valley fills drain into Laurel Fork and upon information and belief there are no other sources of selenium in Laurel Fork.” (Id. ¶¶ 31-32). The defendant argues that the plaintiffs have not established that selenium discharges are ongoing. According to the defendant, “[i]f selenium discharges are now occurring, said discharges could only occur though migration of residual contaminants within the fill, because the ongoing discharge activity of placing overburden for valley fill construction has terminated at least fourteen plus years ago.” (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. to Dismiss [Docket 14], at 9). Because the activities that caused the alleged discharges ceased long ago, the defendant contends that they cannot be said to be ongoing. For support, the defend (D.Minn.1990) (<HOLDING>), class, cert. vacated by 793 F.Supp. 898
holding that the release of carbon monoxide into an apartment is not the type of environmental pollution contemplated by the pollution exclusion clause holding that a discharge continuously or even sporadically over a period of time cannot be considered sudden within the meaning of the pollution exclusion holding that removal of insulation that released asbestos  a thermal irritant  into an apartment was covered by the pollution exclusion holding that the discharge of paint chips into soil was covered by the pollution exclusion because it polluted the environment but that the presence of lead paint in a household would not be so covered holding pollutants from past discharges that are released over time by infiltration of contaminated soil is ongoing pollution