ELR Citation: ELR 20899
No(s). 91-1728 (6th Cir. Feb 20, 1992)

The court holds that injunctive relief is appropriate at the summary judgment stage when evidence clearly establishes the plaintiff's right to an injunction, the defendant's actions are directly at odds with the stated purpose of particular environmental legislation (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)), and there exists no other adequate remedy at law. Adopting the opinion and findings of the adquate remedy at law. Adopting the opinion and findings of the district court, the court upholds injunctive relief because the continued use of the hazardous waste facility and the failure to implement state-approved closure plans impose a continuing health hazard to the public; the intent and purposes of RCRA will be achieved only through the implementation of the approved closure plan; and the company and its president, in keeping with RCRA's mandate, are the only parties who can close the facility. Noting the perceived inequity of foisting heavy closure expenses upon the defendants, the court nonetheless holds that inability to comply with the injunction is not a viable defense and that the defendants are not required to provide financial assurance before they implement the closure plan.

[Previous decisions in this case are published at 21 ELR 20035, 21 ELR 21214, and 21 ELR 21220.]

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees
Steven E. Chester, Ass't Attorney General
Environmental Protection Division, Lansing MI 48909
(517) 373-7780

Counsel for Defendants-Appellants
Douglas W. Van Essen
200 Ottawa NW, Ste. 500, Grand Rapids MI 49503
(616) 459-1171