Opinion ID: 2106246
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Disputed Permit Conditions

Text: The PCA permit here for consideration is a 36-page document, 32 pages of which are not in dispute. The most significant conditions substituted by the trial court were five in number, summarized as follows: 1. The PCA permit, in dealing with air quality, provided as follows: [T]he ambient air shall contain no more fibers than that level ordinarily found in the ambient air of a control city such as St. Paul; The trial court added the following:    provided that a fiber level exceeding the level in any control city shall not be non-compliance with this permit unless such level is in excess of a medically significant level; 2. The PCA permit included the following: [T]he fibers in the ambient air shall be maintained below a level which is injurious to human health or welfare in violation of Minnesota Statute Section 116.06(3); This condition was entirely omitted by the trial court. However, since compliance with the statute was mandated by the Federal court, Reserve Mining Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 8 Cir., 514 F.2d 492, 539, note 85, Reserve concedes that the omission was probably inadvertent and has no objection to its being reinstated. Minn.St. 116.06, subd. 3, provides as follows: `Air pollution' means the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of any air contaminant or combination thereof in such quantity, of such nature and duration, and under such conditions as would be injurious to human health or welfare, to animal or plant life, or to property, or to interfere unreasonably with the enjoyment of life or property. 3. The PCA permit defined fibers as follows: `Fibers', for the purpose of this permit, are defined as chrysotile and amphibole mineral particles with 3 to 1 or greater aspect ratios. The trial court included in that definition silicate mineral particles and added: `Silicate minerals' include but are not limited to serpentines, Minnesotaite, stilpnomelane, greenalite, pyroxenes and talcs. 4. In dealing with water quality conditions, PCA applied Minn.Reg. WPC 14(a)(8) as the parties agreed to do. [3] The trial court added these conditions:    Any such fiber level in waters emanating from Petitioners' operations shall not be non-compliance with this Permit unless such level is in excess of a medically significant level. In addition, the trial court struck from the PCA permit all of pages 9 through 12 and substituted in their place the equivalent pages contained in so-called Draft No. 4 prepared and advocated by Reserve. The significant change thereby adopted consisted of eliminating fibers as a parameter in establishing water quality criteria for surface waters. 5. In its requirement for quality assurance and non-routine compliance monitoring PCA stated: The Permittees shall make available to the Director portions of all fiber water samples. Unless otherwise determined by the Director, approximately 25% of all fiber samples shall be analyzed by the Agency. The Permittees shall split ten percent of all other water quality field samples as requested by the Director and make them available to the Director for analyses for the purpose of assuring quality data. The Permittees shall make available to the Director portions of all fiber air samples. Approximately one-sixth of all these samples shall be analyzed by the Agency. The trial court directed the parties to consider their conflicting versions of this section and to negotiate monitoring and quality assurance permit conditions.