NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
Act 451 of 1994
324.3112 Permit to discharge waste into state waters; application determined as complete; condition of validity; modification, suspension, or revocation of permit; reissuance; application for new permit; notice; order; complaint; petition; contested case hearing; rejection of petition; oceangoing vessels engaging in port operations; permit required; compliance with federal aquatic nuisance rule; legislative intent.
Sec. 3112.
(1) A person shall not discharge any waste or waste effluent into the waters of this state unless the person is in possession of a valid permit from the department.
(2) An application for a permit under subsection (1) shall be submitted to the department. Within 30 days after an application for a new or increased use is received, the department shall determine whether the application is administratively complete. Within 90 days after an application for reissuance of a permit is received, the department shall determine whether the application is administratively complete. If the department determines that an application is not complete, the department shall notify the applicant in writing within the applicable time period. If the department does not make a determination as to whether the application is complete within the applicable time period, the application shall be considered to be complete.
(3) The department shall condition the continued validity of a permit upon the permittee's meeting the effluent requirements that the department considers necessary to prevent unlawful pollution by the dates that the department considers to be reasonable and necessary and to ensure compliance with applicable federal law. If the department finds that the terms of a permit have been, are being, or may be violated, it may modify, suspend, or revoke the permit or grant the permittee a reasonable period of time in which to comply with the permit. The department may reissue a revoked permit upon a showing satisfactory to the department that the permittee has corrected the violation. A person who has had a permit revoked may apply for a new permit.
(4) If the department determines that a person is causing or is about to cause unlawful pollution of the waters of this state, the department may notify the alleged offender of its determination and enter an order requiring the person to abate the pollution or may refer the matter to the attorney general for legal action, or both.
(5) A person who is aggrieved by an order of abatement of the department or by the reissuance, modification, suspension, or revocation of an existing permit of the department executed pursuant to this section may file a sworn petition with the department setting forth the grounds and reasons for the complaint and requesting a contested case hearing on the matter pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. A petition filed more than 60 days after action on the order or permit may be rejected by the department as being untimely.
(6) All oceangoing vessels engaging in port operations in this state shall obtain a permit from the department. The department shall issue a permit for an oceangoing vessel only if the applicant can demonstrate that the oceangoing vessel complies with 33 CFR 151.1510 as then in effect or the oceangoing vessel will utilize environmentally sound technology and methods approved by the department that prevent the discharge of aquatic nuisance species. However, all of the following shall apply:
(a) The grant by the coast guard of an extension to the implementation schedule under 33 CFR 151.1513 or the exchange of ballast water under 33 CFR 151.1510(a)(1) or saltwater flushing under 33 CFR 401.30 alone is not considered compliance with the federal aquatic nuisance rule for the purposes of this section.
(b) A vessel discharging ballast water must employ a ballast water management system approved pursuant to 33 CFR 151.1510(A)(3) or a ballast water treatment method approved by the department.
(c) A vessel must carry out an exchange of ballast water or saltwater flushing and comply with other applicable requirements of 33 CFR part 151, subpart C, and 33 CFR 401.30.
(d) A vessel using water from a public water system under 33 CFR 151.1510(a)(4) shall utilize a method to sufficiently clean ballast water tanks prior to using water from a public water supply system as ballast water as approved by the department.
(e) A discharge that may cause or contribute to a violation of a water quality standard is not authorized by a permit described in this subsection.
(f) If the federal aquatic nuisance rule is amended after the enactment date of the 2018 amendatory act that added subsection (7), and the director determines that the amended version of the federal aquatic nuisance rule is less protective of the waters of this state from aquatic nuisance species, the applicant shall demonstrate that the oceangoing vessel complies with the federal aquatic nuisance rule as in effect immediately before the effective date of that amendment to the federal aquatic nuisance rule.
(g) If pursuant to a compact of Great Lakes states of which this state is a part, this state adopts standards more protective of the waters of this state from aquatic nuisance species than the version of the federal aquatic nuisance rule otherwise applicable under this subsection, the standards adopted pursuant to the compact apply.
(7) The intent of the legislature in adopting in part the federal aquatic nuisance rule by reference is to help harmonize regulatory programs in Great Lakes states for preventing the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes, including ballast water management programs, and to allow regulatory agencies to cooperate in developing stronger programs.
(8) Permit fees for permits under subsection (6) shall be assessed as provided in section 3120. The permit fees for an individual permit issued under subsection (6) are the fees specified in section 3120(1)(a) and (5)(a). The permit fees for a general permit issued under subsection (6) are the fees specified in section 3120(1)(c) and (5)(b)(i). Permits under subsection (6) shall be issued in accordance with the timelines provided in section 3120. The department may promulgate rules to implement subsections (6) to (8).
(9) As used in this section, "federal aquatic nuisance rule" means 33 CFR part 151, subpart C, and applicable requirements of 33 CFR 151.2050, 151.2060, and 151.2070.
History: 1994, Act 451, Eff. Mar. 30, 1995 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 91, Imd. Eff. Apr. 22, 2004 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 33, Imd. Eff. June 6, 2005 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 667, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 2018
PopularName Notes:
Act 451
PopularName Notes:
NREPA
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case:
Fednav, Ltd. v. Chester, 547 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2008).
Fednav, Ltd. v. Chester, 547 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiffs' — a coalition of shipping companies, non-profit shipping associations, a port terminal and dock operator, and a port association — appeal the district court’s dismissal of their constitutional challenges to the so-called Michigan Ballast Water Statute, Mich. Comp.…”
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Worth Twp., 814 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2012).
· cites it 6× “If the discharge is the subject of a valid permit issued by the [DEQ] pursuant to [MCL 324.3112], and is in violation of that permit, a municipality responsible for the discharge is subject to the penalties prescribed in [MCL 324.”
South MacOmb Disposal Auth. v. Am. Ins., 572 N.W.2d 686 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “§ 324.3112(2); M.S.A. § 13A.3112(2). A person receiving, or otherwise aggrieved by, such an order may seek a contested case hearing under the Administrative Procedures Act, M.”
Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 807 N.W.2d 866 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “3106; MCL 324.3112(1). In order to allow the DEQ to effectively perform its duties with regard to the control of water pollution under Part 31, the Legislature has expressly conferred various rulemaking powers upon the DEQ.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 856 N.W.2d 394 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “” MCL 324.3112(1). Section 3113(3) authorizes “the permittee, the applicant, or any other person” to file objections and request a contested case hearing in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act.”
Fednav, Ltd. v. Chester, 505 F. Supp. 2d 381 (E.D. Mich. 2007).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiffs, 1 various international shipping entities, seek a declaratory judgment that Michigan’s Ballast Water Statute, Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3112 (6), is invalid in general and as applied to these Plaintiffs.”
Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dept of Env't Great Lakes & Energy (Mich. 2024).
· cites it 29× “264 is inapplicable if an exclusive procedure or remedy is provided by a statute governing the agency, and the NREPA provides exclusive remedies and procedures for disputing EGLE’s exercise of its authority to issue NPDES permits in two ways: (1) a contested-case proceeding…”
City of Brighton v. Twp. of Hamburg, 677 N.W.2d 349 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Compliance with the terms of an outstanding order of determination or final order of determination or stipulation with the former water resources commission that is in effect on April 15, 1973, shall be considered to meet the requirements of this section until the department…”
Fednav, Ltd. v. Steven Chester (6th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiffs—a coalition of shipping companies, non-profit shipping associations, a port terminal and dock operator, and a port association—appeal the district court’s dismissal of their constitutional challenges to the so-called Michigan Ballast Water Statute, Mich. Comp. Laws §…”
Dept of Env't Great Lakes & Energy v. Brookside Crossing LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “See MCL 324.3112. Although Brookside originally had a so-called permit-by-rule for this discharge of stormwater, EGLE decided to require a different, individual permit in 2010, but Brookside failed to comply with EGLE’s application requirements.”
Charter Twp of Plainfield v. Dept of Nat. Resources (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“MCL 324.3112(1) provides that “[a] person shall not discharge any waste or waste effluent into the waters of this state unless the person is in possession of a valid permit from the department.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3112(1) — 6 cases
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 856 N.W.2d 394 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“” MCL 324.3112(1). Section 3113(3) authorizes “the permittee, the applicant, or any other person” to file objections and request a contested case hearing in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act.”
Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 807 N.W.2d 866 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
“3106; MCL 324.3112(1). In order to allow the DEQ to effectively perform its duties with regard to the control of water pollution under Part 31, the Legislature has expressly conferred various rulemaking powers upon the DEQ.”
City of Brighton v. Twp. of Hamburg, 677 N.W.2d 349 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“Compliance with the terms of an outstanding order of determination or final order of determination or stipulation with the former water resources commission that is in effect on April 15, 1973, shall be considered to meet the requirements of this section until the department…”
Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dept of Env't Great Lakes & Energy (Mich. 2024).
“264 is inapplicable if an exclusive procedure or remedy is provided by a statute governing the agency, and the NREPA provides exclusive remedies and procedures for disputing EGLE’s exercise of its authority to issue NPDES permits in two ways: (1) a contested-case proceeding…”
Dept of Env't Great Lakes & Energy v. Brookside Crossing LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“See MCL 324.3112. Although Brookside originally had a so-called permit-by-rule for this discharge of stormwater, EGLE decided to require a different, individual permit in 2010, but Brookside failed to comply with EGLE’s application requirements.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3112(2) — 1 case
South MacOmb Disposal Auth. v. Am. Ins., 572 N.W.2d 686 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“§ 324.3112(2); M.S.A. § 13A.3112(2). A person receiving, or otherwise aggrieved by, such an order may seek a contested case hearing under the Administrative Procedures Act, M.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3112(3) — 3 cases
South MacOmb Disposal Auth. v. Am. Ins., 572 N.W.2d 686 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“§ 324.3112(2); M.S.A. § 13A.3112(2). A person receiving, or otherwise aggrieved by, such an order may seek a contested case hearing under the Administrative Procedures Act, M.”
City of Brighton v. Twp. of Hamburg, 677 N.W.2d 349 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“Compliance with the terms of an outstanding order of determination or final order of determination or stipulation with the former water resources commission that is in effect on April 15, 1973, shall be considered to meet the requirements of this section until the department…”
Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dept of Env't Great Lakes & Energy (Mich. 2024).
“264 is inapplicable if an exclusive procedure or remedy is provided by a statute governing the agency, and the NREPA provides exclusive remedies and procedures for disputing EGLE’s exercise of its authority to issue NPDES permits in two ways: (1) a contested-case proceeding…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3112(5) — 1 case
Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dept of Env't Great Lakes & Energy (Mich. 2024).
“264 is inapplicable if an exclusive procedure or remedy is provided by a statute governing the agency, and the NREPA provides exclusive remedies and procedures for disputing EGLE’s exercise of its authority to issue NPDES permits in two ways: (1) a contested-case proceeding…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3112(6) — 2 cases
Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 807 N.W.2d 866 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
“3106; MCL 324.3112(1). In order to allow the DEQ to effectively perform its duties with regard to the control of water pollution under Part 31, the Legislature has expressly conferred various rulemaking powers upon the DEQ.”
Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dept of Env't Great Lakes & Energy (Mich. 2024).
“264 is inapplicable if an exclusive procedure or remedy is provided by a statute governing the agency, and the NREPA provides exclusive remedies and procedures for disputing EGLE’s exercise of its authority to issue NPDES permits in two ways: (1) a contested-case proceeding…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3112(8) — 1 case
Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dept of Env't Great Lakes & Energy (Mich. 2024).
“264 is inapplicable if an exclusive procedure or remedy is provided by a statute governing the agency, and the NREPA provides exclusive remedies and procedures for disputing EGLE’s exercise of its authority to issue NPDES permits in two ways: (1) a contested-case proceeding…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3112(i) — 1 case
City of Brighton v. Twp. of Hamburg, 677 N.W.2d 349 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“Compliance with the terms of an outstanding order of determination or final order of determination or stipulation with the former water resources commission that is in effect on April 15, 1973, shall be considered to meet the requirements of this section until the department…”
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.