40 C.F.R. § 270.4

Effect of a permit

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

(a)(1) Compliance with a RCRA permit during its term constitutes compliance, for purposes of enforcement, with subtitle C of RCRA except for those requirements not included in the permit which:

(i) Become effective by statute;

(ii) Are promulgated under part 268 of this chapter restricting the placement of hazardous wastes in or on the land;

(iii) Are promulgated under part 264 of this chapter regarding leak detection systems for new and replacement surface impoundment, waste pile, and landfill units, and lateral expansions of surface impoundment, waste pile, and landfill units. The leak detection system requirements include double liners, CQA programs, monitoring, action leakage rates, and response action plans, and will be implemented through the procedures of § 270.42 Class 1 permit modifications; or

(iv) Are promulgated under subparts AA, BB, or CC of part 265 of this chapter limiting air emissions.

(2) A permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated during its term for cause as set forth in §§ 270.41 and 270.43, or the permit may be modified upon the request of the permittee as set forth in § 270.42.

(b) The issuance of a permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege.

(c) The issuance of a permit does not authorize any injury to persons or property or invasion of other private rights, or any infringement of State or local law or regulations.

[48 FR 14228, Apr. 1, 1983, as amended at 57 FR 3495, Jan. 29, 1992; 59 FR 62952, Dec. 6, 1994; 75 FR 13009, Mar. 18, 2010]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2022 · leading case: West Virginia State Univ. v. The Dow Chem. Co., 23 F.4th 288 (4th Cir. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

West Virginia State Univ. v. The Dow Chem. Co., 23 F.4th 288 (4th Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “See 40 C.F.R. § 270.4 . D. Based on CH2M Hill recommendations, Defendants approached WVSU, along with other adjacent landowners, requesting that they sign an environmental covenant whereby they would refrain from using the groundwater.”

Shell Oil Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “40 C.F.R. § 270.4 (a) (1990). 9 The EDF argues that by insulating permittees from most enforcement actions, the permit-shield provision expressly contravenes the broad enforcement authority that RCRA grants to members of the general public in its citizen-suit provision, see 42 U.”

Families Concerned About Nerve Gas Incineration v. United States Dep't of Army, 380 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (N.D. Ala. 2005). “40 C.F.R. § 270.4 (a); see Shell Oil Co. v.”

West Virginia State Univ. v. The Dow Chem. Co. (4th Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “See 40 C.F.R. § 270.4 . D. Based on CH2M Hill recommendations, Defendants approached WVSU, along with other adjacent landowners, requesting that they sign an environmental covenant whereby they would refrain from using the groundwater.”

West Virginia State Univ. Bd. of Governors v. The Dow Chem. Co. (S.D.W. Va 2020). · cites it 2× “See 40 C.F.R. § 270.4 . Accordingly, the court need not decide whether the state law claims constitute a “challenge” inasmuch as they do not relate to a CERCLA cleanup in the first place.”

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.