To obtain approval, a State program must be consistent with the Federal program and State programs applicable in other States and in particular must comply with the provisions below. For purposes of this section the phrase “State programs applicable in other States” refers only to those State hazardous waste programs which have received final authorization under this part.
(a) Any aspect of the State program which unreasonably restricts, impedes, or operates as a ban on the free movement across the State border of hazardous wastes from or to other States for treatment, storage, or disposal at facilities authorized to operate under the Federal or an approved State program shall be deemed inconsistent.
(b) Any aspect of State law or of the State program which has no basis in human health or environmental protection and which acts as a prohibition on the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste in the State may be deemed inconsistent.
(c) If the state manifest system does not meet the requirements of this part, the state program shall be deemed inconsistent. The state manifest system must further allow the use and recognize the validity of electronic manifests as described in § 260.10 of this chapter.
[48 FR 14248, Apr. 1, 1983; 48 FR 30114, June 30, 1983, as amended at 79 FR 7562, Feb. 7, 2014]
Notes of Decisions
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. Reilly, 938 F.2d 1390 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
· cites it 5× “(b) Any aspect of State law or of the State program which has no basis in human health or environmental protection and which acts as a prohibition on the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste in the State may be deemed inconsistent.”
Blue Circle Cement, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of the Cnty. of Rogers, 27 F.3d 1499 (10th Cir. 1994).
· cites it 2× “40 C.F.R. § 271.4 . Pursuant to § 6926(b), "[t]he EPA may authorize states to 'carry out' their own hazardous waste programs ‘in lieu of' RCRA and to 'issue and enforce permits for the storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste' so long as the state program” is not…”
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. South Carolina, 766 F. Supp. 431 (D.S.C. 1991).
· cites it 2× “2) and federal regulations prohibiting such laws ( 40 C.F.R. § 271.4 ). Plaintiff asserts that on account of the challenged South Carolina laws, its members are unable to participate fully in the important business of national waste management and that they are losing business…”
Zinc Corp. of Am. v. Dep't of Env't Resources, 603 A.2d 288 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992).
“§ 6926 (b) and 40 C.F.R. § 271.4 (1983). In Pennsylvania, it is the Environmental Quality Board (Board) which has the authority to adopt rules, regulations, criteria and standards of the Department to accomplish the purposes and carry out provisions of the Solid Waste Management…”
LaFarge Corp. v. Campbell, 813 F. Supp. 501 (W.D. Tex. 1993).
· cites it 2× “26 40 C.F.R. § 271.4 , quoted in Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v.”
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. Reilly, 938 F.2d 1390 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
· cites it 2× “The EPA also alleged that the Act would prohibit GSX and others from operating at Laurinburg and "numerous other locations within the State," thus "limit[ing] the ability of existing authorities of the State to be consistent with the federal program as set forth in 40 CFR…”
Env't Tech. Council v. Sierra Club, 98 F.3d 774 (4th Cir. 1996).
· cites it 2× “" 40 C.F.R. § 271.4 . Second, South• Carolina argues that through delegating the authorization of state programs to the EPA under RCRA and CEROLA, Congress created a system of checkpoints for a state's hazardous waste program.”
Laidlaw Env't Servs. (GS), Inc. v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 44 (Fed. Cl. 1999).
“40 C.F.R. § 271.4 . Taking advantage of the RCRA’s provision, allowing state programs to be operated *47 “in lieu of’ the federal program, North Carolina applied for and received final authorization for its hazardous waste program in 1984.”
Alabama ex rel. Siegelman v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 911 F.2d 499 (11th Cir. 1990).
“When ChemWaste applied for its final permit, the State of Alabama had no such program in place; so, EPA was the RCRA permitting entity. . Final permits are sometimes referred to as "Part B” permits because Part A of the permit application requests interim operating status and…”
— 40 C.F.R. § 271.4(b) — 2 cases
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. Reilly, 938 F.2d 1390 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
“(b) Any aspect of State law or of the State program which has no basis in human health or environmental protection and which acts as a prohibition on the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste in the State may be deemed inconsistent.”
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. Reilly, 938 F.2d 1390 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
“The EPA also alleged that the Act would prohibit GSX and others from operating at Laurinburg and "numerous other locations within the State," thus "limit[ing] the ability of existing authorities of the State to be consistent with the federal program as set forth in 40 CFR…”
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.