40 C.F.R. § 61.22
Standard
Emissions of radon-222 to the ambient air from an underground uranium mine shall not exceed those amounts that would cause any member of the public to receive in any year an effective dose equivalent of 10 mrem/y.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2021 · leading case: Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275 (1978).
Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275 (1978). “The indictment alleged that petitioner, while engaged in the demolition of a building in Detroit, failed to comply with 40 CFR § 61.22 (d) (2) (i) (1975). That regulation, described in its caption as a "National Emission Standard for Asbestos," specifies procedures to be…”
United States v. Adamo Wrecking Co., 545 F.2d 1 (6th Cir. 1976). “The second issue (if it is reached) is whether or not 40 C.F.R. § 61.22 (1975), which is quoted below, is or is not “an emission standard” within the meaning of 42 U.”
Colorado Env't Coalition v. Off. of Legacy Mgmt., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (D. Colo. 2011). “) See also 40 C.F.R. § 61.22 (“Emissions of radon-222 to the ambient air from an underground uranium mine shall not exceed those amounts that would cause any member of the public to receive in any year an effective dose equivalent of 10 mrem/y.”
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. United States Gypsum Co., 146 F. Supp. 2d 643 (D.N.J. 2001). “” 40 CFR § 61.22 . Prudential responds that these regulations only applied to industrial uses of asbestos; however, the plain language of the regulations indicate that they encompass “demolition and renovation activities” of “any .”
United States v. Borden, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 684 (D. Mass. 1983). “40 C.F.R. § 61.22 (d)(2)(i) (1975). The Court, determining that Congress intended a quantitative limit on emissions, 3 held that the provisions which the Administrator sought to enforce were actually work practice standards, despite being labelled an “emission standard.”
Reserve Mining Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 514 F.2d 492 (8th Cir. 1975). “[ 40 C.F.R. § 61.22 (c) (1974).] . The trial court also found Reserve in violation of APC 6.”
United States v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 609 F. Supp. 1 (W.D. Ky. 1984). “The district court dismissed the indictment because the asbestos regulation was not an emission standard within the meaning of section 112(c) but was a work practice standard enacted in excess of the EPA’s statutory authority.”
United States v. Adamo Wrecking Co., 445 F. Supp. 1056 (E.D. Mich. 1975). “§ 1857c-7(c)(l)(B), and 40 C.F.R. § 61.22 (d)(2)(i). 2 Count II alleges that de *1059 fendant knowingly made false statements concerning the existence of friable asbestos materials at the demolition site, in violation of 42 U.”
Krutz v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (E.D. La. 2021). “40 C.F.R. § 61.22 (e)(3) (1978). Amchem also cites to an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule stating that “finished products which effectively entrap asbestos fibers in the normal use of the product” do not need warning labels because “words such as…”
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.