§ 116.072

Duluth Landfill Superior LLC v. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency · 2016 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. · 1997 7 citations

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.

Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc. v. Williams · 1996 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

Matter of Dougherty · 1992 6 citations

FACTS In early 1990, MCM Industries operated a metal galvanizing business in Minneapolis. As part of its operations, MCM galvanized steel with zinc, a process involving the use of large quantities of sulfuric acid. The company also used hazardous materials in conducting a commercial painting operation. Dougherty is the principal MCM shareholder and has served as the company's president since 1982. In addition, Dougherty was in charge of the plant's container labelling, plant safety and employee training programs. Dougherty was also the primary emergency coordinator in the event of a hazardous waste release, the primary contact person with all regulatory bodies concerning hazardous waste, and by his admission, the person ultimately in charge of operations at the facility. In February 1990, the MPCA received a citizen's complaint concerning management of MCM's hazardous waste and the working conditions inside the plant. As a result, the state agency conducted an inspection of the plant on February 13, 1990. Inspectors discovered large pools of liquid covering the floor of the room where metal was cleansed in acid baths. They ascertained that the liquid had a pH of zero, indicating its extremely high acidity and calling for its classification as a corrosive hazardous waste. Minn. R. 7045.0131, subp. 4 (1989). The inspectors observed that employees were continually travelling through the acid and tracking the material out of the building. In addition, the inspectors discovered that the cement floor of the building was severely pockmarked and the base of the building's metal siding was seriously corroded. The inspectors also noticed an unlabelled container of waste. An MCM employee identified the waste as paint related but acknowledged that the waste had not been evaluated to determine its composition. Finally, the inspectors reviewed the plant's hazardous waste emergency contingency plan and determined that the plan had not been updated to address the waste from the commercial painting operation and the fact that the person listed as the emergency coordinator no longer worked for MCM. Afterwards, the inspectors met with Dougherty and notified him that the acid pools constituted a hazardous waste which needed proper management. The inspectors also told him about the unlabelled waste paint container and the deficient contingency plan and informed him the problems had to be corrected. Dougherty told the inspectors that the acid pools resulted from a malfunctioning ventilation system which caused vaporized acid to condense and pool on the floor. Dougherty also told the inspectors that MCM was installing a new ventilation system which would eliminate the pooling by April 1990. In the interim, the company attempted to reduce the condensation problem by placing space heaters in the building. In addition, Dougherty claimed that the condensed liquid on the floor was recovered through the use of squeegees and placed back into the acid tanks. The MPCA did not immediately proceed against MCM for the violations. Instead, the agency chose to see if the new ventilation system would mitigate the problem. On June 28, 1990 the MPCA conducted a second investigation of MCM's facility. When the investigators arrived they discovered that there had been no improvements since the February inspection: Pools of acid remained on the floor, the waste paint container was not properly labeled and had not been analyzed, and the company's contingency plan had not been updated. The inspectors met with Dougherty and again informed him of their findings and the specific violations. *488 The MPCA Commissioner issued an administrative penalty order to MCM and Dougherty in September 1990. The order stated that MCM failed to report and recover spills in violation of Minn. R. 7045.0275, subps. 2 & 3 (1989), failed to properly maintain and operate a facility in violation of Minn. R. 7045.0566, subp. 2 (1989), failed to properly label a hazardous waste container in violation of Minn. R. 7045.0292, subp. 1 (1989), failed to properly amend the company's contingency plan in violation of Minn. R. 7045.0572, subp. 6 (1989), failed to properly evaluate waste materials in violation of Minn. R. 7045.0214, subps. 1 & 2 (1989), and failed to notify the agency of a spill and avoid water pollution in violation of Minn. Stat. § 115.061 (1990). The order required corrective actions and imposed a nonforgivable $10,000 penalty. Both relators contested the order and requested an administrative hearing pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 116.072, subd. 6(a) (1990). Following a hearing, the administrative law judge concurred with the majority of the Commissioner's findings but recommended that the Commissioner recalculate the penalty to reflect a less serious violation. On May 28, 1991, the Commissioner issued an amended order adopting portions of the judge's suggestions. The amended order declared the liability of both relators, included an order for corrective action, and reduced the nonforgivable penalty to $7075.

FACTS In early 1990, MCM Industries operated a metal galvanizing business in Minneapolis. As part of its operations, MCM galvanized steel with zinc, a process involving the use of large quantities of sulfuric acid. The company also used hazardous materials in conducting a commercial painting operation. Dougherty is the principal MCM shareholder and has served as the company's president since 1982. In addition, Dougherty was in charge of the plant's container labelling, plant safety and employee training programs. Dougherty was also the primary emergency coordinator in the event of a hazardous waste release, the primary contact person with all regulatory bodies concerning hazardous waste, and by his admission, the person ultimately in charge of operations at the facility. In February 1990, the MPCA received a citizen's complaint concerning management of MCM's hazardous waste and the working conditions inside the plant. As a result, the state agency conducted an inspection of the plant on February 13, 1990. Inspectors discovered large pools of liquid covering the floor of the room where metal was cleansed in acid baths. They ascertained that the liquid had a pH of zero, indicating its extremely high acidity and calling for its classification as a corrosive hazardous waste. Minn. R. 7045.0131, subp. 4 (1989). The inspectors observed that employees were continually travelling through the acid and tracking the material out of the building. In addition, the inspectors discovered that the cement floor of the building was severely pockmarked and the base of the building's metal siding was seriously corroded. The inspectors also noticed an unlabelled container of waste. An MCM employee identified the waste as paint related but acknowledged that the waste had not been evaluated to determine its composition. Finally, the inspectors reviewed the plant's hazardous waste emergency contingency plan and determined that the plan had not been updated to address the waste from the commercial painting operation and the fact that the person listed as the emergency coordinator no longer worked for MCM. Afterwards, the inspectors met with Dougherty and notified him that the acid pools constituted a hazardous waste which needed proper management. The inspectors also told him about the unlabelled waste paint container and the deficient contingency plan and informed him the problems had to be corrected. Dougherty told the inspectors that the acid pools resulted from a malfunctioning ventilation system which caused vaporized acid to condense and pool on the floor. Dougherty also told the inspectors that MCM was installing a new ventilation system which would eliminate the pooling by April 1990. In the interim, the company attempted to reduce the condensation problem by placing space heaters in the building. In addition, Dougherty claimed that the condensed liquid on the floor was recovered through the use of squeegees and placed back into the acid tanks. The MPCA did not immediately proceed against MCM for the violations. Instead, the agency chose to see if the new ventilation system would mitigate the problem. On June 28, 1990 the MPCA conducted a second investigation of MCM's facility. When the investigators arrived they discovered that there had been no improvements since the February inspection: Pools of acid remained on the floor, the waste paint container was not properly labeled and had not been analyzed, and the company's contingency plan had not been updated. The inspectors met with Dougherty and again informed him of their findings and the specific violations. *488 The MPCA Commissioner issued an administrative penalty order to MCM and Dougherty in September 1990. The order stated that MCM failed to report and recover spills in violation of Minn. R. 7045.0275, subps. 2 & 3 (1989), failed to properly maintain and operate a facility in violation of Minn. R. 7045.0566, subp. 2 (1989), failed to properly label a hazardous waste container in violation of Minn. R. 7045.0292, subp. 1 (1989), failed to properly amend the company's contingency plan in violation of Minn. R. 7045.0572, subp. 6 (1989), failed to properly evaluate waste materials in violation of Minn. R. 7045.0214, subps. 1 & 2 (1989), and failed to notify the agency of a spill and avoid water pollution in violation of Minn. Stat. § 115.061 (1990). The order required corrective actions and imposed a nonforgivable $10,000 penalty. Both relators contested the order and requested an administrative hearing pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 116.072, subd. 6(a) (1990). Following a hearing, the administrative law judge concurred with the majority of the Commissioner's findings but recommended that the Commissioner recalculate the penalty to reflect a less serious violation. On May 28, 1991, the Commissioner issued an amended order adopting portions of the judge's suggestions. The amended order declared the liability of both relators, included an order for corrective action, and reduced the nonforgivable penalty to $7075.

FACTS In early 1990, MCM Industries operated a metal galvanizing business in Minneapolis. As part of its operations, MCM galvanized steel with zinc, a process involving the use of large quantities of sulfuric acid. The company also used hazardous materials in conducting a commercial painting operation. Dougherty is the principal MCM shareholder and has served as the company's president since 1982. In addition, Dougherty was in charge of the plant's container labelling, plant safety and employee training programs. Dougherty was also the primary emergency coordinator in the event of a hazardous waste release, the primary contact person with all regulatory bodies concerning hazardous waste, and by his admission, the person ultimately in charge of operations at the facility. In February 1990, the MPCA received a citizen's complaint concerning management of MCM's hazardous waste and the working conditions inside the plant. As a result, the state agency conducted an inspection of the plant on February 13, 1990. Inspectors discovered large pools of liquid covering the floor of the room where metal was cleansed in acid baths. They ascertained that the liquid had a pH of zero, indicating its extremely high acidity and calling for its classification as a corrosive hazardous waste. Minn. R. 7045.0131, subp. 4 (1989). The inspectors observed that employees were continually travelling through the acid and tracking the material out of the building. In addition, the inspectors discovered that the cement floor of the building was severely pockmarked and the base of the building's metal siding was seriously corroded. The inspectors also noticed an unlabelled container of waste. An MCM employee identified the waste as paint related but acknowledged that the waste had not been evaluated to determine its composition. Finally, the inspectors reviewed the plant's hazardous waste emergency contingency plan and determined that the plan had not been updated to address the waste from the commercial painting operation and the fact that the person listed as the emergency coordinator no longer worked for MCM. Afterwards, the inspectors met with Dougherty and notified him that the acid pools constituted a hazardous waste which needed proper management. The inspectors also told him about the unlabelled waste paint container and the deficient contingency plan and informed him the problems had to be corrected. Dougherty told the inspectors that the acid pools resulted from a malfunctioning ventilation system which caused vaporized acid to condense and pool on the floor. Dougherty also told the inspectors that MCM was installing a new ventilation system which would eliminate the pooling by April 1990. In the interim, the company attempted to reduce the condensation problem by placing space heaters in the building. In addition, Dougherty claimed that the condensed liquid on the floor was recovered through the use of squeegees and placed back into the acid tanks. The MPCA did not immediately proceed against MCM for the violations. Instead, the agency chose to see if the new ventilation system would mitigate the problem. On June 28, 1990 the MPCA conducted a second investigation of MCM's facility. When the investigators arrived they discovered that there had been no improvements since the February inspection: Pools of acid remained on the floor, the waste paint container was not properly labeled and had not been analyzed, and the company's contingency plan had not been updated. The inspectors met with Dougherty and again informed him of their findings and the specific violations. *488 The MPCA Commissioner issued an administrative penalty order to MCM and Dougherty in September 1990. The order stated that MCM failed to report and recover spills in violation of Minn. R. 7045.0275, subps. 2 & 3 (1989), failed to properly maintain and operate a facility in violation of Minn. R. 7045.0566, subp. 2 (1989), failed to properly label a hazardous waste container in violation of Minn. R. 7045.0292, subp. 1 (1989), failed to properly amend the company's contingency plan in violation of Minn. R. 7045.0572, subp. 6 (1989), failed to properly evaluate waste materials in violation of Minn. R. 7045.0214, subps. 1 & 2 (1989), and failed to notify the agency of a spill and avoid water pollution in violation of Minn. Stat. § 115.061 (1990). The order required corrective actions and imposed a nonforgivable $10,000 penalty. Both relators contested the order and requested an administrative hearing pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 116.072, subd. 6(a) (1990). Following a hearing, the administrative law judge concurred with the majority of the Commissioner's findings but recommended that the Commissioner recalculate the penalty to reflect a less serious violation. On May 28, 1991, the Commissioner issued an amended order adopting portions of the judge's suggestions. The amended order declared the liability of both relators, included an order for corrective action, and reduced the nonforgivable penalty to $7075.

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

In re the Amended Administrative Penalty Order Issued to Dougherty · 1992 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.