C.F.R. » Title 40 » CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY › SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS › PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS › Subpart M—National Emission Standard for Asbestos

40 C.F.R. § 61.147

Standard for fabricating

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

(a) Applicability. This section applies to the following fabricating operations using commercial asbestos:

(1) The fabrication of cement building products.

(2) The fabrication of friction products, except those operations that primarily install asbestos friction materials on motor vehicles.

(3) The fabrication of cement or silicate board for ventilation hoods; ovens; electrical panels; laboratory furniture, bulkheads, partitions, and ceilings for marine construction; and flow control devices for the molten metal industry.

(b) Standard. Each owner or operator of any of the fabricating operations to which this section applies shall either:

(1) Discharge no visible emissions to the outside air from any of the operations or from any building or structure in which they are conducted or from any other fugitive sources; or

(2) Use the methods specified by § 61.152 to clean emissions containing particulate asbestos material before they escape to, or are vented to, the outside air.

(3) Monitor each potential source of asbestos emissions from any part of the fabricating facility, including air cleaning devices, process equipment, and buildings that house equipment for material processing and handling, at least once each day, during daylight hours, for visible emissions to the outside air during periods of operation. The monitoring shall be by visual observation of at least 15 seconds duration per source of emissions.

(4) Inspect each air cleaning device at least once each week for proper operation and for changes that signal the potential for malfunctions, including, to the maximum extent possible without dismantling other than opening the device, the presence of tears, holes, and abrasions in filter bags and for dust deposits on the clean side of bags. For air cleaning devices that cannot be inspected on a weekly basis according to this paragraph, submit to the Administrator, and revise as necessary, a written maintenance plan to include, at a minimum, the following:

(i) Maintenance schedule.

(ii) Recordkeeping plan.

(5) Maintain records of the results of visible emission monitoring and air cleaning device inspections using a format similar to that shown in Figures 1 and 2 and include the following:

(i) Date and time of each inspection.

(ii) Presence or absence of visible emissions.

(iii) Condition of fabric filters, including presence of any tears, holes, and abrasions.

(iv) Presence of dust deposits on clean side of fabric filters.

(v) Brief description of corrective actions taken, including date and time.

(vi) Daily hours of operation for each air cleaning device.

(6) Furnish upon request and make available at the affected facility during normal business hours for inspection by the Administrator, all records required under this section.

(7) Retain a copy of all monitoring and inspection records for at least 2 years.

(8) Submit semiannually a copy of the visible emission monitoring records to the Administrator if visible emission occurred during the report period. Semiannual reports shall be postmarked by the 30th day following the end of the six-month period.

[49 FR 13661, Apr. 5, 1984. Redesignated and amended at 55 FR 48424, Nov. 20, 1991; 64 FR 7467, Feb. 12, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1986–1994 · leading case: United States v. Hugo Key & Son, Inc., 731 F. Supp. 1135 (D.R.I. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Hugo Key & Son, Inc., 731 F. Supp. 1135 (D.R.I. 1989). · cites it 13× “In particular, Defendant is charged with: (1) failure to adequately wet friable asbestos materials during stripping in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 61.147 (d); (2) failure to keep friable asbestos materials wet until collected for disposal in violation of 40 C.”
United States v. James Walsh, as Individual & as Officer of Savage Enter., Inc., 8 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 1993). · cites it 4× “The two charges as to which Walsh was found liable are as follows: (1) Between January 20, 1986 and April 15, 1986 he engaged in removal of friable asbestos at the Seattle-Tacoma Airport (Sea-Tac), Northwest Airlines offices, conducting a dry removal of asbestos without…”
prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 11,525 City of Greenville, & Greenville Water Sys. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 827 F.2d 975 (4th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “See 40 C.F.R. § 61.147 (a) (1986). Grace contends that these regulations were irrelevant, because there was no evidence that Greenville actually planned to renovate or demolish the city hall at any time in the future.”
Cent. Wesleyan Coll. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 143 F.R.D. 628 (D.S.C. 1992). · cites it 2× “40 C.F.R. § 61.147 . Such removal costs could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.”
United States v. Tzavah Urban Renewal Corp., 696 F. Supp. 1013 (D.N.J. 1988). · cites it 3× “As recently as September 7, EPA engineer Rodriguez inspected the facility and observed that defendants continue to violate the wetting requirement of 40 C.F.R. § 61.147 (e)(1). Rodriguez explains, “.”
Asbestec Constr. Servs., Inc. v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 849 F.2d 765 (2d Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “Subsequently, in a June 30, 1987 memorandum, the Director of EPA’s Air and Waste Management Division recommended to the Regional Administrator for Region II that compliance orders be issued against Asbestec and Purolator because the companies (1) failed to adequately wet friable…”
Clarksville-Montgomery Cnty. Sch. Sys. v. United States Gypsum Co., Nat'l Gypsum Co., 925 F.2d 993 (6th Cir. 1991). “See Standard for Demolition and Renovation: Procedures for Asbestos Emission Control, 40 C.F.R. § 61.147 . The total cost Clarksville incurred, including survey and inspection, architectural services, and removal and replacement of asbestos ceiling plaster and other contaminated…”
United States v. Sealtite Corp., 739 F. Supp. 464 (E.D. Ark. 1990). · cites it 4× “152 , in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 61.147 (e)(1) and Section 112(c) and (e) of the Act, 42 U.”
United States v. B & W Inv. Props. & Louis Wolf, 38 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 1994). “3 40 C.F.R. § 61.147 . These regulations apply to all owners or operators, defined as “any person who owns, leases, operates, controls or supervises” a property in violation.”
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 197 v. W.R. Grace & Co., 752 F. Supp. 286 (D. Minn. 1990). “See 40 C.F.R. § 61.147 . At the present time, the school district’s asbestos-removal program for Henry Sibley High School is partially completed.”
State, Dept. of Envir. v. Scm Glidco Org., 606 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). “Thereafter DER intervened and filed a complaint against Glidco and SAFE alleging violations of 40 C.F.R. § 61.147 , Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-2.”
Alabama Ex Rel. Graddick v. Vets. Admin., 648 F. Supp. 1208 (M.D. Ala. 1986). “As persons performing asbestos removal on a federal facility under a contractual agreement with a federal agency, defendants Webb and Skuba are operators “of a demolition or renovation operation,” see 40 C.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
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.