Section 42. Any person who, directly or indirectly, throws, drains, runs, discharges or allows the discharge of any pollutant into waters of the commonwealth, except in conformity with a permit issued under section 27 or 43; or who violates any provision of this chapter, any valid regulation, order or permit prescribed or issued by the director thereunder; or who knowingly makes any false representation in an application, record, report or plan, or falsifies, tampers with or renders inaccurate a monitoring device or method, required under this chapter, (a) shall be punished by a fine of not less than two thousand five hundred dollars nor more than $50,000 for each day such violation occurs or continues, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both; or (b) shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50,000 per day of such violation, which may be assessed in an action brought on behalf of the commonwealth in any court of competent jurisdiction. This section shall not apply to sections thirty-four B and thirty-four C.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as adversely affecting the rights of any person to secure judicial relief against actual or potential waste dischargers under other rules or provisions of law.
No information submitted or made available for inspection in accordance with requirements established by or under this chapter may be used in any criminal proceeding against the individual who submits it, certifies it, or makes it available, except in a prosecution for the making of a false statement or record, or for otherwise failing to comply with reporting or recording requirements under this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Massachusetts, 493 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007).
“Acts 920 (codified as amended primarily at Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 21, §§ 42 , 50B-50E, and ch.”
Nassr v. Commonwealth Nassr, 477 N.E.2d 987 (Mass. 1985).
· cites it 3× “The Commonwealth alleged that the plaintiffs and the third-party defendant were liable for civil penalties under G. L. c. 21, §§ 42, 57, 58, for illegal storage and disposal of oil and hazardous material, and for the costs of the cleanup operation under G.”
Gallo v. Div. of Water Pollution Control, 372 N.E.2d 1258 (Mass. 1978).
· cites it 2× “G. L. c. 21, §§ 42, 43 (2). It established criminal and civil penalties for those who failed to comply with the permit requirement.”
Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 944 N.E.2d 1027 (Mass. 2011).
“14 At that point, facilities such as Entergy must either comply with a permit requirement they believe to be unlawfully imposed, potentially to their financial detriment, or violate the permit conditions and face civil or criminal penalties pursuant to G. L. c. 21, § 42. Our…”
United States v. Coalition for Buzzards Bay, 644 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2011).
“Bad things sometimes can lead to good things and, spurred by this incident, the state legislature enacted the Massachusetts Oil Spill Prevention Act (MOSPA), codified as amended primarily at Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 21, §§ 42 , 50B-50E; ch.”
Town of Holden v. Div. of Water Pollution Control, 376 N.E.2d 1259 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978).
“G. L. c. 21, §§ 42, 43. Id. at 291. Holden argues that the director’s rulings may prevent approval of a connection to the sewerage system for the Jefferson Village area in Holden, the construction of which has been ordered by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and…”
Ringbolt Farms Homeowners Ass'n v. Town of Hull, 714 F. Supp. 1246 (D. Mass. 1989).
“Ill, § 150A, and the discharge of pollutants into state waters, Mass. Gen.L. ch. 21, § 42. The only cause of action asserted against the DEQE is contained in Count III of the complaint.”
Hindt v. State, 421 A.2d 1325 (Del. 1980).
“§ 13-7-13-3 (Burns 1973); Mass.Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 21, § 42 (West Supp.”
Greater Lawrence Sanitary Dist. v. Town of North Andover, 14 Mass. L. Rptr. 571 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002).
“G.L.c. 21, §§42, 43. Most importantly, under the GLSD’s enabling legislation, the DEP was given exclusive authority over both the GLSD operation in general and specifically over the improvements to the North Andover facility.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.