C.F.R. » Title 40 » CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY › SUBCHAPTER I—SOLID WASTES › PART 257—CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES AND PRACTICES › Subpart A—Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices

40 C.F.R. § 257.3-3

Surface water

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) For purposes of section 4004(a) of the Act, a facility shall not cause a discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States that is in violation of the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under section 402 of the Clean Water Act, as amended.

(b) For purposes of section 4004(a) of the Act, a facility shall not cause a discharge of dredged material or fill material to waters of the United States that is in violation of the requirements under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended.

(c) A facility or practice shall not cause non-point source pollution of waters of the United States that violates applicable legal requirements implementing an areawide or Statewide water quality management plan that has been approved by the Administrator under section 208 of the Clean Water Act, as amended.

(d) Definitions of the terms Discharge of dredged material, Point source, Pollutant, Waters of the United States, and Wetlands can be found in the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., and implementing regulations, specifically 33 CFR part 323 (42 FR 37122, July 19, 1977).

[44 FR 53460, Sept. 13, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 47052, Sept. 23, 1981]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Lewis v. FMC Corp., 786 F. Supp. 2d 690 (W.D.N.Y. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lewis v. FMC Corp., 786 F. Supp. 2d 690 (W.D.N.Y. 2011). · cites it 3× “This claim is predicated on Plaintiffs’ belief that FMC is violating the surface water criterion promulgated by the EPA in 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-3 (a) because stormwater discharges from these areas are occurring absent a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or…”
Dague v. City of Burlington, 732 F. Supp. 458 (D. Vt. 1989). · cites it 5× “3-8 (a)(2); (b) the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States in violation of the surface water criterion set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-3 (a); and (c) the contamination of an underground drinking water source beyond the Landfill boundary in violation of 40 C.”
Hackensack Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Delaware Ostego Corp., 450 F. Supp. 2d 467 (D.N.J. 2006). · cites it 3× “In the First through Fourth counts of the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “have caused and continue to cause a discharge of pollutants in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-3 .” (Compl. ¶¶77, 85, 94, and 101).”
O'LEARY v. Moyer's Landfill, Inc., 523 F. Supp. 642 (E.D. Pa. 1981). · cites it 2× “40 C.F.R. § 257.3-3 (a). However, the evidence of non-point source discharges 29 does not support plaintiffs’ allegation of a RCRA violation under 40 C.”
Ernest Dague, Sr., Ernest Dague, Jr., Betty Dague, & Rose A. Bessette v. City of Burlington, 935 F.2d 1343 (2d Cir. 1991). “3-8 (a)(2), but had abated that practice on or about December 27, 1985, and since then had not violated this provision; (b) the city had, through a point source, discharged pollutants into waters of the United States without a permit, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-3 (a); and…”
Murtaugh v. New York, 810 F. Supp. 2d 446 (N.D.N.Y. 2011). · cites it 2× “” In addition, 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-3 (a) states as follows: “For purposes of section 4004(a) of the Act, a facility shall not cause a discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States that is in violation of the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination…”
Appalachian Voices v. McCarthy, 989 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2013). “¶¶ 80-82, (2) regulations under Subtitle D concerning coal ash, in particular, 40 C.F.R. §§ 257.3-3 , 257.3-4, and 257.3-7, Envtl.”
Ringbolt Farms Homeowners Ass'n v. Town of Hull, 714 F. Supp. 1246 (D. Mass. 1989). · cites it 2× “The particular criteria which plaintiff claims are being violated by the Landfill are contained in 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-3 (a) and § 257.3-6. (Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 47-48).”
Orange Env't, Inc. v. Cnty. of Orange, 860 F. Supp. 1003 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). “3^(a), 40 C.F.R. §§ 257.3-3 (a) and 257.3Hl(a). Part 257.”
United States v. City of Fort Pierre, SD, 580 F. Supp. 1036 (D.S.D. 1983). · cites it 2× “” 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-3 (1983) (last amended in 1981).”
White & Brewer Trucking, Inc. v. Donley, 952 F. Supp. 1306 (C.D. Ill. 1997). “Finally, Defendants state that the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“USEPA”) regulations ( 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-3 (a)) outlaw only the present operation of a landfill which is causing discharge in violation of a NPDES permit.”
307 Campostella, LLC v. Mullane, 143 F. Supp. 3d 407 (E.D. Va. 2015). “¶ 48, that “[DJefen-dants’ discharge of pollutants into the Elizabeth River from their unlicensed pier/storage facility is prohibited by 40 CFR section 257.3-3(a),” Compl. ¶ 50, and that the “[DJefendants are operating an Open Dump at their unlicensed pier/storage facility, in…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-3(a) — 1 case
307 Campostella, LLC v. Mullane, 143 F. Supp. 3d 407 (E.D. Va. 2015). “¶ 48, that “[DJefen-dants’ discharge of pollutants into the Elizabeth River from their unlicensed pier/storage facility is prohibited by 40 CFR section 257.3-3(a),” Compl. ¶ 50, and that the “[DJefendants are operating an Open Dump at their unlicensed pier/storage facility, in…”
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.