Laserfiche WebLink
(Bkrtcy.W.E.Mich. 1987) If the trustee is not permitted to aban- <br />don the property in contravention of a state environmental law, <br />then it is the trustee's duty to maintain and possess the prop- <br />erty in compliance with such law. In re Wall Tube S Metal Prod- <br />ucts Co., 831 F.2d 118 (6th Cir. 1987). The trustee's obligation <br />to expend the estate's unencumbered assets cited by the Peerless <br />Court implies that such expenditures are to be afforded an admin- <br />istrative priority. <br />The Debtors' reliance upon In re Pierce Coal and Const., <br />Inc., supra is misplaced. Debtors argue that Pierce stands for <br />the proposition that the cost of reclaiming areas that were mined <br />prepetition is not entitled to priority as an administrative <br />claim. However, the Pierce Court found an implied exception to <br />that rule if the site can not be abandoned under Midlantic <br />National Bank v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, <br />474 U.S. 494, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986). The Board <br />does, however, dispute the Pierce Court's view that such an ad- <br />ministrative priority would apply only to the "necessary costs of <br />protecting the public health or safety from imminent and iden- <br />tifiable harm...." In re Piece65 BR, at 531. The Board's argu- <br />ments on that point are more fully set out in the Board's Closing <br />Brief, pages 4-8. In any event, as is more fully discussed at <br />pages 8-13 of the Board's Closing Brief, reclamation of the quar- <br />ries is a necessary cost of protecting the public health and <br />-5- <br />