Call us Toll-Free
800-476-6070

Weitz & Luxenberg Facebook Weitz & Luxenberg Google Weitz & Luxenberg Twitter Weitz & Luxenberg LinkedIn
English En Français

FREE LEGAL REVIEW

First Name
Last Name
Home Phone
Work Phone
City and State
Email
Were you diagnosed with Asbestosis? Yes
Were you diagnosed with lung cancer? Yes
Were you diagnosed with Mesothelioma? yes
What is your date of diagnosis?
Additional Comments
Best time to call?

Environmental Administrative Decisions

In re Morton L. Friedman and Schmitt Construction Company

CAA Appeal No. 02-07

Final Decision

Decided February 18, 2004

Regulated Asbestos Containing Material (RACM) in the Calderwood Apartments:

Issues of Fair Notice

Evidence that Linoleum was RACM

Pleading of the Complaint

Before leaving the question of applicability, we also must consider whether evidence concerning Friedman & Schmitt’s renovation activities at the Calderwood Apartments is an independent basis for finding that the Asbestos NESHAP’s notice and work practice standards apply in this case.

Specifically, in addition to the 1,600 square feet of RACM that was removed from Building #2 in August 1997, the evidence in the record also shows that Mr. Schmitt removed a total of 264 square feet of linoleum from three of the Calderwood Apartments in June 1997.

In essence, Friedman & Schmitt argue, and the ALJ held, that the removal of this linoleum from the Calderwood Apartments should not be looked to as satisfying the applicability threshold under the federal Asbestos NESHAP for three independent reasons:

Friedman & Schmitt argue that each building must be viewed as a separate facility and, since the amount of linoleum removed from each building was less than 160 square feet, that their activities did not exceed the threshold at any one facility. Friedman & Schmitt’s Brief at 12-16.

Friedman & Schmitt argue that the record does not show that the linoleum removed from the Calderwood Apartments was RACM.

They argue that the Region’s Complaint did not effectively charge violations based on the activity at the Calderwood Apartments. We reject each of these arguments for the following reasons.

Courtesy of The EPA

Mesothelioma Mesothelioma Home Page
head Mesothelioma: An Overview
kleio The Clock Is Ticking
asbestos Our Toughest Cases
Diagnosis Diagnosis
treatment Symptoms, Stages, Treatment
kleio Latest News
New York Numbers
Asbestos
Mesothelioma couple Real Stories


Mesothelioma
Mesothelioma Resource Center
Asbestos
Asbestos Exposure Dangers
Asbestos Help
News & Warnings
IN THIS SECTION
Meaning of facility
Regulatory text
Preamble to Asbestos NESHAP
EPA asbestos definitions
Asbestos NESHAP Applies
Friedman Schmitt Case involves a facility
Court rejects Friedman Schmitt argument
Calderwood linoleum and asbestos
Vinyl floor RACM
Calderwood claims
EPA's Asbestos Threshold
RACM Applicability Standard
RACM Applicability Summary
Friedman and Schmitt violation of NESHAP
Failure to Give Notice on Renovations
Removal of wet RACM
Adequately wet RACM
RACM Report from Friedman Schmitt Construction
Waste shipment records
Penalty issues
Conclusion

For legal help anywhere in the U.S. call:

1 - 800 - 476 - 6070

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

Mesothelioma Lawyer

Asbestos Lawyer

Mesothelioma Treatments

Mesothelioma Treatment

Mesothelioma Diagnosis

Mesothelioma Treatment

see also:

Friedman Schmitt Case involves a facility Friedman Schmitt Construction Case and NESHAP facility
Read about Friedman Schmitt Construction Case and NESHAP facility

Regulatory text Friedman Schmitt Construction and regulatory text
Read about Friedman Schmitt Construction case and regulatory text

Asbestos News Asbestos Legal News | Weitz & Luxenberg
Our lawyers provide updates and news about asbestos litigation
View Stats