Opinion ID: 700931
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Groundwater Monitoring Trust Fund

Text: 22 The Defendants contend that the district court erred in directing the Defendants to establish a groundwater monitoring trust fund, when no such relief was sought in the Complaint. PPP Br. at 43. This claim reflects the Defendants unfamiliarity with the Complaint and the federal regulations. 23 We review judgments granting a permanent injunction under an abuse of discretion standard. Wayne v. Village of Sebring, 36 F.3d 517, 531 (6th Cir.1994); Loschiavo v. City of Dearborn, 33 F.3d 548, 553 (6th Cir.1994) (citing Crane by Crane v. Indiana High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 975 F.2d 1315, 1326 (7th Cir.1992) (Our review of the district court's decision to grant a permanent injunction 'is limited to the determination of whether the district court abused its discretion in deciding that the circumstances of the case justified injunctive relief.' )). 24 Groundwater monitoring is an essential element of any post-closure plan as set forth in 40 C.F.R. Sec. 265.117(a)(1) and 40 C.F.R. Part 265 Subpart F (encompassing 40 C.F.R. Secs. 265.90-.94). Section 265.117(a)(1) prominently mandates compliance with all Subpart F groundwater monitoring requirements. This post-closure plan obligation is pled in paragraph 17 of the Complaint with specific reference to 40 C.F.R. Sec. 265.117. J.A. at 55. The Defendants' failure to meet this obligation is pled in paragraphs 34, 38, and 52 of the Complaint. Thus, the Defendants' charge that groundwater monitoring relief was not sought in the Complaint is meritless. 25 The Defendants also argue that the district court erred in ordering $2.4 million to be placed in a groundwater monitoring trust fund because this figure ignored the time value of money and thus was irrational. PPP Br. at 44. Defendants' claim, however, again ignores the clear and unambiguous language of a RCRA regulation. Specifically, 40 C.F.R. Sec. 265.144(a)(2) provides that [t]he post-closure cost estimate is calculated by multiplying the annual post-closure costs estimated by the number of years of post-closure care required under Sec. 265.117. The undisputed annual post-closure cost estimate is $80,000. PPP Br. at 44. The undisputed number of years of post-closure care required under RCRA is thirty. PPP Br. at 44. The product of thirty years and $80,000 per year is clearly $2.4 million. 26 Application of the unambiguous language in 40 C.F.R. Sec. 265.144(a)(2) does not allow for the present value discounting that the Defendants advocate. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the Defendants to comply with the regulation.