FRIEDMAN SCHMITT CONSTRUCTION CASE
Court cites EPA preamble to asbestos definitions

The 1990 asbestos preamble provided this example in discussing the regulatory definition of "installation" as it relates to the Friedman Schmitt Construction case.

As an example, several houses located on highway right-of-way that are all demolished as part of the same highway project would be considered an "installation," even when the houses are not proximate to each other. In this example, the houses are under the control of the same owner or operator, i.e., the highway agency responsible for the highway project.

In addition, in explaining the EPA’s interpretation of the term "facility," which as previously noted includes "any installation," the Agency explained as follows:

[T]he demolition of one or more houses as part of an urban renewal project, a highway construction project, or a project to develop a shopping mall, industrial facility, or other private development, would be subject to the NESHAP.

The first example emphasizes that multiple buildings under the control of the same owner or operator, and affected by the same project, may be treated as an installation even if the buildings are not proximate to each other. The second example shows that the development of a shopping mall is among the types of projects that should be considered a single facility even when multiple buildings are involved.

Weitz & Luxenberg has protected the legal rights of workers for 25 years – longer than most law firms in the nation. And in that time the firm's mesothelioma lawyers have won several billion dollars in verdicts and settlements for clients.

If you have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, and seek FREE legal guidance and answers to your concerns, please notify us through the communication form below. We will pursue your claim with vigilance to help you pay for medical bills, future and past lost wages, and damages. There is no cost to you until we win a settlement or a verdict.

Courtesy of The EPA