Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Support independent student journalism. Support independent student journalism. Support independent student journalism.
The Dartmouth
April 19, 2024 | Latest Issue
The Dartmouth

College denies contaminating second well

The College denied connections between a previous well contamination and the contamination of Geisel School of Medicine professors Ivan Gorlov and his wife Olga Gorlova’s well, saying that the contamination came from the owners’ septic tank. The announcement comes as the College deals with the fallout from an earlier contamination of another well, located a mile away from the Gorlov residence at Rennie Farm, as a result of lab animal corpse dumping at the site by the College in the 1960s and 1970s.

Last October, the Gorlovs were informed by GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc., a geology firm contracted by the College, that the well at their house in Hanover tested positive for 1,4-dioxane, which is classified as a likely human carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency. Worried that Rennie Farm could be the source of the contamination, contractors began to investigate the source of the contamination in November. College spokesperson Diana Lawrence wrote in an email statement that the Gorlovs’ own water disposal system was responsible for the contamination. However, the Gorlovs, both biomedical data science professors at Geisel, were not satisfied with this explanation, pointing to what they believe to be improper interpretation of data on the part of the College and GZA.

The presence of 1,4-dioxane at the Gorlovs’ well is particularly significant because it was the primary contaminant at the Rennie Farm site. In the 1960s and 1970s, the College used Rennie Farm as a dumping site for animal remains used in medical research. As a result, the well of Deb and Richard Higgins, who live on Rennie Farm, was found contaminated with 1,4-dioxane at twice the state safety standard of 3 parts per billion in September 2015. The College has agreed to help clean the contaminated site and has provided the Higgins with bottled water and a treatement system for their water as of last fall. They have also provided the Gorlovs with bottled water and a point-of-entry water treatment system.

The dispute between the College and the Gorlovs over the source of the contamination comes at the same time as the discovery of a third well, called GZ-37U/L/D or Well 37, contaminated with 1,4-dioxane. Both the Gorlovs’ well and Well 37 are located southeast of the Rennie Farm site, though the Gorlovs’ well is a mile farther away. Previously, the plume of contamination was believed to be moving to the north and west.

The initial testing of the Gorlovs’ property indicated that the concentration of 1,4-dioxane in the Gorlovs’ well peaked at 0.47 ppb, less than the state safety standard of 3 ppb. Testing of the Gorlovs’ septic tank revealed a similar concentration of the chemical. In order to determine whether there was a link between the tank and the well, researchers tested both the septic tank and the well for 64 different pharmaceuticals. Congruency in the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals in the well and the septic tank could indicate that the septic tank was the source of the contamination.

This testing detected the presence of eight pharmaceuticals in the septic tank, but only diphenhydramine, the active ingredient in Benadryl, was present in the well. The concentration of diphenhydramine recorded in the well was 0.620 ppb, which is higher than the level of 0.616 ppb needed to confirm that the chemical was present in the well. College officials have pointed to these results as evidence that the Gorlovs’ septic tank was the source of the contamination. However, the Gorlovs maintain that this is an improper conclusion, because the quantity of diphenhydramine recorded was within the margin of error of a negative result and therefore inconclusive.

Senior project manager at GZA James Wieck said the existence of diphenhydramine in the well was evidence enough that the septic tank was the source.

Caffeine was one of the seven pharmaceuticals detected in the Gorlovs’ septic tank but not in their well. The concentration detected in the Gorlovs’ septic system was approximately 1,500 times greater than the detection threshold of the test’s sensitivity. The Gorlovs argued that if their septic tank was a significant water source for their well, they would not expect a negative result for caffeine in the well, as seen in GZA’s lab reports.

Wieck said it is possible the caffeine could have been retained by the soil, stopping it from reaching the well. However, the Gorlovs rebut this claim, pointing to studies documenting widespread detection of caffeine in groundwater.

GZA also tested for nitrates in the well, theorizing that a positive result for nitrates would suggest that the septic tank was the source of the contamination. The well tested positive for nitrates, but the Gorlovs say that their use of nitrate-based fertilizers in summer might account for this result.

Wieck acknowledged that fertilizers can be a source of nitrates but said he still believes that nitrates detected in the well came from the septic tank.

GZA also conducted testing for coliform bacteria in the well, another possible sign that the septic tank was the source of the contamination. The well initially tested positive for coliform bacteria, though Wieck conceded that this was a false positive inconsistent with previous tests results. No coliform bacteria was detected after testing equipment was cleaned, according to Wieck.

The Gorlovs said this false positive result makes them suspicious of human error during the other tests such as the one for diphenhydramine.

The Gorlovs also said that the recent discovery of 1,4-dioxane at Well 37 indicates that the extent of contamination is larger than was originally anticipated.

Wieck acknowledged that Well 37 is located beyond the originally mapped range of contamination but said that this fact does not prove that Rennie Farm is the source of the contamination.

In an emailed statement, the Gorlovs said that they believe the College is motivated not to accept responsibility for the contamination because doing so would mean that the area contaminated by the Rennie Farm site is much larger than previously believed, significantly increasing the costs of cleaning up the contamination and compensating neighborhood residents. The couple acknowledged that they also have a conflict of interests, because according to the Gorlovs, the market value of their house has dropped to zero.

In an interview with the Valley News, Wieck explained that he believes that it is unlikely that Rennie Farm is the source of the contamination in the Gorlovs’ well. In order for the water to reach the well from Rennie Farm, it would most likely need to travel through fractures in the underground bedrock, pulled towards the well via pumping action at a low water level. Furthermore, Wieck said, the movement would occur in the opposite direction as it has been projected to move. If this were the case, it would cause the water level of the well to sink during pumping, something that Wieck claims he did not observe during testing.

The Gorlovs, however, deny that the water level of their well did not fall significantly during testing. In an email dated Nov. 17, 2016, Steven Lamb, a principal of GZA, wrote to the Gorlovs that after 20 minutes of pumping prior to sampling, the well went dry. This would indicate that the well was exposed to contaminated water.

Addressing this, Wieck mentioned that the pump did not extend the full 300-foot depth of the well. However, the Gorlovs said that the pump was actually lowered to the bottom of the well prior to testing.

Wieck said he considers the College’s response especially generous given that the detected concentration of 1,4-dioxane is approximately 10 times lower than regulatory standards.

The Gorlovs said that they have reviewed studies indicating that 1,4-dioxane could be dangerous if inhaled in vapor form. According to the EPA, inhalation could result in nausea, headaches and liver and kidney damage. Because of their concerns, the Gorlovs said they now limit their time in the shower and expressed concerns that their 6-year-old daughter might be exposed to 1,4-dioxane. Most data concerning the safety of 1,4-dioxane has only studied the effects of the chemical on adult men, according to the Gorlovs.