§ 116.081

Sletten v. Ramsey County · 2004 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

In re Cottonwood County’s Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Sioux Rock Quarry ... · 2025 1 citation

+ 1 more citation 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.

United States v. Reserve Mining Company · 1974 6 citations

The State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (M.P. C.A.) in their joint complaint have alleged that .the discharge into the air and water creates a common law nuisance. Minnesota joins the United States in the claim that the discharge into the water violates WPC 15. In addition to the specific regulations cited in the United States complaint the State of Minnesota includes WPC 15(c)(6)(c) which deals with unspecified toxic substances, WPC 15(d)(1) concerning discharges that make certain waters unfit to drink even after chemical treatment, and WPC 26 which is a general effluent standard for Lake Superior that incorporates the standards in WPC 15. It is alleged that Reserve’s discharge into the air and water is subject to abatement pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 116B.02(5). Further it is claimed that Reserve has no permit for its discharge into the water from the pilot plant, main plant, and mine pits and is in violation of Minn. Stat. § 115.07. As for the discharge into the air it is claimed that this is in violation of Minnesota Regulations APC 17 (emission standard for asbestos), APC 5 and 6 (particulate emission standards), APC 1 (primary and secondary air standards), APC 3(a)(2) and Minn. Stat. § 116.081(1) (operation without a permit). Minnesota seeks an immediate abatement of the discharge and civil fines pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 115.-071(3). Minnesota also seeks a monetary award from defendants for the withholding of certain documents concerning on land disposal systems in violation of the Duty of Candor set out in Minn. Reg. MPCA 1 and 11 and Minn. Stat. § 115.071(2) (b). 5

. The Court is not prepared to rule at this time as to whether or not Reserve’s discharge into the air and water violates Minn. Reg. A.PC 3(a)(2), and Minn. Stat. §§ 116.081(1) and 115.07. These matters are taken under advisement and if necessary will be decided at a later date.

. The Court is not prepared to rule at this time as to whether or not Reserve’s discharge into the air and water violates Minn. Reg. A.PC 3(a)(2), and Minn. Stat. §§ 116.081(1) and 115.07. These matters are taken under advisement and if necessary will be decided at a later date.

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.