(a) Explosive gases. The concentration of explosive gases generated by the facility or practice shall not exceed:
(1) Twenty-five percent (25%) of the lower explosive limit for the gases in facility structures (excluding gas control or recovery system components); and
(2) The lower explosive limit for the gases at the property boundary.
(b) Fires. A facility or practice shall not pose a hazard to the safety of persons or property from fires. This may be accomplished through compliance with § 257.3-7 and through the periodic application of cover material or other techniques as appropriate.
(c) Bird hazards to aircraft. A facility or practice disposing of putrescible wastes that may attract birds and which occurs within 10,000 feet (3,048 meters) of any airport runway used by turbojet aircraft or within 5,000 feet (1,524 meters) of any airport runway used by only piston-type aircraft shall not pose a bird hazard to aircraft.
(d) Access. A facility or practice shall not allow uncontrolled public access so as to expose the public to potential health and safety hazards at the disposal site.
(e) As used in this section:
(1) Airport means public-use airport open to the public without prior permission and without restrictions within the physical capacities of available facilities.
(2) Bird hazard means an increase in the likelihood of bird/aircraft collisions that may cause damage to the aircraft or injury to its occupants.
(3) Explosive gas means methane (CH4).
(4) Facility structures means any buildings and sheds or utility or drainage lines on the facility.
(5) Lower explosive limit means the lowest percent by volume of a mixture of explosive gases which will propagate a flame in air at 25 °C and atmospheric pressure.
(6) Periodic application of cover material means the application and compaction of soil or other suitable material over disposed solid waste at the end of each operating day or at such frequencies and in such a manner as to reduce the risk of fire and to impede disease vectors' access to the waste.
(7) Putrescible wastes means solid waste which contains organic matter capable of being decomposed by microorganisms and of such a character and proportion as to be capable of attracting or providing food for birds.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case:
O'GUIN v. Bingham Cnty., 122 P.3d 308 (Idaho 2005).
O'GUIN v. Bingham Cnty., 122 P.3d 308 (Idaho 2005).
· cites it 7× “If the word "health" was already intended to include "safety," then there would have been no need to later amend IDAPA to incorporate the safety requirements set forth in 40 C.F.R. 257.3-8. Rather than supporting the majority's argument, this amendment to IDAPA shows that at the…”
Ernest Dague, Sr., Ernest Dague, Jr., Betty Dague, & Rose A. Bessette v. City of Burlington, 935 F.2d 1343 (2d Cir. 1991).
“§ 6945 (a), the court found that (a) the city had generated methane gas, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-8 (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…”
Dague v. City of Burlington, 732 F. Supp. 458 (D. Vt. 1989).
· cites it 3× “Specifically, plaintiffs allege the following three practices violate the open dumping provisions of RCRA: (a) the generation of methane gas in concentrations above the safety limit set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-8 (a)(2); (b) the discharge of pollutants into waters of the…”
Covington v. Jefferson Cnty., 358 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 3× “The applicable regulation, 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-8 , limits the allowable concentration of explosive gases to a maximum that must be less than 25% of the lower explosive limit (i.”
Hackensack Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Delaware Ostego Corp., 450 F. Supp. 2d 467 (D.N.J. 2006).
“Further, Plaintiffs assert that the Complaint should be construed to allege that Defendants have failed to ensure that the facilities do not pose a Are hazard, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-8 (b) Id. These attempts to recast the Complaint to overcome the original reliance on…”
Yellowstone Disposal v. MT DEQ, 2022 MT 26 (Mont. 2022).
“” 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-8 (e)(7) (1979). 3 The parties disagree as to whether this notification by Yellowstone Disposal constituted a legally relevant “modification” of the application and whether the alleged modification resulted in the statutory timeline being “reset” for DEQ to…”
Atwater Twp. Trs. v. B.F.I. Willowcreek Landfill, 1993 Ohio 216 (Ohio 1993).
“It empowers the Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ("Ohio EPA") to adopt rules for the inspection and licensing of solid waste facilities "in order to ensure that the facilities will be located, maintained, and operated, and will undergo closure and…”
Pennsylvania Env't Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Commonwealth, 17 Pa. D. & C.3d 470 (1981).
“The only duly adopted criteria for the siting of solid waste disposal facilities in Pennsylvania in the vicinity of airports are those of the EPA contained in 40 C.F.R. §257.3-8 (c), which provides: “A facility or practice disposing of putrescible wastes that [might] attract…”
— 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-8(d) — 1 case
O'GUIN v. Bingham Cnty., 122 P.3d 308 (Idaho 2005).
“If the word "health" was already intended to include "safety," then there would have been no need to later amend IDAPA to incorporate the safety requirements set forth in 40 C.F.R. 257.3-8. Rather than supporting the majority's argument, this amendment to IDAPA shows that at the…”
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.