels that there isn't a reason to suspect any sudden large changes.
mama247
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 2:06 p.m.
Charles Gelman seems to love flaunting his name as donor and benefactor to many worthwhile community organizations. Unfortunately, his legacy will remain the poisoning of our local aquifer, for which he has evaded responsibility these past decades, spending more money on lawyers than clean-up. For shame.
Jeff Renner
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 1:51 p.m.
You wrote, "It fans out in the groundwater from the Pall site both to the east into township and to the west in a swath under the west side of Ann Arbor." You have the directions 180 degrees off. It spreads EAST into Ann Arbor and WEST into the township. I think I pointed out the same error in a previous article. You can see this clearly on the second (2009) map at this site <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/srsworg/Home/images/dioxane-plumes-under-pall" rel='nofollow'>http://sites.google.com/site/srsworg/Home/images/dioxane-plumes-under-pall</a> . If you click on the map to enlarge it, it is clear what I mean.
Cindy Heflin
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 1:56 p.m.
Those directions have been corrected. Thank you.
Epengar
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 1:43 p.m.
What makes Ms. French's septic system "environmentally friendly?"
DeeAA
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 2:12 p.m.
I'm going to guess that maybe she has a holding tank and one or two drywells, rather than a septic field, since the article mentions crushing them. That's what you do to that kind of a setup when you connect to a sewer instead.
DeeAA
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
I own a home in Ann Arbor as well as a cottage which has a well and septic in Livingston county. I can directly compare the Ann Arbor water and sewer rates with the costs of maintaining the well, pump and septic over 40 years. They are about the same over the years, with the city water and sewer maybe even being somewhat less expensive. If there is a water softener involved, that would be an added cost which would not be required with city water and sewer. Since Gelman is paying the connection fees, the costs should be even going forward. If these parcels are within the Ann Arbor school district currently, taxes would be the same.
loves_fall
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 1:19 p.m.
That's frustrating to these residents. A lot of people move to the townships specifically to avoid Ann Arbor taxes. It seems unfair that a long-time homeowner, especially one on a fixed income and a long history of residence, can be forced to bear the cost of this pollution just because they are living at the wrong place at the wrong time. It seems like it would be more reasonable to let the existing homeowners choose what happens to their wells if they are consistently testing within safe levels with a clause stating that when they sell the home the changes will need to be made (and let the company set aside funds for that).
loves_fall
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 1:53 a.m.
Well I read the article above and some of the sources, and I guess I have to say, yeah... bad news bears. I can't believe that they'd let them not clean it up though, especially if it's drifting towards Barton Pond. :-\
loves_fall
Sat, May 28, 2011 : 1:41 a.m.
Yeah, but I think they need to show that there is a real threat, and based on the readings they've taken, I'm not sure where the threat is.
blahblahblah
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 1:28 p.m.
I agree these residents should not bear the additional costs, but liability wise, if the wells pose a potential threat, then they need to be shut down. Even if the homeowner wants to take the risk, they could put their neihbors at risk if their well fails or if they decide to water their grass, etc., with polluted water.
Kai Petainen
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 12:53 p.m.
i wrote about the dioxane here <a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/kaipetainen/2011/05/15/lets-move-beyond-this-incident-pollution-local-news-and-responsible-investing/" rel='nofollow'>http://blogs.forbes.com/kaipetainen/2011/05/15/lets-move-beyond-this-incident-pollution-local-news-and-responsible-investing/</a>
Bertha Venation
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 12:53 p.m.
Please don't be so quick to judge, when you don't know the whole story.
Basic Bob
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 12:41 p.m.
These township islands should not last forever. The homeowners have taken advantage of living in Ann Arbor without sharing the cost with their city neighbors. They are lucky that someone is paying for the hookups, which might increase the value of the property.
Roger Rayle
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 5:01 p.m.
@Basic Bob In the early days of this site, Gelman sued their insurance company to pay for the water hookups of dozens of homes that were first contaminated by the dioxane groundwater plume. Per a prior 1960s agreement between the City of Ann Arbor and Scio Township, township homes east of Wagner that received water hookups (and the co-required sever hookups) had to be annexed to the City. Not all homeowners go the same reimbursement from Pall and Gelman. Some got their water hookup covered... some got both water and sewer covered. But to my knowledge, none got their reoccurring increase in taxes (1 or 2 mills to 17 mills) or their ongoing water and sewer costs covered. It's not that that these people moved to the City... the City expanded to encompass them... many because of the spreading dioxane plume. It's good that the City had the capacity to provide water and sewer services for these folks, but this cannot go on forever if the plume is allowed to expand to areas where people on wells do not have access to municipal water... or worse yet, if the it spreads to Barton Pond where Ann Arbor gets 80% of its water.
Epengar
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
@Ross, I think you're mistaken. The house is on Dexter Road, it's the Pall Life Sciences plant that is on Wagner.
Ross
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 1:11 p.m.
Dude, this house is on Wagner rd. There is a working farm less than half a mile away. Not exactly right in the city.
A2Realilty
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 12:10 p.m.
Pall took over the responsibilities from Gelman. I have little respect for Pall. They've outsourced a substantial number of jobs to other cities and countries for little benefit. I think that Pall should have to pay the taxes and services for these homeowners for however long it takes to clean up the mess.
oneofsix
Fri, May 27, 2011 : 11:01 a.m.
What a terrible shame that these residents are saddled with the added expense, of being annexed into the City, due to this tragic lack of environmental oversight. The right thing to do would be that Pall Life Sciences, accept total responsibility for all additional cost to these residents. They purchased this company with the knowledge of these conditions existing. A complete unacceptable result to force a fixed income resident to sell their property, after 62 years because of this issue. It is about time these residents, the City and community, hold Pall responsible for the conditions that will only continue to worsen. I feel for these neighbors and hope they prevail to get costs covered by the responsible party.