Martha Conway v. General Electric Company

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________________

Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880

LAJIM, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Western Division.

No. 13-cv-50348 — Iain D. Johnston, Magistrate Judge.

____________________

ARGUED JANUARY 15, 2019 — DECIDED MARCH 4, 2019

____________________

Before FLAUM, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-appellants purchased land

near a former General Electric Company manufacturing plant

that had operated for sixty years; the plant leached toxic

chemicals that seeped into the groundwater. The Illinois En-

vironmental Protection Agency filed suit under state law

against General Electric in 2004 and has been working with

the company since then to investigate and develop a plan to

address the contamination. In 2013, plaintiffs filed suit under

2 Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880

the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act, seeking a mandatory injunction ordering Gen-

eral Electric to conduct additional investigation into the scope

of the contamination and ordering the company to remove the

contamination. The district court found the company liable

for the contamination on summary judgment but denied

plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief because, despite the

many opportunities the court provided, plaintiffs did not of-

fer evidence establishing a need for injunctive relief beyond

what the company had already done in the state action. For

the following reasons, we affirm.

I. Background

A. Statutory Scheme

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”),

42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq., “is a comprehensive environmental

statute that governs the treatment, storage, and disposal of

solid and hazardous waste.” Meghrig v. KFC W., Inc., 516 U.S.

479, 483 (1996). The RCRA “is not principally designed to ef-

fectuate the cleanup of toxic waste sites or to compensate

those who have attended to the remediation of environmental

hazards.” Id. Rather, the primary purpose of the RCRA “is to

reduce the generation of hazardous waste and to ensure the

proper treatment … of that waste which is nonetheless gener-

ated, ‘so as to minimize the present and future threat to hu-

man health and the environment.’” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C.

§ 6902(b)).

The RCRA contains a citizen suit provision, which pro-

vides that “any person may commence a civil action” against

“any person” who has allegedly violated “any permit, stand-

ard, regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition, or order

Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880 3

which has become effective pursuant to this chapter,” or

“who has contributed or who is contributing to the past or

present handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or dis-

posal of any solid or hazardous waste which may present an

imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the en-

vironment.” 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1). Once the violation or po-

tential endangerment is shown, a district court “shall have ju-

risdiction … to restrain any person who has contributed or

who is contributing to the past or present handling, storage,

treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazard-

ous waste” and “to order such person to take such other ac-

tion as may be necessary.” Id. § 6972(a).

B. Factual Background

1. General Electric Plant in Morrison, Illinois

Defendant-appellee General Electric Company (“GE”) op-

erated a manufacturing plant in Morrison, Illinois from 1949

to 2010. To remove oil from the automotive and appliance

parts it manufactured, the plant used chlorinated organic sol-

vents, including trichloroethylene (“TCE”), perchloroethene

(“PCE”), and trichloroethane (“TCA”). These solvents are

toxic and are regulated by federal and state environmental

agencies. GE used these solvents and stored them in degreas-

ers located at the plant until 1994, when it switched to a soap-

like solution to clean the parts.

In 1986, chlorinated solvents were detected in three mu-

nicipal supply wells that provided water to the City of Morri-

son, located several thousand feet southeast of the GE plant.

Shortly thereafter, the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (“IEPA”) installed monitoring wells to analyze the

4 Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880

groundwater around the GE plant, which uncovered addi-

tional contamination. The IEPA completed a Phase I Remedial

Investigation in 1987, which included sampling and analysis

of soil, water, and sediment. Based on the investigation, the

IEPA identified the GE plant as the source of the solvent con-

tamination.

In 1988, GE installed additional monitoring wells and an

air stripper to treat water pumped from one of Morrison’s

municipal wells to a level of contamination below the maxi-

mum contaminant level (“MCL”) so the city could continue to

use the well as a source of drinking water; the other two mu-

nicipal supply wells were sealed. GE also conducted a Phase

II Remedial Investigation, which identified elevated concen-

trations of solvents beneath the plant’s former degreasing op-

erations. Under the IEPA’s supervision, GE continued to sam-

ple and monitor the groundwater in the monitoring wells and

submitted reports of the results to the IEPA.

In 1994, the IEPA required GE to conduct a Phase III Re-

medial Investigation of the groundwater at and downgradi-

ent from the plant. GE reported the results of the investigation

in 2001. According to the report, the solvents in the ground-

water had decreased significantly by 2001, and the report

modeled that the contaminants would naturally attenuate

(i.e., reduce) to concentrations below the MCL. Additionally,

the report stated that Rock Creek was a natural groundwater

divide that would prevent the contaminating solvents from

migrating south from the GE plant across the creek. The re-

port concluded that the contamination did not pose a risk to

the public because a City of Morrison ordinance prohibited

Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880 5

the use of groundwater as a source of drinking water and be-

cause GE’s air stripper at the remaining municipal supply

well provided safe drinking water.

In response, however, the IEPA did not approve GE’s pro-

posal for natural attenuation of the contamination; instead,

the IEPA concluded that active remediation of the site would

be appropriate. The Illinois Attorney General commenced suit

against GE in 2004 under the Illinois Environmental Protec-

tion Act: for cost recovery (Count I), see 415 Ill. Comp. Stat.

5/22.2(f); to enjoin water pollution (Count II), see 415 Ill.

Comp. Stat. 5/42(d)–(e); and to enjoin a water pollution haz-

ard (Count III), see 415 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12(d). The state

sought to recover costs it had incurred as well as an injunction

requiring that GE investigate the nature and extent of the con-

tamination and then perform remediation. In 2010, GE and Il-

linois entered into a Consent Order in which GE agreed to

submit to the IEPA a series of reports, including: (1) “a work

plan to survey private wells, install additional monitoring

wells, and complete additional soil borings”; (2) “a Focused

Site Investigation Report (‘FSI’) summarizing the results of

the work plan”; (3) “a Remedial Objectives Report to address

the impact of the soil and groundwater contamination”; and

(4) “a Remedial Action Plan to meet the remediation objec-

tives within six years of the entry of the Consent Order.” Also

in 2010, the City of Morrison passed an ordinance prohibiting

groundwater as a source of potable water and prohibiting the

installation of wells “to limit threats to human health from

groundwater contamination.”

After approval of a work plan, GE installed monitoring

wells along Rock Creek. Then, in 2013, GE submitted its FSI

detailing the data obtained from the various monitoring

6 Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880

wells; the report explained that the solvents had migrated

south of the plant and that the monitoring wells along Rock

Creek tested positive for contamination at levels above the

MCL. Tests from wells on the other side of Rock Creek (and

further from the plant) either did not detect chlorinated sol-

vents or detected TCE at a level below the MCL. Following

discussions between GE and the IEPA on the work plan and

FSI, the IEPA conditionally approved the FSI in March 2015.

It determined that GE “adequately defined the nature and ex-

tent of the contamination.” The IEPA conditionally approved

GE’s revised Remedial Objectives Report in August 2016, after

a number of additional submissions and a meeting between

the technical representatives from GE and the IEPA.

In March 2017, GE submitted its Remedial Action Plan

(“RAP”) to the IEPA, proposing to achieve the remediation

objectives through a “combination of institutional controls

and monitored natural attenuation.” The IEPA denied GE’s

proposal in June 2017, posing several questions about the

plan, and specifically noting that it did not accept “an open-

ended period of monitored natural attenuation as a remedia-

tion technology.” GE submitted a revised RAP to the IEPA in

October 2017, responding to the IEPA’s questions and com-

ments and proposing to address the remaining contamination

through institutional controls. The IEPA approved GE’s re-

vised Remedial Action Plan in March 2018.

Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880 7

2. Plaintiffs’ Interest in the Land

Plaintiff-appellant Lowell Beggs1 purchased land near the

site of the shuttered GE plant in 2007. He conveyed the prop-

erty to plaintiff-appellant Prairie Ridge Golf Course, LLC,

which plaintiff-appellant LAJIM, LLC operated. Beggs moved

into a home next to the golf course with his companion, plain-

tiff-appellant Martha Kai Conway (the “Conway home”). The

golf course and Conway home are located south of the former

GE plant and downgradient from the plant.

When Beggs considered purchasing the golf course in

April 2007, the seller advised him: “the golf course has con-

tamination on the first hole. This was caused by General Elec-

tric. If you go to the EPA web site, GE is listed as a superfund

site. No further remediation was needed according to what I

can find.” Beggs did not inquire further about the environ-

mental condition of the golf course before completing the pur-

chase in May 2007. The purchase agreement noted, “[S]eller []

has disclosed to Purchaser that there is contamination on the

first hole of the Real Estate, such contamination having been

caused by General Electric, as which contamination is part of

the Superfund Site that apparently does not require any fur-

ther remediation.” Additionally, Beggs walked the golf

course prior to completing the purchase and noticed a moni-

toring well head protruding above the ground. After purchas-

ing the property, Beggs contacted GE to fix a leak from the

fixture, which he knew monitored “how much stuff was com-

ing out of GE.”

1Beggs passed away during the course of this litigation. His interest

is now represented by the executor of his estate, plaintiff-appellant First

National Bank of Amboy.

8 Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880

C. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois on

November 1, 2013 seeking: (1) a mandatory injunction requir-

ing GE to remediate the contamination under the RCRA, see

42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B) (Count I); (2) cost recovery (Count II)

and a declaratory judgment (Count III) under the Compre-

hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-

ity Act (“CERCLA”), see 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a), 9613(g)(3); and

(3) recovery under state law for nuisance (Count IV), trespass

(Count V), and negligence (Count VI).

After what the district court characterized as “extensive

discovery,” the court considered the parties’ cross-motions

for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs moved for summary

judgment on their RCRA claim. GE did not dispute that plain-

tiffs satisfied the first two elements of the claim—(1) defend-

ant has generated solid or hazardous waste, and (2) defendant

has contributed to the handling of the waste. See Albany Bank

& Tr. Co. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 310 F.3d 969, 972 (7th Cir. 2002).

On the sole remaining question—whether plaintiffs estab-

lished that the contamination “may present an imminent and

substantial danger to health or the environment,” id.—the dis-

trict court found for plaintiffs and granted summary judg-

ment as to GE’s liability under the RCRA. At plaintiffs’ re-

quest, the court deferred consideration as to whether plain-

tiffs were entitled to injunctive relief. On GE’s cross-motion

for summary judgment on the state law claims, the district

court found the continuing tort doctrine did not apply and

found the claims time-barred because plaintiffs had

knowledge of the claims more than five years before they filed

suit.

Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880 9

Over the next two years, the district court considered

plaintiffs’ request for a mandatory injunction in a number of

hearings and a series of opinions. On October 4, 2016, the

court held that the plain language of the RCRA permitted, but

did not require, the court to grant injunctive relief despite the

ongoing state proceeding; thus, the question before the court

was not whether it could grant relief but whether it should. On

this point, the court concluded plaintiffs had not yet provided

the court with facts supporting their assertion that the Con-

sent Order in the state action was deficient and ineffective.

The court ordered an evidentiary hearing and invited the

IEPA and the Illinois Attorney General to provide their views

on the progress under the Consent Order and whether the

court should order injunctive relief under the RCRA. The Illi-

nois Attorney General’s Office submitted an amicus brief ex-

plaining that the State did not believe the court should impose

injunctive relief because any court-ordered injunctive relief

would overlap with the work currently being done—i.e., “site

investigation, monitoring and payment of costs as well as an

order barring further endangerment … [and] some type of re-

medial effort.” The State asserted that all such actions were

already underway and were “being done with diligence and

rigorous oversight by the Illinois EPA,” and that injunctive re-

lief “may result in a clean-up that is inconsistent with clean

ups of other contaminated sites in Illinois.”

After two days of evidentiary hearing on June 1 and 2,

2017, the court issued an opinion on September 7, 2017 deny-

ing the requested injunctive relief. Both parties had presented

expert testimony at the hearing; the district court credited

GE’s expert as having “provided reasonable, rational and

credible bases explaining why certain actions were taken and

others were not,” whereas it found plaintiffs’ expert did not

10 Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880

provide conclusions but merely “testified that additional in-

vestigation and testing was necessary to opine on the proper

scope of remediation for the site.” Notably, when asked by the

district court judge what specific cleanup he recommended,

plaintiffs’ expert declined to make a recommendation. The

district court thus concluded that plaintiffs had not met their

burden of showing harm not already addressed sufficiently

by the IEPA proceeding. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion

to reconsider the denial of injunctive relief on November 7,

2017. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the remaining count un-

der the CERCLA with prejudice and filed a notice of appeal

on March 6, 2018.

Then, on March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for an

indicative ruling under Rule 62.1 and motion to reconsider

based on newly discovered evidence. Plaintiffs pointed to the

IEPA’s March 2, 2018 approval of GE’s Remedial Action Plan,

which relies solely on institutional controls to address the re-

maining contamination. The district court denied plaintiffs’

motion on August 14, 2018, and plaintiffs appealed. That ap-

peal was consolidated with plaintiffs’ original appeal; both

are jointly before us now.

II. Discussion

A. Injunctive Relief

Plaintiffs raise several issues related to the district court’s

denial of injunctive relief: they assert (1) the district court did

not have discretion to deny injunctive relief once it found GE

liable under the RCRA; (2) the district court erred in conduct-

ing the traditional balancing of equitable factors for injunctive

relief; and (3) the district court erred in finding plaintiffs failed

Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880 11

to establish irreparable harm. Plaintiffs’ arguments on each is-

sue fail to carry the day. We note that the denial of injunctive

relief after a district court has found a risk of imminent and

substantial danger to public health or to the environment

should be rare. Here, however, plaintiffs failed to provide the

district court with any evidence that injunctive relief, in addi-

tion to what the IEPA had already ordered in the state action,

would improve the environment and not cause additional

harm.

1. Discretion to Deny Relief

On summary judgment, the district court found GE liable

for contaminating groundwater in a manner that “may pre-

sent an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or

the environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). This finding has

not been challenged on appeal. After finding GE liable, the

district court then considered whether plaintiffs were entitled

to injunctive relief as a remedy for the violation. Plaintiffs as-

sert, however, that once the district court made a finding of

liability, the RCRA required the court to order injunctive re-

lief.

In analyzing whether the RCRA mandates the imposition

of injunctive relief upon a finding of liability, we first look to

the plain language of the statute. See United States v. Marcotte,

835 F.3d 652, 656 (7th Cir. 2016). The RCRA provides, in rele-

vant part:

12 Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880

[A]ny person may commence a civil action on

his own behalf— …

(1)(B) against any person, … including any

past or present generator, past or present

transporter, or past or present owner or op-

erator of a treatment, storage, or disposal fa-

cility, who has contributed or who is contrib-

uting to the past or present handling, stor-

age, treatment, transportation, or disposal of

any solid or hazardous waste which may

present an imminent and substantial endan-

germent to health or the environment; ….

The district court shall have jurisdiction … to re-

strain any person who has contributed or who is

contributing to the past or present handling,

storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal

of any solid or hazardous waste referred to in

paragraph (1)(B), [or] to order such person to take

such other action as may be necessary ….

42 U.S.C. § 6972(a) (emphasis added). As plaintiffs

acknowledge, this language authorizes injunctive relief—it

provides the district court with jurisdiction to restrain a vio-

lator or to order other necessary action. But nothing in the lan-

guage mandates injunctive relief; “shall” pertains only to the

grant of jurisdiction and not to the relief the district court may

order.

Nor do our past comments on the RCRA indicate injunc-

tive relief is mandatory upon a finding of liability. In Adkins

v. VIM Recycling, Inc., we considered whether the prohibitions

in the RCRA or several abstention doctrines precluded the

Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880 13

plaintiffs from bringing a citizen suit under the RCRA after

the state had already filed enforcement actions against the

same alleged violators. 644 F.3d 483, 487 (7th Cir. 2011). We

concluded that neither the statutory language nor the absten-

tion doctrines prevented the Adkins plaintiffs from pursuing

their citizen suit. Id. Critically, we made clear that “[w]e [did]

not suggest, of course, that once a citizen suit has cleared

RCRA’s statutory hurdles it is immune from all other consti-

tutional and preclusive doctrines, such as standing, mootness,

and claim or issue preclusion.” Id. at 503. In so stating, we ad-

vised courts to consider these doctrines before awarding re-

lief, thus evidencing that plaintiffs are not presumptively en-

titled to injunctive relief once they have “cleared RCRA’s stat-

utory hurdles.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court applies traditional equi-

table principles to environmental statutes. For example, in a

Federal Water Pollution Control Act case, the Supreme Court

explained that the statute did not require courts to immedi-

ately enjoin all statutory violations; instead, the Court high-

lighted that long-established principles of equity applied:

It goes without saying that an injunction is an

equitable remedy. It is not a remedy which is-

sues as of course or to restrain an act the injuri-

ous consequences of which are merely trifling.

An injunction should issue only where the in-

tervention of a court of equity is essential in or-

der effectually to protect property rights against

injuries otherwise irremediable.

Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311–12 (1982) (cita-

tions and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Winter v.

Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 32 (2008) (“An injunction

14 Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880

is a matter of equitable discretion; it does not follow from suc-

cess on the merits as a matter of course.”) (reversing and va-

cating grant of injunction under National Environmental Pol-

icy Act); Town of Huntington v. Marsh, 884 F.2d 648, 651 (2d

Cir. 1989) (“In applying these general equitable standards for

the issuance of injunctions in the area of environmental stat-

utes, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the notion that

an injunction follows as a matter of course upon a finding of

statutory violation.”). The same principles apply to the

RCRA; the remedy of an injunction does not issue as a matter

of course upon a finding of liability but only as necessary to

protect against otherwise irremediable harm.

Thus, the district court correctly held that it has discretion

to award injunctive relief under the RCRA and is not required

to order relief after a finding of liability.

2. Traditional Balancing of Equitable Factors

In a similar but distinct argument, plaintiffs assert that the

district court erred in applying the traditional equitable fac-

tors when considering whether to award injunctive relief. To

merit injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate:

(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury;

(2) that remedies available at law, such as mon-

etary damages, are inadequate to compensate

for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance

of hardships between the plaintiff and defend-

ant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and

(4) that the public interest would not be dis-

served by a permanent injunction.

Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880 15

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).

Plaintiffs base their argument on their role in this citizen

suit as private attorneys general, acting on behalf of the pub-

lic. They argue that it is common in environmental protection

cases for courts to order injunctive relief without the tradi-

tional balancing of equitable factors where the only statutory

relief available is injunctive relief and where the plaintiff is a

sovereign or private attorney general. However, commenting

directly on the RCRA, we have reasoned that “[o]rdinarily, a

court is obligated to conduct an equitable balancing of harms

before awarding injunctive relief, even under an environmen-

tal statute which specifically authorizes such relief (as does

RCRA section 3008(a)).” United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.,

38 F.3d 862, 867 (7th Cir. 1994).

True, once a court finds a defendant liable for creating a

risk of imminent and substantial danger, it will usually be the

case that injunctive relief is warranted. Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vil-

lage of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 545 (1987) (“Environmental in-

jury, by its nature, can seldom be adequately remedied by

money damages and is often permanent or at least of long du-

ration, i.e., irreparable.… [T]herefore, the balance of harms

will usually favor the issuance of an injunction to protect the

environment.”). But that is not always the case. Courts must

consider the traditional equitable factors, which appears to be

what the district court did here. eBay, 547 U.S. at 391. One as-

pect of the district court’s reasoning does, however, give us

pause. Despite the previous finding that GE created a risk of

imminent and substantial harm, the district court stated at the

relief stage that irreparable harm is an “essential require-

ment” for injunctive relief and defined irreparable harm as

“both certain and great, not merely serious or substantial.” To

16 Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880

the extent that language might be interpreted as requiring

RCRA plaintiffs to demonstrate harm above and beyond that

shown at the merits stage, the district court erred.

Multiple circuits have held that RCRA plaintiffs need only

show “a risk of harm,” not “the traditional requirement of

threatened irreparable harm,” to justify an injunction. United

States v. Price, 688 F.2d 201, 211 (3d Cir. 1982); see also Attorney

Gen. of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 565 F.3d 769, 777 (10th

Cir. 2009) (“Our prior case law indicates that under RCRA a

plaintiff need not ‘show proof of actual harm to health or the

environment’ to establish endangerment, but rather injunc-

tive relief is appropriate where there simply may be a risk of

harm.”); Dague v. City of Burlington, 935 F.2d 1343, 1356 (2d

Cir. 1991) (quoting Price for the same proposition); United

States v. Waste Indus., Inc., 734 F.2d 159, 165 (4th Cir. 1984)

(same).

The standard adopted by our sister circuits makes sense,

especially in the permanent injunction context. RCRA author-

izes only injunctive relief. Meghrig, 516 U.S. at 484. Accord-

ingly, absent a permanent injunction, a prevailing RCRA

plaintiff will receive no remedy. The proven harm is, by defi-

nition, irreparable absent an injunction. See generally Walgreen

Co. v. Sara Creek Prop. Co., B.V., 966 F.2d 273, 275 (7th Cir.

1992). A RCRA plaintiff either demonstrates irreparable harm

or fails to prove his or her case on the merits.

We reiterate, however, that a permanent injunction does

not automatically follow from success on the merits. See Me.

People’s All. & Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 471

F.3d 277, 296–97 (1st Cir. 2006) (“[I]n an environmental case,

[the court] should consider the balance of relevant harms be-

fore granting injunctive relief, even though the statute itself

Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880 17

authorizes such relief. … [I]t is true that a district court is not

commanded, regardless of the circumstances, to issue an in-

junction after a finding of liability” under the RCRA.); United

States v. Marine Shale Processors, 81 F.3d 1329, 1360 (5th Cir.

1996) (“We find nothing in RCRA which, ‘in so many words,

or by necessary and inescapable inference, restricts the court’s

jurisdiction in equity.’” (quoting Weinberger, 456 U.S. at 313)).

District courts should apply the traditional equitable factors

to determine the necessity of injunctive relief.2

3. Necessity of Injunctive Relief

Plaintiffs next claim the district court erred in denying in-

junctive relief because it found they failed to establish irrepa-

rable harm. We review a district court’s denial of injunctive

relief for an abuse of discretion; we review its factual determi-

nations for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo, and

2 The unique procedural history of this case may also be a source of

plaintiffs’ confusion regarding the applicable standard. Here, the court

made a liability finding—that the contamination “may present an immi-

nent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment,” 42

U.S.C. § 6972(a)—nearly two years before it denied the injunction. In find-

ing GE liable under the RCRA, the district court agreed that there may be

a risk of endangerment from the contamination. But in denying the injunc-

tion, the district court found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate harm not

already addressed in the state action. We do not see a conflict between the

district court’s holdings on liability (which acknowledges the risk of harm)

and the injunction (which it denied for lack of evidence of unaddressed

harm).

18 Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880

we give deference to the court’s balancing of the equitable fac-

tors. Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. Comm’r of Ind. State

Dep’t of Health, 896 F.3d 809, 816 (7th Cir. 2018).

As an initial matter, we must address GE’s contention that

plaintiffs abandoned their request for remediation at the evi-

dentiary hearing, instead deferring to a request for additional

investigation prior to remediation. According to GE, plaintiffs

have thus waived their claim to an injunction ordering reme-

diation. We disagree. GE mischaracterizes plaintiffs’ position;

although plaintiffs’ expert at the evidentiary hearing testified

he believed additional investigation was necessary to deter-

mine the extent of the contamination and the correspondingly

appropriate remedy, at no point did plaintiffs retreat from

their request for remediation. They reiterated that request in

their complaint, in their initial motion for an injunction, in ar-

gument at the evidentiary hearing, and in their motions for

reconsideration. Plaintiffs have not waived their request for

an injunction requiring GE to remediate the contamination.

Turning to plaintiffs’ argument regarding the irreparable

harm finding, we note that it is somewhat indirect. Rather

than directly challenging the district court’s factual findings,

plaintiffs repeat their general assertion: There is contamina-

tion, therefore there is harm. And because there is harm, there

must be an injunction. In oversimplifying the argument,

plaintiffs fail to grapple with the thoughtful and nuanced de-

cisions the district court made that led it to deny injunctive

relief. In their request for an injunction, plaintiffs claimed ac-

tion under the RCRA was necessary because the Consent Or-

der and actions in the state proceeding were insufficient to

remedy their injury. For that reason, the district court in-

formed the parties repeatedly that it was looking for evidence

Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880 19

of harm not already being addressed through the state pro-

ceeding and for what exactly plaintiffs wanted the court to or-

der GE to do to address that harm.

At the evidentiary hearing, plaintiffs argued that the ex-

tent of the contamination had not been determined and that

the IEPA’s analysis based on a limited investigation was

flawed; as such, their expert testified that additional investi-

gation was necessary before he could opine on the proper re-

mediation. Plaintiffs requested GE perform the following ad-

ditional investigation: additional and deeper monitoring

wells, soil borings penetrating the bedrock, and vapor-intru-

sion monitoring to the extent necessary to (1) determine if a

dense non-aqueous phase liquid (“DNAPL”) is present and,

relatedly, determine the vertical and horizontal extent of the

groundwater contamination; (2) determine whether Rock

Creek is a groundwater divide, and if so, explain the presence

of contamination in the well across the creek; and (3) deter-

mine the source of and monitor the vapors present in the Con-

way home. Noting that many of these issues are interrelated,

the district court considered the competing expert testimony

presented on each avenue of investigation.

Although plaintiffs do not directly challenge the district

court’s factual findings, we review those findings briefly to

highlight the court’s thoroughness in evaluating the evidence

(or lack thereof) supporting plaintiffs’ request for injunctive

relief. A district court’s finding of an expert witness’s credibil-

ity is one of fact that we review for clear error. Madden v. U.S.

Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 873 F.3d 971, 973 (7th Cir. 2017). Clear

error is a deferential standard of review that only merits re-

versal if “after reviewing the entire record, we are left with

the firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been

20 Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880

made.” United States v. Ranjel, 872 F.3d 815, 818 (7th Cir. 2017)

(quoting United States v. Marty, 450 F.3d 687, 689–90 (7th Cir.

2006)). “[I]n a case of dueling experts, as this one was, it is left

to the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to decide how to

weigh the competing expert testimony.” Madden, 873 F.3d at

973–74 (alteration in original) (quoting Wipf v. Kowalski, 519

F.3d 380, 385 (7th Cir. 2008)).

i. DNAPL and Groundwater Contamination

Plaintiffs argued that GE’s testing was insufficient to de-

termine whether a DNAPL is present. However, plaintiffs did

not take any of their own samples or conduct any of their own

tests, despite their expert—Dr. Banaszak—testifying that

groundwater sampling is not prohibitively expensive. In-

stead, Dr. Banaszak advocated that GE drill deeper soil bor-

ings that penetrate the bedrock and that GE install additional

monitoring wells north of the existing wells to determine if

the groundwater traveled north and carried contamination

north of the plant. Based on his review of GE’s testing, Dr.

Banaszak concluded that the results did not show that the

contamination plume “is stable or shrinking, which leaves the

possibility that a DNAPL exists.”

GE’s expert, Dr. Vagt, who has been the project director of

the site since 2008, testified that additional investigation is un-

necessary because the evidence demonstrates no DNAPL is

present. He explained that the concentration of TCE in the

samples has decreased over time, whereas, if a DNAPL were

present, the TCE concentrations would have remained con-

stant. As to the need for a north monitoring well, Dr. Vagt tes-

tified that soil samples taken north of the plant (near the site

of an alleged potential additional source of TCE) detected lit-

tle to no TCE. Dr. Vagt concluded (and the IEPA agreed), that

Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880 21

no additional testing was necessary. And Dr. Vagt conducted

site visits, which led him to conclude that the groundwater

flowed south, not north, as Dr. Banaszak had hypothesized

based on a conceptual site model. Additionally, Dr. Vogt ad-

vocated against drilling through the bedrock; he opined that

the only conduit for contamination through the bedrock was

the preexisting city well, and that any additional drilling

could be harmful in that it could provide a new route for con-

tamination to travel through the bedrock.

The district court concluded that GE’s investigation into

the presence of DNAPL, and the IEPA’s approval of the inves-

tigation, was not unreasonable. Because plaintiffs “merely of-

fer[ed] different conclusions about the data collected by [GE]

and the data they hope[d] to develop with additional investi-

gation and testing,” the district court found that plaintiffs had

not met their burden to show that any additional testing for

DNAPL was necessary. The district court weighed the com-

peting expert testimony and found GE’s expert made reason-

able conclusions supported by facts; we see nothing in the

court’s factual findings that are clearly erroneous.

ii. Rock Creek

As to Rock Creek’s status as a groundwater divide, plain-

tiffs and GE again offered differing interpretations of the same

data. Plaintiffs argued that the lone sample from the south

well containing trace amounts of TCE evidences that contam-

ination is flowing past Rock Creek. They further contended

that the rest of the wells on the south of Rock Creek, which

did not detect contamination, are not deep enough to

properly measure contamination. GE, on the other hand,

maintained that Rock Creek is a groundwater divide. The

IEPA required that GE install additional monitoring wells and

22 Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880

test the residential wells south of Rock Creek to confirm this

proposition. Dr. Vagt contrasted the contaminated samples

from the north side of Rock Creek with the lack of contamina-

tion from the south side wells; he testified that the single sam-

ple from the south well with trace levels of contamination was

an outlier when compared with the lack of contamination in

the six other monitoring wells and residential wells located in

close proximity and at varying depths.

Weighing the competing expert testimony, the district

court found that plaintiffs had not offered any additional test-

ing that would “seriously challenge the finding that Rock

Creek is a groundwater divide.” Again, we cannot conclude

this conclusion is clearly erroneous.

iii. Vapor Intrusion

Lastly, the district court considered plaintiffs’ request for

vapor intrusion monitoring for the Conway home and the sur-

rounding residences. By the time of the evidentiary hearing,

plaintiffs had sold the Conway home. They agreed the court

did not have the power to force access into the home for test-

ing but asked the court to order GE to obtain consent from the

new owners. They based this request on a 2012 test that de-

tected the compound 1,2 DCA in the indoor air in the Conway

home at a level above the residential standard. After detecting

this compound, however, GE took samples of the groundwa-

ter and sub-slab under and around the Conway home, which

did not reflect contamination. GE thus maintained that there

is no complete pathway between the source of the GE-site

contamination and the indoor air in the Conway home, and

that 1,2 DCA comes from a variety of sources unrelated to the

site contamination (such as household cleaners). The IEPA

Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880 23

agreed that, without a complete pathway, no additional test-

ing was necessary.

The district court stated that it was “not in a position to

second guess the IEPA’s decision based on Plaintiffs’ discon-

tent with the decision.” Considering that plaintiffs no longer

own the Conway home and the court does not have authority

to force the new owners to consent to testing, as well as the

lack of a complete pathway from the site contamination to the

home, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred.

* * *

While an injunction does not follow automatically from a

finding of a risk of imminent and substantial endangerment—

as this case demonstrates—such a finding usually goes a long

way towards justifying an injunction. Here however, despite

the district court’s admonition that it was looking for evi-

dence of harm requiring relief in addition to the IEPA action,

at no point did plaintiffs ever conduct their own investigation

to contradict GE’s test results. Rather, they continue to insist

that irreparable harm is “self-evident” where there is contam-

ination and criticize GE’s investigation, which had been con-

ducted subject to the IEPA’s oversight and direction. As

demonstrated by the two years it spent grappling with the in-

junctive relief questions, the district court understood it had

to “walk a fine line” between supplementing and supplanting

the Consent Order. The court focused on the facts before it,

commenting repeatedly that “facts matter,” and it provided

plaintiffs with numerous opportunities to present evidence

that the state proceedings were not adequately protecting the

public and the environment. See Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Chicago

Bridge & Iron Co., 735 F.3d 131, 140 (3d Cir. 2013) (explaining

that ongoing remediation in independent proceedings may

24 Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880

justify the denial of injunctive relief in the RCRA action); Ad-

kins, 644 F.3d 501–02 (“When this case finally addresses the

merits, and if the [state environmental] actions have been re-

solved by then, the federal court will be entitled to insist that

plaintiffs show how the resolution of those cases was not suf-

ficient.”). In the end, plaintiffs could not present contradictory

facts because they did not conduct any of their own investi-

gation. As the district court held, plaintiffs “have not pro-

vided the evidence necessary for this Court to second guess

[GE]’s Remedial Action Plan” and order relief in addition to

what the IEPA has already required.

Nevertheless, plaintiffs insist they are entitled to relief be-

cause they did not get what they wanted; they want more than

the IEPA found adequate and will be satisfied with nothing

less than a mandatory injunction ordering GE to remove any

contamination on their property. We sympathize with plain-

tiffs’ position—TCE is a dangerous contaminant and the cur-

rent plan leaves the contamination in place (though contained

and restricted from access). But, despite plaintiffs’ characteri-

zation, the RCRA is not a “cleanup” statute. See Meghrig, 516

U.S. at 483 (“[The] RCRA is not principally designed to effec-

tuate the cleanup of toxic waste sites ….”). Under the RCRA,

the district court may “restrain” the handling of hazardous

waste that “may present an imminent and substantial endan-

germent to health or the environment,” or order actions that

may be “necessary” to eliminate that danger. 42 U.S.C.

§ 6972(a).

Here, the district court considered both parties’ expert

presentations and concluded that plaintiffs had not estab-

lished any additional actions were “necessary” to eliminate

the danger. In spite of the district court’s multiple inquiries to

Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880 25

plaintiffs’ expert as to what remedy he proposed the court or-

der, he did not make a recommendation, leaving the court

without guidance. Conversely, the court found GE’s explana-

tions for the actions it had taken to investigate and develop its

remediation plans “reasonable, rational and credible.” The

RCRA does not require a court-ordered cleanup where the

court has not found such action necessary to prevent harm to

the public or the environment, especially where, as here, an

expert the court found credible testified that additional

cleanup could cause further harm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in conclud-

ing plaintiffs had not carried their burden to establish manda-

tory injunctive relief was necessary under the RCRA.

B. Motion for Indicative Ruling and for Reconsidera-

tion

Next, plaintiffs contend the district court erred in denying

their motion for indicative ruling under Rule 62.1 and for re-

consideration under Rule 60(b)(2). Relief under Rule 60(b) is

“an extraordinary remedy … granted only in exceptional cir-

cumstances.” Davis v. Moroney, 857 F.3d 748, 751 (7th Cir.

2017) (alteration in original) (quoting Bakery Mach. & Fabrica-

tion, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc., 570 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir.

2009)). We review the district court’s decision for abuse of dis-

cretion. Gleason v. Jansen, 888 F.3d 847, 851–52 (7th Cir. 2018).

A refresher of the timeline of events is necessary: Prior to

the district court’s ruling on the motion for injunction, the

IEPA had denied GE’s initial Remedial Action Plan, which

proposed natural attenuation and institutional controls to ad-

dress the contamination. After the district court denied the in-

26 Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880

junction in September 2017, plaintiffs dismissed their remain-

ing claim with prejudice and filed a notice of appeal. In Octo-

ber 2017, GE submitted a revised RAP to the IEPA, in which

GE proposed institutional controls as the sole method of re-

medial action. Then, on March 2, 2018, the IEPA approved

GE’s revised RAP. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs filed a motion

for indicative ruling under Rule 62.1(a)(3), which provides:

If a timely motion is made for relief that the

court lacks authority to grant because of an ap-

peal that has been docketed and is pending, the

court may: … state either that it would grant the

motion if the court of appeals remands for that

purpose or that the motion raises a substantial

issue.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(3). In the motion, plaintiffs raised a sin-

gle basis for their requested relief: the IEPA’s approval of GE’s

revised RAP. Plaintiffs asserted that the IEPA’s March 2, 2018

approval was newly discovered evidence supporting recon-

sideration of the denial of the injunction.3

Plaintiffs’ arguments fail for two reasons. First, the IEPA’s

March 2, 2018 approval of GE’s RAP is not “newly discovered

evidence” under Rule 60(b)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2)

(“On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or

its legal representative from a final judgment … for … newly

discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could

3 Although plaintiffs did not file a separate motion for relief from judg-

ment and failed to explain that they were seeking relief under Rule

60(b)(2) until their reply brief, the district court excused this omission and

treated the Rule 62.1 motion as a joint motion for reconsideration under

Rule 60(b)(2).

Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880 27

not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial un-

der Rule 59(b).”). Newly discovered evidence must have been

in existence at the time of the original judgment or pertain to

facts in existence at the time of the judgment. Peacock v. Bd. of

Sch. Comm’rs of City of Indianapolis, 721 F.2d 210, 214 (7th Cir.

1983) (per curiam). The district court did not abuse its discre-

tion in finding that neither the revised RAP submitted in Oc-

tober 2017 nor the IEPA’s March 2, 2018 approval existed at

the time of its September 2017 judgment. Rather, they were

new evidence that did not exist and thus could not have been

discovered at the time. Nor did the district court err in con-

cluding that the revised RAP did not pertain to facts in exist-

ence at the time of judgment. To the contrary, the revised RAP

responded to the IEPA’s questions and concerns, contained

new information for the IEPA to consider, and included a new

proposed remedy.

Second, even if it were “newly discovered” evidence, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the

IEPA’s approval of the revised RAP would not have changed

the outcome. According to plaintiffs, the district court’s denial

of injunctive relief was predicated on the IEPA’s rejection of

GE’s initial RAP. For that reason, they claim that the IEPA’s

acceptance of the revised RAP that did not require any addi-

tional remedies is a basis upon which the district court should

have reconsidered injunctive relief. In support, plaintiffs

pointed to the district court’s statement that “[t]he IEPA’s ac-

tions, including the latest [RAP] rejection, is strong evidence

that Plaintiffs’ injuries are being remedied in the parallel state-

court proceeding.” In denying the Rule 62.1 motion, however,

the district court explained that plaintiffs misunderstood its

ruling: “The [c]ourt merely used the IEPA’s most recent rejec-

28 Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880

tion to highlight that the IEPA had been making well-rea-

soned decisions under the Consent Order and had challenged

numerous actions [GE] had taken ….” Noting that plaintiffs

were using the approval of the revised RAP to make the same

arguments the court had rejected throughout the case, the dis-

trict court concluded that plaintiffs had not offered any newly

discovered evidence that would necessitate injunctive relief.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

the motions for indicative relief and for reconsideration.

C. State Law Tort Claims

Lastly, plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in

granting summary judgment to GE on their state law claims

of nuisance, trespass, and negligence. We review a grant of

summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in a light

most favorable to the nonmoving party. Minerva Dairy, Inc. v.

Harsdorf, 905 F.3d 1047, 1053 (7th Cir. 2018).

In Illinois, the statute of limitations for tort claims for dam-

age to property is five years. 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-205. It is

undisputed that, here, Lowell Beggs knew about the contam-

ination of the golf course from the GE plant at the time he

purchased the property in 2007, but he did not file suit until

November 2013, more than five years later. Plaintiffs argue,

however, that GE is committing a continuous violation be-

cause it “is doing nothing to stop its contamination from mi-

grating,” and that, under the continuing tort doctrine, the

five-year statute of limitations does not bar their claims.

“[W]hen ‘a tort involves a continuing or repeated injury,

the limitations period does not begin to run until the date of

the last injury or the date the tortious acts cease.’” Brooks v.

Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Belleville Toyota

Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880 29

v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 770 N.E.2d 177, 190 (Ill. 2002)).

The problem with plaintiffs’ argument is that the “continu-

ing” action they allege is not that GE is continuing to release

contaminants, but that the original contamination is continu-

ing to migrate. However, “[a] continuing violation or tort is

occasioned by continuing unlawful acts and conduct, not by

continual ill effects from an initial violation.” Feltmeier v. Felt-

meier, 798 N.E.2d 75, 85 (Ill. 2003); see Village of DePue v. Viacom

Int’l, Inc., 713 F. Supp. 2d 774, 779 (C.D. Ill. 2010) (continuing

tort doctrine did not apply where plaintiff’s allegations were

limited to injury from water flowing from contaminated site

because tortious conduct had ceased when manufacturing at

site ended years prior); Soo Line R.R. Co. v. Tang Indus., Inc.,

998 F.Supp. 889, 896–97 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (continuing tort doc-

trine did not apply where defendant stopped dumping con-

taminants years prior, “although the effects from [defend-

ant]’s violations may be persisting”). The continuing migra-

tion plaintiffs allege is merely an ill effect from the original

violation, not a continuing unlawful act.

Nor does plaintiffs’ assertion that GE retains possession of

the plant and has mismanaged the remediation suffice as a

continuing injury. As the district court explained, application

of the continuing tort doctrine “turns on continuing conduct,

not continuing ownership or continuing injury.” Compare Vil-

lage of DePue, 713 F. Supp. 2d at 779 (“merely owning the Site”

after contamination insufficient for liability under continuing

tort doctrine), with City of Evanston v. Texaco, Inc., 19 F. Supp.

3d 817, 827–28 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (continuing tort doctrine ap-

plied “at least at the pleadings stage” where defendant’s un-

derground tanks allegedly continued leaking contaminants

into the environment even though defendant no longer

owned the property). That GE retains possession of the plant

30 Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880

is of no import where there is a lack of demonstrated contin-

uing unlawful conduct.

Because plaintiffs do not allege a continuing unlawful act

necessary to invoke the continuing tort doctrine, we affirm the

grant of summary judgment to GE on plaintiffs’ state law tort

claims.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the

district court.