Gelman's Discharge Plan on Hold

Gelman's discharge plan on hold

ADP, homeowners challenge plan to dump pollutants into Honey Creek.

By KARL LEIF BATES

NEWS STAFF REPORTER

The portion of the Gelman Sciences cleanup that would pump tainted groundwater into Honey Creek is on indefinite hold. The Michigan Water Resources Commission Thursday agreed to hear a challenge to the pollutant discharge permit it issued for the purging operation in December.

Automatic Data Processing, which owns property and several buildings to the north of Gelman Sciences, filed the challenge in January. It has subsequently been joined by 26 homeowners who live along Honey Creek.

“This is wonderful,” said Scio Township homeowner Diane Wilson. “We were afraid they weren’t going to accept the challenge and we’ve been on pins and needles about it.”

The challenge will help the homeowners fight Gelman’s plans to fill the creek with 400,000 gallons per day of treated groundwater, she said. “This gives us more time to regroup and plan our next step.”

In its challenge, ADP argues that discharging such a large volume of treated groundwater into the creek will harm aquatic life, erode the stream’s channel, damage a wetland owned by ADP, and pose a risk to humans by spreading contaminants that are only found on Gelman’s property.

Most of the discussion of the groundwater problem has focused on a solvent believed to cause cancer, 1,4-dioxane, which has been detected in well water a mile north and a mile west of the Wagner Road plant.

But ADP points out in the challenge that the purged groundwater also will contain several other toxic compounds, including benzene, acetone, isopropyl alcohol and 1,1-dichloroethane that are only present on the Gelman Sciences property to date.

The state currently has a backlog of 20 water permit challenge cases, said Mike Bitondo, a water quality specialist who reviewed the Gelman application for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. However, it may be possible at next month’s meeting of the Water Resources Commission to get the case moved ahead on the list, he said.

Without being moved ahead, pollutant discharge permit challenges sometimes take two years, said Denise Gruben, the DNR’s project manager on the Gelman cleanup.

A challenge hearing is conducted by a DNR official and an administrative law judge. “It’s almost like a courtroom setting,” Bitondo said. Then the recommendation from the hearing goes back to the Water Resources Commission for approval.

If the firm is allowed to go ahead with pouring the water, into Honey Creek, it will be required to treat the purged water until dioxane is less than 100 parts per billion before it could put the water in the stream. The ultraviolet radiation and oxidation treatments being considered to reduce concentrations of dioxane in the purged groundwater should also break down some of the other pollutants as well, Bitondo said.

Residents worry about the concentrations that would be allowed into the creek by the permit and about the monitoring requirements set forth in the permit because they put Gelman in charge of checking its own compliance. The firm would also be allowed 10 days to notify the DNR of a problem. Bitondo said the monitoring guidelines are standard for permits of this type.

Last year, ADP won a $450,000 jury award from Gelman for damaging the value of its property.

Pollutant discharge permit challenges sometimes take two years, said Denise Gruben of the DNR.