(a) The owner or operator who uses air cleaning, as specified in §§ 61.142(a), 61.144(b)(2), 61.145(c)(3)(i)(B)(1), 61.145(c)(4)(ii), 61.145(c)(11)(i), 61.146(b)(2), 61.147(b)(2), 61.149(b), 61.149(c)(1)(ii), 61.150(a)(1)(ii), 61.150(a)(2)(ii), and 61.155(e) shall:
(1) Use fabric filter collection devices, except as noted in paragraph (b) of this section, doing all of the following:
(i) Ensuring that the airflow permeability, as determined by ASTM Method D737-75, does not exceed 9 m
3/min/m
2 (30 ft
3/min/ft
2) for woven fabrics or 11
3/min/m
2(35 ft
3/min/ft
2) for felted fabrics, except that 12 m
3/min/m
2 (40 ft
3min/ft
2) for woven and 14 m
3/min/m
2 (45 ft
3min/ft
2) for felted fabrics is allowed for filtering air from asbestos ore dryers; and
(ii) Ensuring that felted fabric weighs at least 475 grams per square meter (14 ounces per square yard) and is at least 1.6 millimeters (one-sixteenth inch) thick throughout; and
(iii) Avoiding the use of synthetic fabrics that contain fill yarn other than that which is spun.
(2) Properly install, use, operate, and maintain all air-cleaning equipment authorized by this section. Bypass devices may be used only during upset or emergency conditions and then only for so long as it takes to shut down the operation generating the particulate asbestos material.
(3) For fabric filter collection devices installed after January 10, 1989, provide for easy inspection for faulty bags.
(b) There are the following exceptions to paragraph (a)(1):
(1) After January 10, 1989, if the use of fabric creates a fire or explosion hazard, or the Administrator determines that a fabric filter is not feasible, the Administrator may authorize as a substitute the use of wet collectors designed to operate with a unit contacting energy of at least 9.95 kilopascals (40 inches water gage pressure).
(2) Use a HEPA filter that is certified to be at least 99.97 percent efficient for 0.3 micron particles.
(3) The Administrator may authorize the use of filtering equipment other than described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) and (2) of this section if the owner or operator demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction that it is equivalent to the described equipment in filtering particulate asbestos material.
[49 FR 13661, Apr. 5, 1984; 49 FR 25453, June 21, 1984, as amended at 51 FR 8199, Mar. 10, 1986. Redesignated and amended at 55 FR 48430, Nov. 20, 1990]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Hugo Key & Son, Inc., 731 F. Supp. 1135 (D.R.I. 1989).
· cites it 10× “147 (e)(1); and, (3) discharging visible emissions into the outside air during the handling of asbestos-containing waste material and failing to use disposal methods specified in the regulations in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 61.152 (b). The United States has also alleged that Hugo…”
United States v. Midwest Suspension & Brake, 824 F. Supp. 713 (E.D. Mich. 1993).
· cites it 6× “EPA, Region V, issued a Finding of Violations (“FOV”) to Midwest for, inter alia, violations of 40 C.F.R. § 61.152 (b). 37. On September 24, 1986, U.”
United States v. Midwest Suspension & Brake, 49 F.3d 1197 (6th Cir. 1995).
· cites it 2× “” EPA informed Midwest that it (Midwest) violated the “no visible emission requirement” of the Asbestos NESHAP, 40 C.F.R. § 61.152 (b). To resolve the matter, Midwest agreed to the issuance of an Administrative Order, No.”
United States v. Sealtite Corp., 739 F. Supp. 464 (E.D. Ark. 1990).
· cites it 2× “§ 7412 (c) and (e); and 2) adequately wet friable asbestos materials that had been stripped or removed from Building 884 so that they remained wet until they were collected for disposal in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 61.152 , in violation of 40 C.”
United States v. Owens Contracting Servs., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 1095 (E.D. Mich. 1994).
· cites it 3× “147 (e)(1) and (g), and (3) work practice violation — discharge of visible emissions under 40 C.F.R. § 61.152 (b). Complaint, pp. 10-12.”
United States v. Midwest Suspension & Brake, 796 F. Supp. 260 (E.D. Mich. 1992).
· cites it 2× “” EPA informed Midwest that it (Midwest) violated the no visible emission requirement of the Asbestos NESHAP, 40 C.F.R. § 61.152 (b). To resolve the matter, Midwest agreed to the issuance of an Administrative Order (the “AO” referenced above).”
United States v. Anthony Dell'Aquilla, Enter. & Subsidiaries, 150 F.3d 329 (3d Cir. 1998).
“However, the government concedes that appellants did not waive their challenge to the three visible emissions of asbestos in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 61.152 (b). Accordingly, we turn our attention to those violations.”
United States v. Midwest Suspension & Brake, 803 F. Supp. 1267 (E.D. Mich. 1992).
“The Hugo Key court then went on to hold that “Hugo Key discharged visible emissions into the outside air during the handling of asbestos-containing waster material” in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 61.152 (b) and Section 112(c) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.”
40 C.F.R. § 61.152(b): 1 case
United States v. Midwest Suspension & Brake, 824 F. Supp. 713 (E.D. Mich. 1993).
“EPA, Region V, issued a Finding of Violations (“FOV”) to Midwest for, inter alia, violations of 40 C.F.R. § 61.152 (b). 37. On September 24, 1986, U.”
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.