Archive for May, 2008

Arizona - The Environmental Protection Agency has fined Portable Practical Education Preparation, Inc. for alleged violations of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA).

Portable Practical Education Preparation, Inc. holds charters for twelve charter schools in Arizona.

In May 2006, the EPA inspected one of the twelve schools, the Celestino Fernandez Learning Center, and found that the school was unable to disclose its asbestos management plan. All schools that contain asbestos are required to create and maintain such a plan according to AHERA.

Subsequently the EPA found that PPEP, Inc. had not carried out asbestos inspections or created asbestos management plans for some of its twelve schools. Another school in violation of AHERA was the Alice S. Paul School, which had an asbestos management plan but which had not been inspected within the time frame that federal law requires.

Katherine Taylor, Associate Director for the Communities and Ecosystems Division in the EPA’s Pacific Southwest region, said “Organizations responsible for charter schools need to understand their facilities must meet all of the federal asbestos in schools requirements, as failure to do so can result in penalties.”

“Asbestos can potentially endanger the health of students, teachers, and maintenance workers at schools, so we are pleased the PPEP charter schools have now conducted inspections and its asbestos management plans are in place.”

In August 2006, accredited asbestos inspectors carried out inspections of PPEP, Inc.’s twelve schools, including “Lito” Pena Learning Center, Manuel Bojorquez Learning Center, Raul H. Castro Learning Center, Cesar Chavez Learning Center, Jose Yepez Learning Center, Celestino Fernandez Learning Center, John David Arnold Learning Center, Victor Soltero Learning Center, Eugene Lopez Learning Center, and Robles Junction Learning Center.

The inspections discovered around 600 square feet of asbestos-containing materials at the Raul H. Castro Learning Center and the Celestino Fernandez Learning Center, and around 500 square feet of asbestos at the Manuel Bojorquez Learning Center. After the inspections asbestos management plans were created for each of the schools.

Federal laws require that schools conduct initial inspections with accredited inspectors, to determine if asbestos is present on the premises. If asbestos is discovered, the school must then prepare a management plan to address the problem. Even if no asbestos is discovered, the school must develop a plan that includes building inspection results or an architect’s statement.

Schools must also designate a trained person to oversee asbestos abatement in the school and ensure that the school remains safe and complies with federal requirements. In addition schools must make their plan available to staff and parents.

The EPA fined Portable Practical Education Preparation, Inc. a total of $18,500 for its AHERA violations.

Galveston, Texas - A woman from Galveston, Texas, claims that she developed mesothelioma as a result of secondary exposure, and has filed suit against the Marathon Petroleum Company and several other defendants, including the Todd Shipyards Corporation and the BASF Corporation.

Cynthia Leigh Chason filed suit on May 8, 2008, claiming that her asbestos exposure occurred as a result of her father’s work on asbestos-containing products.

The petition filed on May 8 states that “Ms. Chason was exposed to asbestos through household contact from her father, Loy Garner, who was employed by Marathon from 1969 through at least 1979. In addition, Ms. Chason was exposed through her father who also worked at Smith Douglass in Texas City from 1961 to 1969; and additionally he did some short-term contracting work in the 1970s for BASF in Freeport, Todd Shipyard in Galveston, and Monsanto in Texas City.”

The suit claims that Cynthia Leigh Chason was “exposed to large quantities of asbestos” as a result of her father’s occupations, some of which involved handling asbestos-containing products, or working with or around asbestos-containing machinery.

The suit also argues that the defendants in the case were aware that asbestos was a dangerous substance and that they failed to warn their employees that exposure to asbestos was a health hazard. In addition, claims the lawsuit, the defendants also failed to warn employees that asbestos fibers could be transported home and that other family members could be exposed to the fibers.

Asbestos-related disease caused by secondary asbestos exposure is relatively rare. In most, if not all, cases of secondary exposure, the resulting diseases is mesothelioma rather than asbestosis, because the cancer can develop after relatively small amounts of asbestos exposure. Asbestosis usually develops after long-term or heavy exposure to airborne asbestos fibers.

Secondary exposure to asbestos usually occurs in people who live with a family member who works with or around asbestos or asbestos-containing products. If the family member working with asbestos does not take the precautions needed to prevent their own exposure, they are able to expose the people they live with if they arrive home with asbestos fibers adhering to their clothing.

Mesothelioma is a particularly devastating disease due to the aggressiveness of this type of cancer. The disease spreads quickly and is highly resistant to all current forms of treatment. Mesothelioma has a very high mortality rate, and around half those diagnosed with the disease will die within two or three years.

The lawsuit states that litigation will continue even after Cynthia Leigh Chason dies.

Newport News, Virginia - The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality is investigating reports of a subcontractor or contractor who may have illegally dumped asbestos-contaminated construction debris at a Suffolk landfill.

The construction project in question is a new $14 million Navy housing project in downtown Newport News.

John Holland, owner of the Suffolk landfill known as John C. Holland Enterprises Inc., said that earlier this week, debris from the Navy construction site was quarantined and was undergoing testing for asbestos.

The state allows the Holland landfill to accept and dispose of non-friable asbestos materials. These are materials that are largely intact, with asbestos fibers still contained within the matrix of the material.

Friable asbestos is generally considered to be much more dangerous, as the material is deteriorating, can be crumbled easily, and can allow fibers to become airborne.

Asbestos was heavily used in construction materials between the 1940s and 1980s, due to its light-weight, durable, and fire resistant nature. However, airborne asbestos fibers are highly dangerous. Inhalation of the fibers can cause serious lung diseases, including a type of asbestos cancer called mesothelioma.

Due to the dangers of asbestos, any construction materials that contain the substance must be removed and disposed of carefully during renovation and demolition work. The asbestos materials must be removed via a process called wet-removal, in which the materials are wetted to reduce the dispersal of dust. In addition the materials must be sealed and wetted before disposal at a landfill that is licensed to deal with asbestos waste. Failure to comply with these regulations can result in heavy fines and in some cases, a prison sentence.

Holland said he can not say whether the material that was disposed of at his landfill contains asbestos or is harmless. “There is a possibility [it contains asbestos]. It’s quarantined. For right now it’s not going anywhere.”

State officials confirmed that John Holland had contacted the Virginia Beach office of the DEQ to inform the office of his suspicions about the potentially contaminated material. The DEQ then sent an inspector to the landfill to collect samples and quarantine the remaining materials.

A sample that had previously been taken from siding at the construction site was tested by an environmental laboratory and was found to contain 15% asbestos.

Of the material at the landfill, Bill Hayden, a DEQ spokesman, said “We are waiting for a copy of the lab results.” Holland says the test results are expected to be available some time next week.

Minnesota – The Minnesota Partnership for Biotechnology and Medical Genomics has announced its 2008 research projects, including a new experimental program involving virotherapy for the treatment of mesothelioma.

The research partnership involves the Mayor Clinic, the University of Minnesota, and the state of Minnesota. The partnership’s laboratory headquarters is located in Rochester on the Mayo Clinic campus. Working collaboratively, the Mayo Clinic and the University of Minnesota focus on research projects that neither group would be able to accomplish separately, in an attempt to increase the pace of potentially useful research.

Eric Wieben, Partnership program director at Mayo, said in a statement from the partnership, “We’re beginning to explore ways to use biotechnology and nanotechnology to do analysis and to make Minnesota’s environment healthier by avoiding toxic chemicals in pest control.”

Among the partnership’s new research projects are those exploring epilepsy, new pesticides that are non-toxic for humans, gene therapy for the treatment of heart disease, breast cancer diagnosis technology, fungal infection treatments, and mesothelioma research.

Noting that taconite miners in northeast Minnesota have a substantially higher risk of developing mesothelioma, the research group has decided to allot $867,114 and two years to study the potential of a type of treatment called virotherapy.

The research will be led by Dr. Stephen Russell of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Robert Krattzke of the University of Minnesota. The goal of the research project is to use a genetically altered measles virus developed at the Mayo Clinic to target mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer that is particularly difficult to treat. Conventional treatments don’t tend to greatly improve a patient’s prognosis, and more than half of people diagnosed with the cancer die within two or three years.

Virotherapy is still a largely experimental type of cancer treatment, but it has shown promising results in treating certain types of cancer.

The therapy uses biotechnology techniques to convert viruses into diseases that attack only cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells unharmed.

Virotherapy is a new technology, but the idea isn’t new—scientists noticed as early as the 1950s that cancer patients who had a viral infection, or who had recently been vaccinated, sometimes showed improvement. This discovery was largely attributed to the fact that viral infections cause the immune system to generate cytokines called tumor necrosis factor and interferon, both of which sometimes have mild anti-cancer effects.

The viruses used in virotherapy are somewhat different in that they are genetically altered specifically to target and kill cancer cells, but the therapy has been shown to have similar results. In 2006, researchers succeeding in using an avian virus to target cancer cells in people with a type of brain tumor, and achieved some encouraging results.

Virotherapy may be particularly promising for the treatment of cancers where surgery is not likely to be effective, which is often the case for people with mesothelioma. Virotherapy can be administered via an injection, just like chemotherapy, and doesn’t involve removing tumors, meaning that a patient who isn’t a good candidate for surgery may still be a suitable candidate for virotherapy.

Ambler, Pennsylvania – After last week’s funding request to the Environmental Protection Agency for money to clean up the BoRit site in Ambler, PA, U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz has written a letter to the EPA headquarters supporting the request and the citizen’s petition that asks for the site to be included on the National Priorities List.

EPA Region 3 asked EPA headquarters to supply $4 million in Superfund money to clean up the BoRit asbestos site last week. The funding request came from Eduardo Rovira, the eastern EPA branch’s on-scene coordinator. Rovira said in the memo that he estimated eighteen months and more than $8.1 million would be needed to “prevent, limit or mitigate the threat posed by hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at the site.”

The memo also says that the region can itself cover almost $4 million of the needed money, and asks that EPA headquarters cover the rest. EPA headquarters have so far budgeted $2 million for the regional agency to complete asbestos abatement at the site, over a twelve month time frame.

Asbestos fibers have been found in surface water, sediment, soil, and air samples at the BoRit site. Despite the contamination the nearby creek is a popular local fishing site, and some studies have shown that asbestos has negative effects on fish. More seriously, asbestos causes a highly lethal type of cancer called mesothelioma in humans.

The memo sent by Rovira contained some serious warnings about the asbestos contamination at the BoRit site. Rovira wrote, “If the proposed actions at the site are not implemented or are delayed, the release of hazardous substances into the environment may increase as asbestos-containing materials erode, erosion and run-off continue, asbestos-containing materials are brought to the surface by burrowing animals and/or worst-case weather conditions develop.”

Schwartz’s letter, addressed to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, stressed the importance of the request, and the importance of the EPA to “realize the strong support there is in this community for placing BoRit on the NPL.”

Schwartz said she had received a petition from constituents who supported putting the site on the NPL. The petition was started by Sharon McCormick, an Ambler resident and CAG member. The petition has been circulating since November 2007, and has gained almost 4,500 signatures.

In the letter, Schwartz emphasized the community’s need and desire for the clean-up, saying, “I realize that EPA’s final decision will ultimately be based upon scientific analysis of the conditions at the site, but it is my strong recommendation that EPA consider the input of the community in this matter as it makes its determination.”

Libby, Montana – New data from the Environmental Protection Agency suggests that the soil in Libby, Montana is a significant potential source of vermiculite exposure for residents. This conclusion may cause the EPA to redefine how it assesses contamination risks for sites undergoing remediation, and to redefine what it considers to be a “clean” site.

The results of the research have been surprising to many people. The data suggests that the main site of asbestos exposure for Libby locals is actually right outside their homes, and that levels of indoor exposure are probably coming from tracking vermiculite in from outside locations. However, the EPA stresses that the data they gained from the study doesn’t apply to homes where asbestos has been disturbed, or where asbestos is not well contained within discrete areas of the home.

Paul Peronard, an EPA On-Site Coordinator says, “This is a powerful data set. It will help us define the first part of endgame.” Meaning, it will help the EPA define what constitutes a clean site, and what needs to be done to make a site clean.

The investigation carried out on Libby exposure measured asbestos exposure levels for a range of both indoor and outdoor activities, from watching TV to mowing the lawn. The EPA tested these activities at a range of different locations, including both clean and un-treated sites. Testers were equipped with air filters near their chests that collected airborne samples, to approximate the types of airborne particles participants would be exposed to.

Many community residents have long been questioning how site risk is assessed in the town of Libby. The Environmental Protection Agency hopes that they new data they’ve gained will help in answering those questions. For example, they hope the data may answer questions such as whether a property with heavily vermiculite-contaminated soil is more or less an exposure risk than a home where asbestos is sealed within its walls.

Another important conclusion from the data is that the EPA now believes that tracking down and removing “visible vermiculite” is even more important. In addition, the report suggests that simply walking around Libby does not exposed people to large amounts of asbestos.

Unfortunately, however, while the data have produced some useful conclusions, it also demonstrates that the EPA may have serious problems in determining how successful its remediation efforts are. Variables such as wind direction, vegetation cover, and soil moisture could all affect the outcome of the tests.

Another problem is that the data does not factor in “background asbestos” or the fact that asbestos that was naturally present and separate from the mine had already exposed Libby residents to vermiculite.
As a next step, the U.S. Geological Survey plans to carry out a study of local sites to try and determine whether or not vermiculite contamination has been partly due to natural causes.

Madison County, Illinois – A Washington man who was diagnosed with mesothelioma has filed a lawsuit in Madison County Circuit Court, Illinois, claiming wrongful cause.

James Regal claims, employed in the U.S. Army as a machinist between 1962 and 2003, worked in Illinois and other locations. He also worked as a maintenance man in Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington.

In the lawsuit, filed May 7, James Regal claims that during the course of his employment he inhaled or otherwise ingested asbestos fibers that were airborne as a result of the products he worked with and around. In addition he claims that asbestos exposure occurred during home and automotive repairs.

Regal has named a total of 68 defendants, including Bondex International, CBS, Ford Motor Company, General Electric, General Motors, Honeywell International, Ingersoll-Rand, International Paper, John Crane, Philips Electronics and Riley Stoker.

The suit claims that James Regal’s asbestos exposure “was completely foreseeable and could or should have been anticipated by the defendants.” In addition, the suit claims that the defendants either knew or should have known about the dangers of asbestos exposure.

Regal, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma on February 8, 2008, claims that the defendants in the suit used asbestos in their products despite the fact that adequate asbestos substitutes were available for use.

In addition, he claims that the defendants failed to provide necessary warnings on the dangers of asbestos and also failed to provide information on how to work safely with and around asbestos. Finally, he claims that the defendants failed to provide their employees with information on how to prevent transporting asbestos fibers home, and failed to require employees take hygiene measures to prevent them doing so.

As a result, the suit alleges, James Regal was exposed to asbestos fibers that caused him to develop mesothelioma, a disease caused only by exposure to asbestos. He is seeking damages to cover the costs of medical expenses and income he has lost as a result of being unable to work.

In addition, Regal’s suit claims that Regal was unable to obtain full disclosure of relevant documents from defendants, and believes that the documents were destroyed. As a result, he claims that his lawsuit was prejudiced and his ability to prove his claims was impaired.

Regal seeks compensation of at least $300,000 for negligence and other allegations, as well as punitive damages.

The US Environmental Protection Agency has honored three Hamden, Connecticut residents for their efforts in a Department of Public Health Asbestos initiative that helps protect children from asbestos exposure.

Ron Skomro is the supervisor of the state Department of Public Health’s Asbestos Program. Along with Brian Tool and Kristen Day, also of the state Department of Public health, Skomro succeeded in changing the way art clay is labeled and sold after discovering that some clays labeled as non-toxic were contaminated with asbestos.

Asbestos exposure is linked to the development of serious diseases such as asbestosis, and lethal cancers such as mesothelioma, as well as lung cancer.

Ron Skomro, Brian Tool, and Kristen Day started their efforts after discovering that elevated levels of asbestos had been found in clay used in a school art room.

Talc is added to clay to lower the temperature at which it needs to be heated during the manufacturing process. Some forms of talc are naturally contaminated with small amounts of asbestos, and with asbestos finding its way into school art room clay, students were being exposed to asbestos on a regular basis.

Asbestos is a danger only when it’s airborne and can be inhaled: with asbestos embedded in very small amounts in the clay, exposure wasn’t likely, but with even a tiny possibility present, the state Department of Public Health had to act to protect local children.

After some initial investigation, Ron Skomro, Brian Tool, and Kristen Day found that clay made using asbestos-contaminated talc was being sold to many schools and institutions in Connecticut.

As a result, the state DPH told schools they would have to inventory their clay stocks and begin working with clay suppliers to eliminate the sale of the asbestos-contaminated clay.

One major supplier of the clay agreed voluntarily to cease shipping talc-containing clay, and also volunteered to exchange clay they had previously sold so that schools could obtain fresh supplies of non-toxic clay without losing money.

The DPH also asked that the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission review the issue. As a result, the Art and Creative Materials Institute, which works with the CPSC, told its members that they could no longer label clay as “non-toxic” if it contained talc.

For their efforts in stopping the sale of the asbestos-contaminated clay, Ron Skomro, Brian Tool, and Kristen Day were awarded a 2008 Environmental Merit Award by the Environmental Protection Agency at a ceremony in Boston, Massachusetts.

Rhode Island – National business groups have been closely following case in which Canadian residents filed asbestos-related lawsuits in Rhode Island. This week, the state Supreme Court ordered that the 39 cases be dismissed.

In making this ruling, the Supreme Court has added Rhode Island to the list of 46 other states—and the federal government—in recognizing that courts can decline cases if they believe those cases would be better handled elsewhere in the interests of “convenience, efficiency, and justice.”

Prior to this ruling, Rhode Island had only recognized the doctrine in child custody cases, but in making the ruling the Supreme Court has given the doctrine more general recognition.

The lawsuits that sparked the decision had been filed by Canadian residents against corporations that had business interests in Rhode Island. However, none of those defendants had a principal place of business in the state, and all of the plaintiffs were employed, exposed to asbestos, and treated for asbestos-related disease in Canada.

The cases involve several defendants, including General Electric Co. and Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company Inc.

In relation to the cases, Supreme Court Justice Paul A. Suttell wrote “Our courts in Rhode Island must stand open to provide remedies to those who have been injured and to treat all litigants fairly. Our courts, however, need not resolve disputes of all persons who choose to file suit in Rhode Island. In the 39 cases under review, we are unable to discern any nexus with the state of Rhode Island.”

The Supreme Court’s decision—which runs to 23 pages—considers both public and private interests. “A jury may have to sit through a complicated trial that literally has no connection to Rhode Island besides a generalized interest that is constant throughout the entire United States…the interest in preventing asbestos-related diseases.”

The decision has been praised by the American Tort Reform Association, which said the ruling is “a victory for Ocean State taxpayers and citizens called to jury duty.” President Tiger Joyce said in a news release, Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a solid step toward keeping Rhode Island from becoming known as a ‘judicial hellhole.’

However, Rhode Island lawyer Donald A. Migliori says that the decision is surprising, and will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to have their cases managed appropriately. Migliori says that the efficiency and unbiased nature of Rhode Island’s Superior Court asbestos docket means that cases are more often than not settled quickly and fairly, and that this wouldn’t be compromised for Canadian plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court, however, says that’s irrelevant. “It cannot be disputed that Canada has a legal system capable of affording the possibility of remedies to the plaintiffs in the underlying cases.”

“Because no one other than the attorneys involved actually is located in Rhode Island, literally all the witnesses and parties would have to travel to Rhode Island for the trial and other proceedings…We are of the opinion, therefore, that the relevant private-interest factors militate in favor of dismissal.”

Kanawha County, West Virginia – A woman whose husband died of malignant mesothelioma has filed a lawsuit on behalf of his estate.

Betty Bailes, a Nicholas County resident, files the suit on behalf of her husband, George Bailes, naming a total of fifty companies as defendants. The suit specifically names Union Carbide Corporation and T.H. Agriculture and Nutrition.

Both of the defendants specifically named have been involved in numerous other asbestos-related lawsuits in the past, including several in Kanawha County.

According to the lawsuit filed by Betty Bailes, she and husband George lived in Nicholas County. George Bailes worked in Kanawha County, and was exposed to asbestos during the course of his work.

As a result of the asbestos exposure, the lawsuit claims, George Bailes developed malignant mesothelioma, a type of cancer.

Malignant mesothelioma is an asbestos-related disease, so called because the only known cause is asbestos exposure. The cancer can develop after relatively low levels of asbestos exposure, but its effects are no less serious. Mesothelioma is a deadly cancer that is difficult to diagnose and treat, and leaves very few survivors.

Despite the dangers of the substance asbestos was heavily used by many companies for much of the twentieth century. Asbestos was cheap to produce and add to manufactured products, and provided improved fire resistance and durability to thousands of different types of construction products.

The legacy of the heavy use of asbestos is now being seen, however, as thousands of people exposed to asbestos prior to the 1980s develop asbestos-related diseases in the twenty-first century. Mesothelioma has a long latency period, of up to five or six decades, and it’s likely that George Bailes and others like him were exposed to asbestos in the 1970s or even earlier.

The lawsuit filed by Betty Bailes includes nine counts, and alleges that the companies named in the suit knew that asbestos was dangerous, and were negligent in their failure to warn employees about those dangers. The lawsuit alleges also that the defendants did not advise employees about the proper safety precautions that should be taken to prevent exposure to asbestos at work.

Betty Bailes is seeking both compensatory and exemplary damages in the nine count suit, which alleges that both George and Betty Bailes suffered when George Bailes was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, due to the devastating nature of the disease.