§ 115A.03

JME of Monticello, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue · 2014 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Waste Recovery Cooperative v. County of Hennepin · 1994 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Max Schwartzman & Sons v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency · 2003 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc. v. Williams · 1996 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin · 1993 7 citations

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.

Matter of Dougherty · 1992 1 citation

DECISION We affirm the Commissioner's amended administrative penalty order and hold that both MCM and Dougherty are liable for the corrective actions and penalty assessment. Affirmed. NOTES [1] We note that relators' argument does not address the flaws in the company's contingency plan or the failure to properly analyze and label the waste paint container. [2] The record reflects that: (1) vehicles and employees tracked acid outside of the building where materials were not recovered; (2) it is questionable whether recovery of acid through the use of squeegees is feasible; (3) the investigators did not see any evidence of reclamation or reuse (4) the investigators did not see any equipment (e.g., squeegees) which could facilitate recovery and reuse of the pooled acid; (5) an employee told investigators that past practice included sweeping the pooled liquids outside of the facility; (6) the deterioration of the building's metal siding and concrete floor indicated that a significant amount of the acid had not been reclaimed; (7) there was still acid pooled on the floor after the company ceased operations; (8) there was visible staining of the concrete and gravel on the outside of the structure; and (9) there was no containment system for the acid once it had escaped from the acid tanks. [3] Of course, the number of previous violations is a factor to be considered in evaluating the seriousness of an offense. Minn. Stat. § 116.072, subd. 2(c)(3). [4] We need not address relators' concerns relating to pre-1990 violations because the penalty calculation worksheet contained in the record reveals that the Commissioner only considered the 1990 violations in calculating the penalty. [5] The applicable definition of "disposal" demonstrates the focus of the statute is on the release of the substance, not the quantity. Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, subd. 9 (1990) ("disposal" governs discharge of "any waste" including "any constituent thereof" which may pollute environment); see also Minn. R. 7045.0275, subps. 2 & 3 (duties to report and recover do not have minimum threshold before action is mandated — if hazardous waste "may" cause any amount of pollution duties are triggered).

In re the Amended Administrative Penalty Order Issued to Dougherty · 1992 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Waste Recovery Cooperative of Minnesota v. County of Hennepin · 1991 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

Sherner v. Culliton · 1986 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

Paul's Industrial Garage, Inc. v. Goodhue County · 2021 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.