Whitewater family worried about drinking water
Photo
This former gas station on S. Janesville St. in Whitewater is allegedly the cause of nearby groundwater pollution.
WHITEWATER — The Channing family doesn’t drink the water at their house.
They still cook with it. They still bathe in it. But they don’t dare drink it.
Joe and Kathy Channing, 531 S. Clark St., learned in spring that leaking tanks at an old gas station up the street had contaminated their groundwater.
But the couple was informed the problem was going away and that the state needed to close the case.
They were puzzled: Why hadn’t anyone told them the water they had been using was contaminated with an unsafe amount of benzene, a carcinogen, for the 10 years since the gas station closed—or longer?
“We have so many questions,” Kathy said. “But the part that gets me is if they would have told us, we would have had the opportunity to move.”
The Channings, who moved into their house in 1983, are concerned about their long-term health and well being as a result of exposure to benzene.
They also are concerned about the apparent secrecy with which state officials have handled the case.
“I don’t know what’s true,” Kathy said.
“I don’t know what to be afraid of. What are we supposed to do? We live here. We’re caught.”
‘Nobody told us’
The Channings received a letter stating groundwater contamination that originated at the former Five Points One Stop gas station at 503 S. Janesville St. had migrated onto their property.
The letter said the “groundwater contaminant plume,” or area of polluted groundwater, was receding and would continue to degrade over time. It also said the state Department of Natural Resources was satisfied with cleanup at the site and wanted to close the case.
Things didn’t seem right from the get-go, Kathy said.
“I read through it and thought, ‘This is wrong,’” she said.
The letter arrived via certified mail April 16, 2009, but it was dated March 16. It was typed strangely, like it was supposed to be printed on letterhead even though the paper was plain. It was signed by Elizabeth Meyer, the wife of the former gas station owner, Stan Meyer.
Kathy called a DNR official whose address and phone number were listed in the letter. The official said he was going to close the case, so Kathy called other DNR officials. They routinely sent her back to the man she originally contacted.
Still, she didn’t stop trying to get answers.
“I started calling every office I could,” she said. “I didn’t care who I was talking to, I was just begging for help.”
Kathy also started doing some research. She consulted a family friend, who is a hydrogeologist and has knowledge of groundwater contamination cases.
Kathy believes the state has insufficient information to close the case.
“These people think we’re idiots,” she said.
The Five Points One Stop opened in 1932. It went out of business in the late 1990s, when Stan Meyer became ill. The gas pumps were removed in July 1998 and the gas tanks were removed in January 2000.
“We didn’t think anything of it,” Kathy said of the gas station closing. “I thought it was because (the owner) was sick … I didn’t think anything about them closing because (the groundwater) was contaminated. Nobody told us.”
An environmental consultant in 1999 installed several monitoring wells and in 2003 conducted some cleanup at the site, excavating about 270 tons of contaminated soil, according to a bid request sent out by the Petroleum Environmental Cleanup Fund Award Bureau. The bureau is a division of the Department of Commerce, which handles gas station rehabilitation and cleanup.
In late 2001, benzene concentration near the gas station site was 1,440 parts per billion. By late 2008, it was 320 ppb, according to a chart from the consultant, which monitored the area using the wells.
Kathy believes the DNR cannot know for certain the contamination is dissipating—at least not near her home.
The data the DNR has is outdated, she said. The monitoring wells were broken in 2006, when Clark Street was reconstructed, and they never were replaced, she said.
The last known benzene concentration near the Channings’ house was 776 ppb in late 2001.
Kathy believes even if the contamination is going away, she and her neighbors should have been warned about it from the start.
‘Not usually a risk’
John Feeney, a hydrogeologist at the DNR who handled the Five Points case, said the state department usually only notifies people of groundwater contamination if it poses a health risk.
“Our procedure is not to go around knocking on doors to tell people there’s contamination at a gas station near their house,” he said. “If there’s a health problem we would do that, but in this case, we didn’t think there was a health problem.”
Feeney said environmental officials did not know until recently that chemical vapors at low concentrations were a “pathway for concern.” But, he said, officials still are not as concerned about petroleum chemical vapors at low concentrations because they do not pose a real risk until they are at a high enough level to produce an odor of gas.
“If there are no odor complaints, there’s not usually a risk,” he said.
Feeney said the DNR never received complaints from people in the Five Points neighborhood about odor.
Kathy told officials she never noticed a smell of petroleum near her house but was concerned the vapors could come up through the floorboards of her house. (The Channings’ house does not have a basement, only a crawlspace beneath the living room. Under the floorboards is dirt.)
Feeney said officials did not believe there was a risk to indoor air based on the data they had regarding the concentration of contamination in the groundwater. But Kathy asked the state health department to test the air in the house anyway.
Tests of the air in the crawlspace under the Channings’ house revealed “no concentration of concern,” he said.
The DNR on Nov. 19 closed the Five Points case.
“The concentrations of contaminant showed a clear decreasing trend,” Feeney said. “And natural attenuation will remediate any residual contamination in a reasonable amount of time.”
The houses in the Five Points neighborhood now are listed in a database of closed environmental remediation sites, which essentially lets future property owners and construction companies know there might still be some contamination in the area and that they must take caution in drilling wells or handling soil.
Kathy Channing continues her crusade. She’s contacted federal environmental officials for help. She’s even contacted a lawyer for advice.
But she’s been hesitant to ask her neighbors about the issue because she doesn’t want to “scare” them.
“The people around here … deserve to be told the truth,” she said. “I don’t think that people should be alerted 10 years later that … their investments (homes) are gone because of a lie. I’m baffled by it.
“I want them (state environmental officials) to come out with the truth.”
Jan 20, 2010 at 6:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
I am pretty amazed that most of you are not getting this. I grew up on the corner right next to that gas station so I have some credibility here. There is more than likely a correlation with that gas station contamination and all the people who suffered from cancer that lived within a small radius of that area. Cancer is supposedly a "rare" disease, but my sister died from it when she was 16, I had cancer, and so did my mother. The gas station owner died from it and his wife is a cancer survivor. Several others in that area also had it. Coincidence or not? I don't think so. I find it pretty offensive for some of you to make such mindless comments as "buy bottled water", you should be ashamed of yourself. The problem is so beyond bottled water, that is not the point and this article is not stating the important points. How about breathing deadly vapors for 10 years? I'm sure if members of your family died off you would want to know the reason behind that.
This article is better... http://dailyunion.com/main.asp?Search=1&...
Jan 9, 2010 at 4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Kayla, The follow-up piece stated that her dog's dish has rust in it so if she believes the water is unsafe to drink why did she give it to the dog? It seems she contradicted herself. I grew up in WW and had no problems with the water. Also where is the deceased family's view in all of this as it seems this has to be hurtful to them.
Jan 6, 2010 at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Kayla, do not defend yourself with superdave, or anyone else you printed a story and are going to follow up. As you may have noticed in the Gazette blogs people here are just lashing out because that is what they do. I liked the article and I used to live in Whitewater so I know how that city board works and it is not easy dealing with them that is one of many reasons we left Whitewater.
Jan 6, 2010 at 9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
No problem, SuperDave. I realize I didn't make it clear in the article. I'm planning to write a follow-up story this week to clarify some issues and to address the city's concerns.
Kayla Bunge
Reporter
Jan 4, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Thanks Kayla. I think it's clear that there is no benzene in the public water supply, and that there is no connection between the public water supply and the former gas station. The article was simply misleading in this regard.
Jan 4, 2010 at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
SuperDave: Let me try to clarify, based on my more recent conversations with Kathy Channing.
The family does not drink the water at their house. I learned recently they don't because the water tastes and smells bad. City water officials told me today that could be a problem with the plumbing in the Channing household.
The Gazette likely will publish a follow-up/clarification story this week to answer some of the questions raised here.
Thanks.
Kayla Bunge
Reporter
Jan 4, 2010 at 9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Do tell! I'm sure the real story is a lot more complicated. But I am only speaking to the drinkability of the water, which originates from the city water system, not the groundwater under the house.
The first line of the article states that "The Channing family doesn’t drink the water at their house". My question: WHY NOT? Is the reporter incorrect in that statement? The article implies that there is something wrong with the water, yet it's already been stated that this house is on city water. Therefore there must be something wrong with the city water system, *or*, there is some unknown (and unlikely) infiltration of local groundwater into the house's plumbing. Which is it?
Some of the reader comments to this article should get some kind of a prize for the best (worst?) obfuscation ever. I am asking a simple question, I would like a simple answer.
Jan 4, 2010 at 7:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
SuperDave...the only explaination I can figure out and try to give you is that the reporter emphasized her story on the drinking water. The real story is much more complicated.
Jan 3, 2010 at 10:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
I am totally nonplussed. Can anyone please explain in plain English why there would be any concern whatsoever by those attached to the city water system as to the safety and drinkability of the water?
I will not entertain any comments regarding the alleged consequences of "vapor intrusion", existence of basements or not, contamination plumes, etc. I am only addressing the comments regarding *drinking water*.
And YES, I am perfectly willing to drink the water from the city water system of Whitewater, by the gallon (the irony of the name of the city not lost on this student :=).
Thank you.
Dec 31, 2009 at 4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Thank you for your help and wisdom. chkmrk
Dec 31, 2009 at 9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
While I make no claim to understand the health risk potential of this situation (I am not a scientist!), there are other major concerns, mainly, your home.
*
"The houses in the Five Points neighborhood now are listed in a database of closed environmental remediation sites, which essentially lets future property owners and construction companies know there might still be some contamination in the area and that they must take caution in drilling wells or handling soil."
*
Your home is the largest investment that you will probably make in your life. Now, your major investment is on a list of "closed remediation sites," which would be something you would be required to disclose to potential future buyers. Even if the case is closed, and even if the buyers are "reassured" that the health risk is minimal, most people would walk right out the door. There would be too many uncertainties, and people with children would not want to risk it. People fear what they don't understand, and I think that is exactly what the residents in this area would face if they tried to sell.
*
So you don't want to live in this home because you aren't 100% certain that there will be no health consequences to you and your family - now or 20 years down the road - but you can't sell it because 99% of potential buyers would run away from such red flags as soil contamination... What do you do??? The Channings (and all the other residents) have every right to be upset about this situation. More power to those who seek legal advice. It's not about monetary gain - it's about being restored to the situation you were in before this occurred. If you have to dump your home for $50,000 less that what it is worth because no one will take it at full value (or your appraisals are significantly dropped because of this situation), why shouldn't you be compensated for that loss - which was caused by no fault of your own? JMO
*
I have trouble sometimes understanding how people are unable to empathize with others - which seems to be a major problem for people on this site. I think if this had happened to some of the other posters on this board personally, their opinions would be very different.
*
Good luck, Kathy, and all the other residents!
Dec 31, 2009 at 8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mooshoo
http://www.kdheks.gov/ber/download/Ks_VI...
http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmen...
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/... Original Message ----- From: "CDC-INFO" <CDCINFO@cdc.gov>
I'd say you know a lot or all about the area of undrground leaks and hydrogeology..why don't you help me/us instead of using your wonderful knowledge as an intimidation tool to degrade me for trying to get answers? Online print makes it very hard to distinguish what emotions are behind the typed words. Your words make me feel like I am the one that is doing the wrong thing. I am asking for help with a wrong that has been done to lots of people. I am asking that this wrong be corrected. The way I've understood this, is the 'clean up' that the DNR is happy with is at the immediate site of the gas station. This does not include the third party properties demonstrated in the plume. Am I wrong? After ten years of exposure, are we safe...can you tell us all that?
Maybe I can post the analytical results for you and you can use your knowledge to calculate how much of the chemicals we've been exposed to over the ten year span? Maybe you can let us all know if we should go get the testing for long term exposure to the specified chemicals (benzene, MTBE, etc.) suggested by the CDC? I will gladly post the data if you are willing to help me/us get the answers I/we all need to hear that we are safe. Thanks, Kata.
Dec 31, 2009 at 1:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
If you have city water you have nothing to worry about concerning the water aspect of this whole thing, period.
Dec 30, 2009 at 10:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Kata, I suggest you read the API research bulletin you link in your post. It has NOTHING to do with "vapor intrusion". It has EVERYTHING to do with explaining the variables that affect migration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) released in the vadose zone to the water table. The vadose zone, for those of you who are curious, is the "dirt" above the water table.
Dec 30, 2009 at 10:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dear Krack. There is no question that organic solvents are carcinogens. But quoting OSHA reports does prove those living on Clark Street are exposed to dangerous levels of those solvents. On the contrary, the State says there is no risk. Case closed.
*
You demonstrate your complete lack of understanding statistical analysis through your inference that the "cancer boom" in the neighborhood is caused by the groundwater pollution. There are way too many exogenous variables to infer causality. The sample size is to small and perhaps it is just a statistical aberration. Do concepts such as predictor equations, confidence intervals and T-tests mean anything to you?
*
And finally, you cite the conspiracy theory. What a crock. You are the one who does not get it.
Dec 30, 2009 at 7:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Patarican1. I believe the city of Whitewater restricts private wells within the city limits? I think they asked people to cap them years ago? Anyway, we have city water, but don't drink it. Any suggestions on how to escape washing/bathing in this stuff? I do make sure the water we cook with is boiled...I don't know if that gets rid of all the chemicals? The dogs get the well water for drinking too.
Dec 30, 2009 at 7:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
SuperDave...on the DNR's web site it says 98% of groundwater is drinking water. The gas tank leaked either so much or for so long that it created a fairly large plume leaving concentrations levels of some pretty bad chemicals above the state standard. Indicating the ground became fairly saturated with these chemicals.
I guess my way of explaining it to you would be, the plume is basically a large puddle of the chemicals that leaked form the undergraound tank into the surrounding dirt or ground and saturated it with the chemicals. This saturation of chemicals either evaporated thru the dirt and recycled back down replenishing the concentrations, or escaped up thru the dirt and out intot he air, or it seeped downward to the groundwater table and is sitting on top of the groundwater flow. (An example would be like a puddle of water with oil slick floating on it in an air pocket between layers of dirt underground.) The groundwater is made up of rain, melted snow, trapped moisture particles, whatever. It sinks or drains down thru the soil and creates a kind of underground stream. This stream eventually travels to other water sources, like springs, creeks, swamps, rivers, lakes, etc., or it evaporates up thru the soil. The drinking water comes from the springs. Basically, that is the connection between the gas station's underground tank leaking, the groundwater table and the drinking water. I was on a DNR brownfield site that showed that Whitewater is 29 sq. miles (including Whitewater Lake) and they had 32 spills listed on that site...some were reported to be cleaned up...but that is a lot of spills for a small city. I wonder what Janesville, Milwaukee, Chicago, L.A., are like? The guy from the Dept of Health told me he was at a site where the water could be started on fire. I wouldn't reccomend smoking in the shower at that place:>).
Anyway, the reporter used her words to express the story, or relay the information. Our worries are more evolved around the vapor intrusion becaue we don't drink the water, it tastes like it's old or stale or something. We go to the well for our drinking water as Partarican1 mentions. Now that's some good water out there.
Dec 30, 2009 at 6:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
To Mooshoo...the analytical results summary sent with the letter shows the groundwater table range to be 8.10 to 13.51 (feet) on our property. I do not know the depth of the well, but some of the other properties depth ranges for testing groundwater went deeper, and some more shallow.
Our basement is 8 ft and the crawl space is (I'm guessing) 4 feet. Here is a scientific web site for you to check out about vapor intrusion and the model uses sand and clay soils, so it is very much like our ground here in Whitewater. I wish there was fifty feet of dirt between us and the groundwater table.
http://www.api.org/ehs/groundwater/uploa...
Also, I asked the city and the DNR for the VOC's on the drinking water. The city responded right away with the annual report. Whitewater at the time was having problems with arsinec in the drinking water. They may have resolved that problem...see their annual report, it is public record. As for the DNR, they wouldn't give me a copy of the VOC's on the drinking water.
Dec 30, 2009 at 4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cooking with and bathing in contaminated water is just as bad as drinking it. No one has established whether or not this house has city or well water; just because a house is within city limits doesn't guarantee city sewer service. If they have a well, they should stop using the water altogether, and go to the flowing well just outside of town; the water there is safe to drink. If they have city water, this would be a non-issue. But those strange letters would cause some concern for sure.
Dec 30, 2009 at 3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
The water table is as close as 6 feet to the surface in the neighborhood. It's a swampy area. If you have a crawlspace here that doesn't leave much if any barrier in between, certainly not a 50 foot barrier. Some crawlspaces are always damp since they're so close to the water table. Even a good rain can flush it into your usually dry basement. If the ground water is getting into the crawlspace, so is the benzine where it will easily vaporize into your home. The ground water tests recorded cover depths of about 6 to 14 feet below the surface and show up to 27,000 ppm in the neighborhood's ground water. This is not to be taken lightly.
"1. Airborne: The maximum time-weighted average (TWA) exposure limit is 1 part of benzene vapor per million parts of air (1 ppm) for an 8-hour workday and the maximum short-term exposure limit (STEL) is 5 ppm for any 15-minute period." -US Dept. of Labor
The neighborhood has a recent boom in cancer of which at least 4 cases were terminal. One family of 5 that lived very close to the site for at least 15 years has had at least 3 members afflicted with cancer or leukemia, including a 16 year old who did not recover and has passed away.
"Research has shown benzene to be a carcinogen (cancer-causing). With exposures from less than five years to more than 30 years, individuals have developed, and died from, leukemia. Long-term exposure may affect bone marrow and blood production. Short-term exposure to high levels of benzene can cause drowsiness, dizziness, unconsciousness, and death." - US Dept. of Labor
Basically there is much more to know about this issue, some of which I won't speak about for now. My apologies if you feel left in the dark. To sum it up one test performed was inadequate according to a 3rd party geologist, and the other by the tester himself. There are inconclusive tests, a long overdue warning in the mail that arrived on day 30 of the 30 day statute of limitations though the letter was back dated 30 days, and biased officials with contradicting answers all raising red flags. By the way Moo Shoo, it's okay to pump gas (just ask OSHA) but it's not okay to live in it. Just like how it's okay to reach in the 400 degree oven to get food out quickly but it's not okay to keep your hand in there too long! Get it?
Dec 30, 2009 at 12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hey Kata, SHOW ME THE SCIENCE! Try that instead of engaging in hyperbole and insinuating the City water is unsafe.
*
How far is the water table under your house? Twenty, forty, perhaps fifty feet? Don't you think that fifty feet of dirt might be the reason they get zero ppm readings for organic solvents when tests are conducted?
*
Don't you dare fill the gas tank, you might be exposed to gas fumes.
Dec 30, 2009 at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
kata: I still don't understand the connection between the gas station and the water. The article states "Why hadn’t anyone told them the water they had been using was contaminated with an unsafe amount of benzene, a carcinogen, for the 10 years since the gas station closed—or longer?" I don't understand how this is possible (since the Channings are on city water, not a well), could you please explain? And yes, I would be willing to drink the water.
And your username is similar to the name Kathy Channing - that's why I asked who you are.
Dec 30, 2009 at 9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Kata....I think that the article answers most of your questions. Your property is on a list of CLOSED remediation sites, because that's exactly what it is. As the article states 270 tons of soil was removed--any contaminants that are left are nominal and will dissipate over time. It sounded as if they tested everything they could--it all checked out as being within acceptable levels. I don't understand how you want this resolved or what you want the involved parties to do? For the gas station owner to apologize for waiting so long to say anything?
Dec 30, 2009 at 7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
'We', would be the people living in the affected area (the plume), when pertaining to the question about having city water. We live within the city limits and are on city water.
Depending on the question, the useage of 'we' would change. For example, 'We' (me, my family) do not drink the water from the tap in our house...you want to drink it, go ahead. It tastes awful as most city water does.
The reporter wrote the story, her word useages and writing style are her own way of expression to get her points across. We (me, my family) do have a basement, in fact we have 2 full basements and a crawl space between them...she obviously made a minor mistake. I don't recall telling her there is some kind of conspiracy theroy going on either. However, I do wonder why weren't we told about the leak when it was found in 1998? Why did the gas station owner wait ten years to tell us. Benzene affects the nervous system, kidneys, liver, causes shortness of breath, etc. I wonder how many kids at the neighborhood day care were diagnosed with asthma, or allergies? Given medications for these illnesses and them told they grew out of them as they grew and left the area? Also, the letter went to property owners. Do the people renting in the affected area know about the toxins? The renters I spoke with, did not know a thing about it. Why? If this is not dangerous, why do we have to have our homes/properties listed on a registry that says the land is contaminated? How long willw e have to have our homes/properties listed on thsi registry? Why did the DNR reject testing for safe levels on our property even thou the Dept of Commerce sent Mr. Feeney an email saying the funds are available? My list of quesitons is unending with this problem...but I have to go to work.
Dec 30, 2009 at 2:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Be just as concerned about the floride.... keeps ya docile.
Dec 29, 2009 at 11:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
katachannie9: You said "Yes, we have city water". Who is the "we" you are referring to? Since you do not identify yourself in any way, we are left to wonder who you are referring to.
And all this talk of benzene, etc. neglects the question - if the Channings have city water, what is the issue with the water, i.e. why are they afraid to drink it?
I can see that there are other aspects to this story, but I really don't understand the idea that the drinking water is considered unsafe by the family.
Dec 29, 2009 at 9:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yes, the statute of limitations is running out and I believe you are correct with your thoughts, 'they left very little time'.
The idea is to clean it up so it is not left for others to deal with or get sick from. This clean up could create so many jobs and the benzene contamination in the groundwater goes way beyond the borders of Whitewater (see the EPA's website map of benzene concentrations). According to that map, we're all in trouble.
Yes, thank you, we do go out of town to get water at an artisian well. Ironically, a Channing hand dug this flowing well:>)
Dec 29, 2009 at 9:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Buy bottles water like the rest of us.
Dec 29, 2009 at 6:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
*wonders about any statutes of limitation here*. Is that why they took so long? Hmmm.. Ok.. we told you but it's too late for you to do anything about it NOW. Get 'em, Kathy!
Dec 29, 2009 at 5:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Maybe I can help you to understand better what the real problem is here.
Yes, we have city water. Unless I've missunderstood during my research, 98% of groundwater is drinking water. See the DNR's website. Also, note on the DNR's site that if a leak from an undergoround tank is bad enough to leak onto a third party's property, the person responsible for the leak is suppose to notify these third parties. This responsible party waited 10 years to tell any of us about it.
Benzene is listed on the CDC's website as one of the top ten most dangerous chemicals. It is an additive in gasoline and it is so dangerous that the EPA is mandating the percentages of benzene be cut 30% by 2010 and recommending further cuts thereafter.
Vapor intrusion information is all over the web, we are not the only brownfield in the world and I am not the only pertson that cares about this. It doesn't matter if you have a basement or dirt/ground, old or new home, these vapors will intrude into your breathing space.
There seems to be alot of people that either have passed away from cancer or are currently living with cancer that live or lived up by the gas station. We live downhill from the gas station I have an email from the EPA telling me that we are not safe.
Benzene, naphlathene, xylene, MTBS, Toluene,Trimethylbenzenes, etc, are not chemicals we really want to breath in on a daily basis, nor are they chemicals you want in your groundwater, soil, or air. They are cancer causing agents. Osha says 8 hours of benzene exposure in one day is the maximum limit.
The objective, my objective, is to get this story out there so people can help us to get this mess cleaned up. It could create jobs so badly needed in this area.
Dec 29, 2009 at 5:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
The article doesn't explain that the city was aware of this for at least 10 years, though the afflicted were only just notified this spring. The benzine levels have gone down, though are still higher than safe levels, and you still can't smell it. Even when the levels were 1600 ppm in the water table tests there was no alarming odor of gasoline. Probably because benzine doesn't smell like gasoline, it has a sweet smell, likely nothing you would become alarmed over. Exposure to only 1 ppm can cause health issues. Benzine is very light and even floats on top of water. If there are 1600 ppm in the water table how many would you guess were floating in the neighborhood's air? There was a vapor test performed though the meter used was apparently dysfunctional as it detected 0.0 ppm. The man running the test mentioned that the meter should have detected at least some ppm implying the meter wasn't working properly. There is much more than this article mentions. People just want to know why the city waited 10 years to let people know there is still a problem that used to be much worse. It certainly couldn't be that they were negligent in prioritizing or anything to do with property tax dollars.
Dec 29, 2009 at 2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
This woman is either a "hypochondriac in training" or looking for a pay day. I don't understand what issues are at stake? They tested the soil--it's good, they tested the air--it's good. I'm sure she is on city water, so that will pass as well. I hope the city is passing on the costs of the testing to this woman. She's trying to make it sound like there is this big conspiracy, when it's just city government acting like city government. Her quote "our investments are gone because of a lie" is a little telling as to why she is pursuing this even though there seems to be no case....
Dec 29, 2009 at 1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ah, I see someone is trying to nitpick. Basement in fact is the general term. A crawlspace is a type of basement.
http://www.answers.com/topic/basement
.
Nevertheless, the definition of the term is irrelevant to my point. If they have a basement or a crawlspace, the concern is that this could be a route for vapors. Proper crawlspace construction today includes a vapor barrier (mostly for humidity) which would be a minimal remediation (something for hazmat would involve venting, similar to radon), but the issue for the homeowners is (or should be) whether this is a necessary cost and if so who should pay for it. These points are not raised in the article, making me question their objections, which seem largely procedural (about notification and closure of the case) rather than any specific risks or damages.
.
An attorney would be able to assist the homeowners in determining what particular issues are at stake. Either they aren't getting legal advice or they were told they have no case (worth pursuing, at any rate).
Dec 29, 2009 at 9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Janesvillean, there's no basement in the house. Please take the trouble to read for comprehension.
Dec 29, 2009 at 9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
"The health concern seems to be related to gasoline vapors seeping into the household through the basement, but that's completely separate issue." ---janesvillean @ 5:28pm 12/28
The news article clearly states that there is no basement in the house.
Dec 29, 2009 at 8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
I thought I was missing something, but apparently the reporter missed the most basic fact - whether the family is on city water or a private well. "They don’t dare drink it"? As already stated if they are on the city water system this makes no sense. But whatever water system they are on, shouldn't they just test the water themselves?
Dec 29, 2009 at 8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
I just knew somewhere in that story there was going to be a line about this woman contacting a lawyer:) The whole thing is a joke. Judging by the age of the neighborhood her house is probably 70 or 80 years old. I would be more concerned about the pipes in the house contaminating the water than an old storage tank several blocks away.......My house is that old--I just buy drinking water by the gallon at the store--Easy peasy........
Dec 29, 2009 at 8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sounds like she'd better get a hold of Erin Brockovich...
Dec 29, 2009 at 8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reminds me of the lady who saw the bat and insisted that her whole family have rabies shots.
Dec 29, 2009 at 8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
She even stated that she's never smelled any odors, so that shouldn't be an issue. And, is she the only one in that area that's questioning this. Because according to the map, there are quite a few homes closer to the gas station than hers. Shouldn't there be more people upset?
Dec 29, 2009 at 7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
This house is located only a few blocks from the old gas station. They are on city water and there are monitoring wells located around the area surrounding the old gas station that were used for testing the contamination of the area. Nothing was "hidden" from them, all this information is public record as they have found out. Sounds like they are just on their soap box about another issue in the extremely regulated city of Whitewater.
Dec 28, 2009 at 5:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree with those who posted already. What is the issue if this house is on City water? Good question for the reporter - is this house on City water or private well?
Dec 28, 2009 at 5:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree, there is some hand-waving going on here. The *groundwater* is contaminated, but if they are on city water supply, their *tapwater* should not be affected in any way. It's exceedingly unlikely that the water main would be affected and the tap water can easily be tested in any event. The health concern seems to be related to gasoline vapors seeping into the household through the basement, but that's completely separate issue.
.
The state has already paid for monitoring, which showed a drop in concentration over time, to be expected; and for remediation, removing the bulk of the contaminated soil.
.
The family should be upset they were not notified of this situation earlier, but there doesn't seem to be any stonewalling or cover-up.
Dec 28, 2009 at 5:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
O.K. I'm confused. They live in the City of Whitewater, so why would they be allowed to have a private well? If they have "city water" then they should be able to drink the water in their home because it would be pumped from a City well which are all located in several other areas of their City.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.