Oscoda Chapter of PBB Action Committee, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 61403
Decision Date | 01 August 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 61403,61403 |
Parties | OSCODA CHAPTER OF PBB ACTION COMMITTEE, INC., a Michigan non-profit Corporation and Nelson Yoder, President of said Oscoda Chapter, Individually and in his official capacity, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, a Department of the State of Michigan, and Howard A. Tanner, Director, Defendants-Appellees. 403 Mich. 215, 268 N.W.2d 240 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
James M. Olson, Traverse City, William Rastetter, Cedar, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Stewart H. Freeman, Don L. Keskey, Asst. Attys. Gen., Lansing, for defendants-appellees.
The issue before the Court is whether to grant plaintiffs' application for leave to appeal the denial of a temporary restraining order by the Oscoda County circuit judge. Specifically, plaintiffs sought to block the burial, in a pit lined with 20 feet of clay, of animals whose level of polybrominated biphenyl (hereafter PBB) exceeded the 20 parts per billion standard provided in 1977 P.A. 77, the PBB act. 1
The PBB act, in providing that the director of the Department of Natural Resources "shall * * * bury or dispose" of PBB-contaminated cattle, empowers him to decide whether to dispose of the cattle by burial, incineration or any other means.
The circuit judge found that the possibility of liquid escaping the clay-lined pit "is almost non-existent" and that even if it were to escape "it would be innocuous", and that the clay-lined pit provides "absolute protection".
Those findings preclude a determination under the environmental protection act 2 that it is "likely" that burial of PBB-contaminated cattle in the clay-lined pit will "pollute, impair or destroy the air, water or other natural resources or the public trust therein." Absent a likelihood of environmental pollution or impairment, the circuit court is without power to consider whether incineration is a "feasible and prudent alternative."
The temporary restraining order is dissolved and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for appropriate further proceedings on plaintiffs' complaint.
In his findings of fact, opinion and recommendation of June 21, 1978, the circuit judge said that the "originally proposed burial pits for the PBB-contaminated cattle in the former action (commenced by the County of Oscoda against the Department of Natural Resources) were found as an ultimate fact to likely impair and pollute the water table of Oscoda County in violation of § 3(1)" of the environmental protection act.
On November 8, 1977 the director of the DNR announced his decision to proceed with the burial of PBB-contaminated cattle by modifying the design of the originally proposed burial pit to include a 20-foot clay lining.
In April, 1978 this action was commenced to block the burial of contaminated animals in the clay-lined pit. On plaintiffs' application A factual basis for the judge's finding that "incineration is a preferred method of disposal whenever available" is not stated. The stated basis is that a guideline issued by the federal Environmental Protection Agency indicates that, in the order of options, incineration is less desirable than recycling and more desirable than landfill and long-term storage. That generalization is followed by a statement of reasons why incineration is not practicable at this time. 3
for leave to appeal from the circuit judge's refusal to grant a temporary restraining order, this Court granted a stay and subsequently, in lieu of leave to appeal, remanded the cause to the Oscoda County Circuit Court "for an evidentiary hearing and detailed factual findings on the issues raised by plaintiffs' complaint," but did not in terms seek recommendations.
The circuit judge then stated that landfill disposition is, in the language of the environmental protection act, a "feasible and prudent alternative at the current proposed site":
consumption, which federal standard is 300 parts per billion.
speedily completed in view of the inventory of cows presently held by the state and should not comprise more than several days.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
PRESERVE DUNES, INC. v. DEPT. OF ENV. QUALITY
... ... Michigan DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Defendant, and ... curiae the West Michigan Environmental Action Council, Inc ... Baker & ... will likely pollute, impair, or destroy natural resources protected by MEPA. Because MEPA does ... As noted in Oscoda Chapter of PBB Action Comm., Inc. v. Dep't of ... ...
-
City of Portage v. Kalamazoo County Road Com'n
...Use v. Garfield Twp., 124 Mich.App. 559, 564, 335 N.W.2d 216 (1983). As stated in Oscoda Chapter of PBB Action Committee, Inc. v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 403 Mich. 215, 231-233, 268 N.W.2d 240 (1978): "That act does not confer plenary power on the courts to do whatever they may think pr......
-
Committee for Sensible Land Use v. Garfield Tp.
... ... Plaintiffs' cause of action arose when the Township granted a rezoning ... land use, can ultimately affect natural resources. However, as the Supreme Court has ... Oscoda Chapter of PBB Action Committee, Inc. v. Dep't of ... ...
-
Riley v. Northland Geriatric Center
...issuance" otherwise ordered by the Court under subsection (c). Compare, e.g., Oscoda Chapter of PBB Action Committee, Inc. v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 403 Mich. 215, 233, 268 N.W.2d 240 (1978), and Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit, 410 Mich. 616, 636, 304 N.W.2d 455 (1981......