East Liverpool, Ohio - City officials in East Liverpool, Ohio are planning to ask the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency to meet for a discussion and negotiation of a proposed $30,000 fine the EPA imposed for violation of asbestos regulations.

The incident that sparked the fine came to light in May 2006, says East Liverpool Mayor Jim Swoger. The incident involved Street Department Supervisor Earl Taylor, who hired a contractor to remove asbestos-containing pipe insulation from a city-owned building.

Around 500 linear feet of pipe insulation was removed from the building, which Taylor then buried at a clean landfill site on property that the city also owned. Several days later, then-Service Safety Director William Cowan notified the Ohio EPA about the asbestos removal and disposal due to safety concerns.

Unfortunately for the city, both the removal and the disposal of the asbestos turned out to be illegal. The asbestos removal was carried out with the knowledge or consent of the Ohio EPA.

The agency also says the removal did not adhere to the necessary safety standards. In addition the asbestos that was removed was disposed of at a landfill site that was not equipped to safely handle asbestos waste.

Asbestos removal must be carried out carefully to prevent the spread of asbestos dust, which can cause asbestos cancer and other serious diseases if inhaled. Typical asbestos removal includes wet-removal procedures to dampen materials and prevent dust dispersing.

Disposing of asbestos safely is another important issue, as asbestos at landfill sites can present a health hazard to anyone working or visiting the site. Asbestos can only be disposed of at waste sites that are equipped to handle hazardous materials.

Several after the incident was discovered, workers from Cardinal Environmental Services cleaned up the remaining asbestos at the removal site, and cleaned up the landfill.

Swoger says he doesn’t understand why the EPA has imposed the fine, because the asbestos has been cleaned up, and Earl Taylor himself had already been fined over the incident. In addition, says Swoger, city officials notified the EPA of the incident and didn’t try to cover it up.

The EPA’s proposed fine of $30,000 will be split. A proposed $24,000 will go to the EPA and $6,000 to the Ohio EPA’s Clean Diesel School Bus fund. The fund helps cover the cost of retrofitting school buses with equipment to reduce diesel emissions.

Baltimore, Maryland - Earlier this week, a Child Welfare Services building in Baltimore was reported to have an asbestos problem that might have exposed up to 350 state employees, as well as countless numbers of children who had visited the building.

Currently around 350 Maryland Department of Social Services employees are working in the building, which is on lease to the state.

According to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, over the weekend, outside maintenance contractors working at the building found suspected asbestos on pipes, and reported the presence of “active asbestos”. The workers alerted the Maryland Occupational Safety and Health Administration to the potential danger on Monday 28 April.

City officials have said the allegations are not true, and have chalked the claims of asbestos up to an act of retaliation carried out by a contractor who was fired.

Interim Director of the Baltimore City Department of Social Services Brian Wilbon said “The allegation is by a disgruntled worker.” Wilbon also said there had been no positive identification of asbestos made anywhere in or outside the building. “There were several inspections by the EPA and local inspectors, and nothing has been identified as asbestos.”

A meeting was held after news of the alleged discovery was released, at which Wilbon reassured staff of the building that there was no danger in continuing to work there.

A letter issued by contractor A&E Mechanical Services said that none of its employees had made any claims of asbestos discovery. Company President Jay Austin wrote that the allegations might have been related to “a disgruntled employee and ex-partner of A&E Mechanical which were terminated during the course of this job.”

Employees have been complaining about dangerous conditions in the building since last summer, when a complaint was filed with the Maryland Occupational Safety and Health Administration about water leaks and rodent infestations. The MOSH issued an extermination order but union officials say the agency didn’t continue with regular inspections as promised.

About the alleged asbestos discovery, Wilbon says there were no contractors working at the building over the weekend, and also that the building has been inspected two separate times over the past year, and asbestos was not found on either occasion. According to Wilbon the results of both of those inspections were presented to workers, and he would not hesitate to remove staff from the building if he believed that it was not safe to work in.

It seems there’s no end to the troubles for schools that are plagued by asbestos issues. Asbestos exposure presents severe health risks, and removing asbestos is an expensive problem for many schools, but it’s a problem that just won’t go away.

In Danbury, Connecticut, asbestos was discovered in a bathroom at Hayestown Avenue School, when workers arrived to fix a leaking toilet. Children were no doubt delighted that school was out for a couple of days, but for the school, it’s a headache due to the extra expense of sealing or removing the asbestos.

Luckily for this school, air tests carried out after the asbestos was found showed that there were no airborne asbestos fibers present, even though a small amount of the asbestos-present on pipe insulation-was disturbed.

The school sent a letter home to parents, stating that “As a precautionary measure, even though the incident was confined to an isolated area and the disturbance minimal by regulatory standards, air samples were taken in five locations, including adjacent rooms and corridors. The results of our testing has shown that there was no release of fibers in any of the areas tested, including the location that the work was being performed.”

This school has gotten off relatively easily-the cost of fixing the problem will be minimal, and the only disruption will be that the last day of school will come a day late, due to the need to make up the lost time.

The problem is a little bigger in East Liverpool, Ohio, where a school administration building has severe problems with asbestos, damp, and electrical issues. Several classes are held in the building, which also houses a number of school administrative staff.

The real problem, however, is that even though the present of asbestos and other problems makes the building an unhealthy environment, the money isn’t there to relocate staff and students, or take care of the building’s problems.

Asbestos abatement is an expensive business-it requires professionally trained workers, and the costs of disposing of asbestos waste is about three times higher than the cost of disposing the non-hazardous materials.

Another problem for the school is that abandoning the building in favor of one more suitable means that the clock would start ticking, and the school would be required to either sell the building, or demolish it-and both options would likely require asbestos abatement to be carried out beforehand.

Asbestos certainly complicates issues for many schools-if it becomes unsafe it’s expensive to remove, and for schools that are already having funding issues, the problems caused by asbestos can become a nightmare.

Baltimore, Maryland – A Child Welfare Services building at 1510 Guilford St in Baltimore may have an asbestos problem that exposed up to 350 state employees, as well as countless numbers of children who have visited the building.

According to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, over the weekend, outside maintenance contractors working at the building found suspected asbestos on pipes. The workers alerted the Maryland Occupational Safety and Health Administration to the potential danger on Monday 28 April.

Asbestos is known to cause more than one type of cancer, as well as other serious and chronic health conditions.

In general, long-term or heavy exposure increased the likelihood of developing an asbestos-related disease, but cancers can potentially develop after relatively small amounts of exposure. However, because asbestos-related cancers take anywhere from two to five decades to develop, it’s not possible to ascertain whether a risk is present based on whether people have recently gotten sick.

Union spokesperson Joe Lawrence said there was supposed to be a meeting about the issue, but it was first postponed twice, and then eventually cancelled. Lawrence says it’s been difficult to get any information about the incident.

Employees have apparently been complaining about dangerous conditions in the building for a long time. Last summer, employees filed a complaint with the Maryland Occupational Safety and Health Administration about water leaks and rodent infestations.

The MOSH issued an extermination order but according to union officials, didn’t continue with regular inspections as promised.

Joe Lawrence says that the building has a history of problems, and the union isn’t satisfied that the MOSH is taking all of its concerns seriously.

Brian Wilbon, Deputy Secretary for Operations at the Department of Human Resources, says that there were no contractors working at the building over the past weekend. In addition, says Wilbon, the building has been inspected two separate times over the past year, and asbestos was not found on either occasion.

Wilbon said that the results of both of those inspections were presented to workers at meetings held during the year, and also says he would not hesitate to remove staff from the building if he believed that there was any danger present.

Currently around 350 Maryland Department of Social Services employees are working in the building, which is on lease to the state.

Bancroft, Iowa – A northern Iowa school has had to make a difficult decision and temporarily close down, but administrators believe it was absolutely necessary to protect the health of students and staff.

North Kossuth Elementary School in Bancroft, Iowa was closed down after the results of asbestos testing came in on Monday April 28.

The results of the tests indicated that asbestos levels in the school are higher than what is generally considered to be safe. In one classroom, asbestos levels up to ten times higher were noted. Asbestos levels up to one thousand times higher than what is considered safe were shown in a hallway on the school’s second floor.

After viewing the test results, school district officials decided it was time for North Kossuth to close down.

Superintendent Mike Landstrum said that the school board didn’t want to have to close the school, but the reports of those tests were worrying enough that it has to happen. School officials don’t want to take any chances that might end up compromising the health of students and staff.

The school’s 145 children will miss two or three days of school, after which they will attend a nearby Swea City school for the remainder of the school year.

With just three weeks left in the school year, parents are concerned about the disruption to their children’s’ education, but most are even more concerned about the asbestos at North Kossuth and agree that closing down the school and moving the children is the right thing to do.

Asbestos is an increasingly common problem in schools, but it’s rarely as serious an issue as it is for North Kossuth Elementary School.

The dangerous substance is present in a large number of older schools because of its common use in construction materials prior to the 1980s. Any school built before then stands a good chance of containing asbestos.

Exposure to asbestos is dangerous because it is a known cause of cancer and other debilitating diseases.

In most cases, however, asbestos is not a serious health risk in schools because it is well-contained and is safe if lest undisturbed. Schools that contain asbestos are required to develop and maintain asbestos-management programs to ensure that the asbestos is not a health risk.

For most schools, asbestos isn’t a problem unless renovations are planned. In such cases asbestos must be removed or otherwise neutralized before renovations can be carried out.

Lee County, Florida – Posen Construction, a Florida contractor that was recently fined after admitting to asbestos-related violations, is being kept under close scrutiny as the company completes its latest project.

Over the past couple of years, Posen Construction has gained a number of large contracts, and a reputation for getting its work completed quickly.

However, Posen Construction also has a reputation of running afoul of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and other environmental agencies.

The asbestos incident occurred at a Three Oaks construction site in December 2007. Employees of Posen Construction claimed they had been ordered to cut up and crush pipes that contained asbestos, and also that the waste was disposed of at sites that were not equipped to safely deal with asbestos waste. Some employees complained to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

State and County officials began to investigate when employees provided sworn statements saying they had been ordered to crush the asbestos-containing pipes, load the crushed asbestos into trucks, and then dump the waste at sites located north of Alico, including at a recently-constructed retention lake.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection inspectors found asbestos fragments on the banks of a nearby retention lake, as well as buried asbestos pipe sections. A total of twenty bags of fragments, as well as two five-foot sections of pipe, were eventually recovered.

As a result the company was fined $6,500—and the job itself was worth $27.5 million. According to state officials, $6,500 was the maximum fine that could be imposed in this case. Posen Construction also paid $12,000 to clean up the waste, and $6,000 on site assessments.

In addition to the DEP fine of $6,500 the company has also been cited by the county for illegally handling de-watering, and for discharging dirty water into two Lee County rivers. The company received a warning and two citations, but was fined only $4,000.

Another citation early in April came after the Posen Company failed to maintain ‘best management practices’ by allowing contaminated water to leach from a construction site into downstream waterways.

County Commission Chairman Ray Judah says that the small size of the fines means the state has an enforcement problem, saying “The state formula to hold polluters responsible is woefully inadequate.”

Judah also says that Posen Construction will be kept under close scrutiny as its completes its current county project, and that the company won’t win any more county contracts if it violates any environmental regulations.

Des Moines, Iowa – The Mehringers, of Des Moine, Iowa, have their doubts about buying a home that was built on a former airport runway, but ultimately, they’re confident that the land is clean and non-toxic.

They knew when they bought the property that it was built on the former Stapleton International Airport site, and that the land was formerly contaminated with asbestos and chemicals, but say they believe it’s now clean.

They can’t help wondering, though. Mark Mehringer says, “With a cleanup like that, it’s to pretty high standards, but we do occasionally wonder about certain spots in the lawn where things don’t grow well.”

Researchers and planners say that the Mehringer’s experience isn’t unusual: people who buy property on reclaimed industrial land tend to believe that their homes are safe, despite their history.

There are plenty of examples of these types of developments. Former industrial sites are cleaned up and redeveloped as residential and commercial spaces.

In Atlanta, for example, a 130 acre development is planned to replace a former steel mill. The new development will include homes for ten thousand people, as well as entertainment venues and retail stores.

In O’Fallon, Missouri, a planned housing and retail complex will be built on a former trailer park that needs substantial cleaning to remove an estimated 34,000 tons of asbestos waste.

And this week, a couple in Minneapolis won a claim for compensation after the asbestos-containing remains of a bridge were discovered on their property: unbeknownst to them, the land they had bought was once the site of a construction materials landfill.

Some residents simply don’t know that their home has a toxic past. John and Judy McEachran had no idea their land was the former site of a landfill until contractors began digging the basement for the home they planned to build. At the time they purchased the lot, state law hadn’t required that the seller disclose that information to buyers.

Others, like the Mehringers, know the history but trust in the ability of planners and developers to clean up the site before developing it for human habitation.

However, given that the McEachrans have endured a four-year-long battle to claim compensation for the costs of cleaning up their property—to the tune of $150,000—it makes sense to find out the history of a property before you buy it.

Texas – Asbestos-related litigation has so far been worth billions of dollars in America. A new report released by economist M. Ray Perryman indicates that legal reforms in Texas that limited civil litigation has resulted in a boost for the state’s economy.

In the report entitled “A Texas Turnaround: The Impact of Lawsuit Reform on Business Activity in the Lone Star Sate,” Perryman says that the boost to the economy, is to the tune of $7.88 billion in annual spending, and almost 40,000 permanent jobs, in the city of San Antonio alone.

The study carried out by Perryman examined the impact of legislative measures that limit the damages that can be awarded in liability cases against Texas businesses. The liability limits include damages awarded in asbestos-related lawsuits as well as other civil damages suits.

The report notes some interesting facts about the relationship between civil litigation and the local economy.

For example, Perryman’s report says that between 1999 and 2003, medical insurance premiums doubled for many doctors in Texas—because of excessive litigation and excessively large jury awards. The result, said Perryman, was that many medical insurance carriers had begun to exit the market.

In addition, the report noted, medical specialists—including neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and obstetricians—had begun leaving the state, perhaps because of the increased costs of insurance. As a result, the shortage of qualified health professionals throughout the state had become severe.

However, after 2003 the picture changed. In that year, Texas lawmakers adopted a constitutional amendment that capped ‘non-economic’ damages in medical cases to $750,000. The legislature also moved to reduce what Perryman called “abusive” asbestos and silica-related lawsuits.

As a result, Perryman says, the entire state, and San Antonio in particular, has benefited from a substantial economic boost.

The report says that medical insurance rates became more competitive as a direct result of the reforms, and that doctors and hospitals used their liability insurance savings to expand and improve healthcare services.

Perryman’s report says that the lawsuit reform had the net result of creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in Texas, and that around 8.5% of the state’s economic growth over the past decade is a direct result of the lawsuit reforms.

Texas’ gain may mean losses for other states, however.

This might just mean that increasing numbers of people will take their cases to other states. Currently the law allows a lawsuit to be filed in any state as long as it can be proven that either the defendant or the plaintiff has a connection to that state.

This law already means that asbestos-related lawsuits are more likely to be filed in places such as Madison County, Illinois, which has a reputation for being sympathetic towards plaintiffs filing lawsuits against large corporations.

Kanawha County, West Virginia – A Charleston attorney has filed a total of twelve asbestos-related lawsuits that include a total of 131 defendants between them. In each case the plaintiff is a person who was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease, or the executor of the estate of a person who died of an asbestos-related disease.

The twelve suits include up to nineteen counts each, and were filed by the following people.

Willard and Anna best, who live in Marietta, Ohio, have filed on behalf of Willard Best, who worked as a machine operator for Kaiser Aluminum. He claims that asbestos exposure at work caused him to develop asbestosis and lung cancer.

Oscar and Genevieve Farley of Prince, W.Va. filed after Oscar Farley, who worked as a pipefitter for Union Local 5960, subsequently developed lung cancer and asbestosis.

Harrison and Sherry Fisher of Pennsylvania allege that Harrison Fisher was exposed to asbestos during the course of his work at Weirton Steel as a bander, and developed asbestosis and lung cancer as a result.

George and Viola Gvoyich of Weirton claim that George Gvoyich developed lung cancer and asbestosis after being employed as a steelworker at Weirton Steel.

Cecil and Elma Lang allege that Cecil Lang developed lung cancer and asbestosis as a result of working for Union Local 639 as a laborer.

Roy and Patricia Meadows of LeSage claim that Roy Meadows developed lung cancer and asbestosis after working as a crane operator for Union Local USWA 40.

Julius and Helen Sabatino of Shadyside, Ohio filed after Julius Sabatino developed asbestosis and lung cancer.

Karl and Ruth Stanley of Reader filed on behalf of Karl Stanley, who was employed as a welder for Union Local USWA 5724 and developed asbestosis and lung cancer.

Phyllis Canterbury, the executor of the estate of Larry Canterbury, filed suit on behalf of the deceased, who worked as a steelworker for USWA as well as for Union Carbide and FMC. Canterbury had lung cancer and asbestosis.

Linda Hickel filed a lawsuit on behalf of Gary N. Dennewitz, who allegedly developed asbestosis and lung cancer after working as a machinist for Union Local IAM 1027.

Coraletta Henry filed on behalf of Earl. Henry, Jr., formerly of New Haven, who had asbestosis and lung cancer, allegedly as a result of working at the Philip Sporn Power Plant and other locations.

Martha Taylor filed suit on behalf of Leon Taylor, who died after developing lung cancer and asbestosis. Leon Taylor worked as a welder for Union Local USWA 1652.

Miami, Florida – In what is the largest jury verdict involving a single defendant in a Florida asbestos case, a doctor has been awarded a total of $24.2 million by a Miami-Dade Circuit Court jury.

The man is Dr. Stephen E. Guilder, who alleged that he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos from Honeywell asbestos-containing brakes in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Guilder, 50, was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in September 2007. Peritoneal mesothelioma is a relatively rare type of asbestos-related cancer. Around 20-25% of all cases of mesothelioma originate in the lining of the abdominal cavity, called the peritoneum.

Guilder, whose practice involved treating disorders of the head and neck, had to close his medical office in November.

Rob Ferris, a spokesperson for Honeywell, said that the company is disappointed by the jury’s verdict, and said an appeal would be imminent. Ferris said that there was no supportable evidence that Stephen Guilder’s mesothelioma cancer was caused by exposure to Honeywell brake products.

Stephen Guilder’s attorney, David A. Jagolinzer, said he was very pleased that Honeywell had been held accountable for the harm that it had caused to Stephen Guilder and his family. Guilder’s family includes his wife Sheila of more than twenty years, and three children aged 18, 16, and 14.

During the trial, which lasted for two weeks, the plaintiffs argued that Stephen Guilder had been exposed to asbestos from Honeywell’s brake products, and that this exposure caused Guilder to subsequently develop peritoneal mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma cancers tend to have long latency periods. Even though Guilder was allegedly exposed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it is normal that the cancer did not develop and show noticeable symptoms until more than twenty years later.

These cancers are particularly devastating because they are difficult to diagnose early, and because mesothelioma tumors are often resistant to treatment.

The award of $24.2 million is the largest amount ever awarded in a Florida case involving a single defendant.