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.

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.

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.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) director John Howard, MD has taken the opportunity presented by Workers’ Memorial Day to highlight some of the ways in which the agency is making employment safer for workers in America.

Monday April 28 is International Commemoration Day for Dead and Injured Workers, or more simply Workers’ Memorial Day. This year more than fourteen million people across the globe are taking part in over 13,000 activities in support of people working in dangerous conditions. The message for this year’s Workers’ Memorial Day is “Good Occupational Health for All Workers.”

Guy Ryder, General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), says that all records set by previous years’ activities for the commemoration day have been exceeded, but “Unfortunately, this unprecedented mobilization reflects a wide-scale deterioration of the occupational health and safety realities for millions of the world’s workers.”

More than 2.2 million workers die, and 160 million are injured every year.

John Howard says, “Although much progress has been made since the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, more remains to be accomplished. Research is a vital part of this national mission, and NIOSH is proud of its role in helping to prevent work-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths.”

Howard also pointed out that traditionally hazardous industries—particularly those involving heavy physical labor—are still high-risk. Workers in manufacturing, mining, construction, agriculture, and commercial fishing are at high risk.

Howard noted too that work-related illnesses such as asbestosis, silicosis, and mesothelioma are still prevalent due to work place exposure to asbestos, coal dust, lead, and other toxins.

Part of NIOSH’s work involves researching, testing, and implementing new and more effective intervention measures to prevent work-place illness and injury. In addition, NIOSH focuses on identifying new potential sources of work-related hazards.

Workers all over the world face unsafe conditions: from exposure to asbestos and other harmful chemicals, to the risk of injury or death in dangerous occupations.

Recently the plight of sanitation workers was highlighted, for example, in a report entitled “In Harm’s Way,” which was the collected results of a study carried out by the National Commission of Inquiry into the Worker Health and Safety Crisis in the Solid Waste Industry and the Teamsters Union.

The study included analysis that showed sanitation workers were frequently exposed to asbestos, medical waste, and other potentially harmful substances, and also faced the possibility of severe injury when using waste management machinery.

John Howard says that educating the work force is still a major challenge in improving work-place safety, and emphasizes the work NIOSH is doing to explore new ways to educate workers.

“For example, what approaches will be effective for young workers accustomed to interactive, computer-based or video-based instruction? What approaches will be effective for foreign-born workers, for whom the toll of fatal work injuries reached a record high number in 2006, according to the revised BLS estimates?”

Minneapolis, Minnesota – A couple living in Inver Grove Heights, Minneapolis are happy to hear that the state will reimburse the money they spent cleaning up a bizarre discovery they made in their basement: chunks of a buried bridge.

John and Judy McEachran, who are both Methodist pastors, have spent the last four years battling to get the mess cleaned up, and to then find a way of paying the bills of almost $150,000.

Their four-year battle began in 2004, when the family hired a contractor to start digging the basement on the empty lot they had purchased in 1998. When the contractors began digging, they found enormous pieces of concrete buried in the soil. The concrete chunks turned out to be pieces of a buried bridge.

When the McEachrans purchased the land, they had no idea that it had once been part of a construction materials landfill. And an unregulated one, at that. At the time they purchased the lot, state law hadn’t required that the seller of the land disclose that information to buyers.

What initially looked like a small issue quickly turned into a huge one with a $150,000 price tag—when a Dakota County environmental inspector tested some of the debris found on the lot, the McEachrans were dismayed to learn that asbestos was present.

The county subsequently charged the McEachrans with ownership of an unlicensed hazardous waste dump and ordered them to clean up the site immediately.

While some City Council members showed some understanding and agreed that the McEachrans shouldn’t be liable for cleaning up the mess, the family still had plenty of problems.

Eventually, the city of Inver Grove Heights agreed to contribute $15,000 towards the cost of cleaning up the site. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency also contributed funds by providing the McEachrans with contractors for the job. However, the family still had to come up with $67,000. Dakota County assessed the bill against the property, to be paid over 30 years. The interest was enough to bring the total cost for the McEachrans back up to $150,000.

The family wanted to find out who was responsible for dumping the bridge there, and to find some way of getting reimbursement for the money they owed for the clean-up.

The McEachrans took their case to the Capitol and were happy to discover that lawmakers had their own doubts about whether the family should be responsible for paying for clean-up.

Eventually, it was discovered that the buried pieces had come from a bridge erected and owned by the Minnesota Department of Transport. The claims commission recommended that MNDOT pay the claim, and the McEachrans can now breathe much more easily: the asbestos is gone from their property, and they no longer have to worry about paying a $150,000 bill that should never have been theirs to begin with.

This year, more than fourteen million people are taking part in activities to highlight the dangers faced by workers all over the world. Every year, more than 2.2 million workers die, and 160 million are injured, because they work in unsafe conditions.

Around 13,000 different activities are planned across the globe for this year’s International Commemoration Day for Dead and Injured Workers, which falls on Monday April 28.

Guy Ryder, General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), says that all records set by previous years’ activities for the commemoration day have been exceeded, but “Unfortunately, this unprecedented mobilization reflects a wide-scale deterioration of the occupational health and safety realities for millions of the world’s workers.”

The message for this year’s commemoration day is “Good Occupational Health for All Workers.” Many different organizations, including governments, trade union organizations, employers, and World Health Organization groups are taking part in activities in more than 120 different countries.

Workers all over the world face unsafe conditions: from exposure to asbestos and other harmful chemicals, to the risk of injury or death in dangerous occupations.

Recently the plight of sanitation workers was highlighted, for example, in a report entitled “In Harm’s Way,” which was the collected results of a study carried out by the National Commission of Inquiry into the Worker Health and Safety Crisis in the Solid Waste Industry and the Teamsters Union.

The study included analysis that showed sanitation workers were frequently exposed to asbestos, medical waste, and other potentially harmful substances, and also faced the possibility of severe injury when using waste management machinery.

When it comes to asbestos exposure, many types of workers are at risk. Workers in certain types of industrial plants may be at risk of exposure if the plant was built prior to the 1980s, due to the addition of asbestos to many different types of construction materials. Construction workers, custodial and maintenance workers, electricians, and road workers are just some of the groups of people who may still be at risk of asbestos exposure, depending on where they work.

Many thousands of people have already died from asbestos-related diseases that developed as a result of workplace exposure: even though the peak incidence of asbestos use was last century, the effects will continue to be felt for several decades, due to the long latency period of asbestos-related diseases.

Even if you don’t work in an at-risk occupation, and even if you don’t know anyone who does, Monday April 28 is a great time to show your support for people who were or still are at risk of exposure to asbestos or other harmful substances in the work place.