ELR Citation: ELR 21214
No(s). K87-138 CA (W.D. Mich. Jan 24, 1991)

The court imposes a permanent injuction requiring the defendants in a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) enforcement action to implement their approved closure plan. The court previously held that the defendants violated RCRA and the Michigan Hazardous Waste Management Act by discharging waste into unlined surface impoundments, operating waste piles without a permit or interim status, failing to submit closure and post-closure plans, and failing to timely commence and complete closure. The court first holds that it may grant injunctive relief at the summary judgment stage without conducting an evidentiary hearing. A hearing is not required when the evidence presented by affidavit and other documentation clearly establishes the plaintiff's right to an injunction. Further, the traditional requirements for injunctive relief are less rigid in environmental cases. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, if the purpose of the legislation is thwarted by failure to comply and the legislation specifically authorized injunctive relief, no finding of irreparable injury or balancing of the equities is required. The court holds that the defendants' violation thwarts RCRA's purpose of minimizing the threat of hazardous waste to human health and the environment. The defendants' failure to implement a closure plan required by RCRA directly conflicts with RCRA's purpose. Even applying the traditional standards for injunctive relief, the court holds that an injunction requiring implementation of the closure plan is mandated. There is no adequate remedy at law, irreparable harm is established by the nature of hazardous wastes, and the public interest weighs in favor of closure. The defendants' contention that they do not have the $2.3 million necessary to complete closure does not tip the equitable balance in their favor, because they had the money to operate the facility for two years after it lost interim status and should have completed closure by 1986. Further, the defendants are not required to pay the entire cost of closure upfront. The court holds that the closure plan complies with RCRA regulations and notes that defendants may propose amendments to the approved plan if the circumstances on which the plan was based have changed.

The court holds that injunctive relief is not warranted on summary judgment to compel the defendants to comply with RCRA's financial assurance requirements. RCRA's overriding purpose is not to ensure that defendants provide financial assurance, so the court must undertake an equitable analysis. There is little threat of irreparable injury from failure to immediately provide financial assurance,and the public interest will be protected by implementation of the closure plan. The court also holds that injunctive relief is not warranted on summary judgment to compel compliance with RCRA's liability and groundwater monitoring requirements.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Michael L. Shiparski, Thomas J. Gezan, Ass't U.S. Attorneys
399 Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse, 110 Michigan St. NW, Grand Rapids MI 49503-2364
(616) 4566-2404

Counsel for Defendants
Douglas Van Essen
Clary, Nantz, Wood, Hoffius, Rankin & Cooper
500 Calder Plaza, 250 Monroe Ave. NW, Grand Rapids MI 49503
(616) 459-9487

Nathan Driggers
Driggers, Schultz, Herbst & Paterson
2600 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 550, Troy MI 48084
(313) 649-6000

William A. Horn
Mika, Meyers, Beckett & Jones
Ste. 700, 200 Ottawa Ave. NW, Grand Rapids MI 49503
(616) 459-3200