Ann Arbor logo
Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Bookmark and Share
File #: 21-0903    Version: 1 Name: 5/17/21 Bodman Amendment No. 7 for Gelman
Type: Resolution Status: Passed
File created: 5/17/2021 In control: City Council
On agenda: 5/17/2021 Final action: 5/17/2021
Enactment date: 5/17/2021 Enactment #: R-21-171
Title: Resolution to Approve and Appropriate Funding for the Seventh Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Bodman, PLC, for Legal Services Relative to 1,4-Dioxane from Gelman Sciences, Inc., dba Pall Life Sciences ($75,000) (8 Votes Required)
Attachments: 1. Bodman PLC Gelman Am #7 May 1 2021.pdf
Title
Resolution to Approve and Appropriate Funding for the Seventh Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Bodman, PLC, for Legal Services Relative to 1,4-Dioxane from Gelman Sciences, Inc., dba Pall Life Sciences ($75,000) (8 Votes Required)
Memorandum
The City has previously litigated against Gelman Sciences, Inc., dba Pall Life Sciences (Gelman) relative to the 1,4-dioxane that Gelman released at its property in Scio Township that has migrated as one or more plumes, via aquifers, both under properties within the City of Ann Arbor and under properties in Scio Township.

On October 27, 2016, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) - now known as EGLE)-promulgated, and Governor Snyder approved, an emergency cleanup criterion of 7.2 ppb for 1,4-dioxane, replacing the 85 ppb criterion that was previously in effect, and that cleanup criterion of 7.2 ppb has since been adopted on a non-emergency basis.

Under the circumstances, the State was in negotiations with Gelman regarding possible revision of the consent judgment. In December 2016 the City, various Washtenaw County parties, and the Huron River Watershed Council moved and were granted permission to intervene in the case between the State and Gelman. In February 2017, Scio Township also was granted permission to intervene. Although the intervening parties can pursue litigation as parties to the case, the City and other intervenors became involved in the negotiations and met on a regular basis in an effort to reach agreement on an amendment to the consent judgment satisfactory to the intervening parties.

Since the 6th Amendment was entered on February 2, 2021 (which contemplated a more limited evidentiary hearing on March 22nd), there has been extensive activity in the case including motions to reconsider the court order for hearing and stay of the state court litigation, change in nature and scope of the scheduled evidentiary hearing at a court motion hearing on March 22nd, emergen...

Click here for full text