Sausalito, California ‘ Sausalito officials were forced to temporarily shut down a construction project situated near the Bay Model, after locals became concerned about asbestos exposure and dust created at the site.

The construction project is a $7 million rehabilitation of an old South Pacific Division Laboratory. The US Department of Veterans will convert the old site into a new research center.

The site was once the Marinship Ship Yard, which was was placed with the War Assets Administration in 1946 and converted to a geotechnical testing laboratory in 1950. Around ten years after the laboratory closed in 1997 ownership was transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Part of the work has involved asbestos abatement, and over the weekend contractors dressed in protective clothing began removing asbestos siding from the building.

During the course of the word wind began blowing dust from the construction site into nearby homes and boats. Concerned residents called police and firefighters to the scene, and the work was ordered to be stopped. Police Chief Scott Paulin said there was dust in the air and a layer of dust on nearby boats, and noted that arriving police cars also became covered in a dust layer.

On Monday May 5, city officials called the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to ask for the work site to be reviewed.

An inspector said that the work complied with the necessary building regulations and also said that the asbestos-containing siding was not being cut, broken, or crushed, so asbestos was not being released into the air. In addition, the inspector said it wouldn’t be possible to determine what was in the dust that was released during the weekend work.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District will continue monitoring the site. Work may resume as early as Tuesday May 6.

Veterans Affairs spokesperson Judi Cheary said that all proper procedures were being followed at the construction site, but Sausalito Planning Director Jeremy Graves said that even if the dust was harmless, locals should still have been warned.

Before the site was cleaned, a study of groundwater and soil had shown concentrations of arsenic and polychlorinated biphenyls in addition to asbestos. The site should be safe post-cleanup, however.

The site construction will take two years to complete. Once the research center is open the VA plans to study post-traumatic stress disorder, HIV, liver disease, and other conditions.

California – The Environmental Protection Agency has completed a study about the asbestos exposure risk for people involved in recreational activities at the Clear Creek Management Area in central California. The risk assessment study has found that there is an increased long-term cancer risk for people carrying out certain activities in the area. The increased cancer risk is due to the presence of asbestos.

Most of the CCMA is managed by the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The area is used by campers, hikers, hunters, off-highway vehicle users, and others. Around 35,000 people visit the site every year. Both the EPA and the BLM have been issuing warnings about the asbestos risk since the early 1990s.

The EPA’s soil sampling in several areas at the CCMA site has found that there is asbestos present in soil in some areas. EPA Toxicologist Daniel Stralka said that “Higher dust-generating activities produce higher exposures and, therefore, higher risks.”

Asbestos levels measured in CCMA breathing zones are in the range that is seen in more industrial environments, and Stralka says these levels of asbestos are cause for concern.

Stralka says that reducing or eliminating activities that generate dust at the CCMA site will reduce asbestos exposure and reduce long-term cancer risks.

The CCMA is home to the largest natural deposit of asbestos in the United States. The CCMA itself spans over 75,000 acres, and includes a 31,000 acre natural asbestos deposit. The Atlas Asbestos Mine Superfund Site is also located here.

The EPA have estimated that lifetime risks for developing cancer are far above the range that the agency considered acceptable.

The study was carried out during 2004 and 2005. Several air samples were collected while EPA employees and contractors participated in recreational activities that are popular for CCMA visitors. Activities included hiking, camping, sleeping in a tent, and riding off-road vehicles.

According to the EPA study, activities such as motorcycling, ATV, and SUV use are those most likely to disturb large amounts of asbestos dust, and these activities are responsible for the highest amounts of asbestos exposure.

The EPA study also showed that during these types of activities children are generally exposure to more asbestos dust than adults.

As a result of the study, approximately 31,000 acres of the CCMA have been closed for all public uses.

Rick Cooper, BLM’s Hollister field manager, said, “Based on EPA’s results, we believe a temporary closure of most of the CCMA is in the public interest and we ask for the public’s cooperation. With the closure in place, we will immediately move on with developing a long-term resource management plan for the area with the public’s full involvement.”

Berkeley, California - Demolition is planned for a historic building at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, but the presence of asbestos in the building will complicate matters.

The building in question is a domed building that houses an outdated particle accelerator, a machine that enables scientists to study subatomic particles. The machine, known as the Bevatron, has been used in Nobel Prize-winning research. Two physicists, Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain, won the prize for physics in 1959, after discovering a subatomic particle called an antiproton in 1955. Three other research projects involving the machine have led to Nobel Prize-winning results.

Despite its illustrious past, the Bevatron is now an outdated piece of equipment, and the building it is housed in is deteriorating. According to Department of Energy spokesperson Lauren Martinez, the building is a safety hazard that’s becoming too expensive to maintain. The building is leaking, and doesn’t meet current building or earthquake-safety codes.

On Wednesday April 16, the DOE announced results of an environmental impact assessment carried out for the proposed demolition of the building, and gave the project the go-ahead, saying that environmental impact would not be significant.

Demolition work may begin as early as June, with an estimated completion date of 2011. A cost estimate puts the total at $72 million.

One significant reason for the expense of the project is the enormous amount of hazardous material the building contains. The cement walls around the accelerator were built to shield scientists from radiation while the machine was operating, and now the walls themselves are slightly radioactive.

In addition, the laboratory is expected to contain large amounts of asbestos, and possible lead as well.

One estimate says that the amount of waste present in the building could require as many as 4,700 truck loads, of radioactive waste, asbestos materials, lead, and other hazardous substances.

Some Berkeley residents aren’t happy about the proposed demolition, partly because they believe the demolition would endanger the community more than leaving the building intact.

In addition, many believe that the building is a local icon that should be preserved. The Berkeley City Council agrees, somewhat-it gave the building historic landmark status in 2007, but didn’t go so far as to forbid the demolition.

Laura Martinez says that the DOE believes the demolition can be completed without endangering the public, because the radioactive material emits only very low levels of radioactivity.

California-based asbestos awareness group The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) filed suit against CBS Corp and several toy retailers last week, claiming that the toy-making company had sold toys containing asbestos.

The item in question is a toy crime-scene based on the CBS television series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. In November of 2007, the ADAO announced they had sponsored tests on these and other toys and household goods. Several of the items tested, including the toy crime-scene kits, were found to contain asbestos.

Long-term exposure to asbestos is known to cause an asbestos-related disease called asbestosis. Even small amounts of exposure can potentially cause lung cancer, and mesothelioma, an aggressive type of asbestos cancer that develops in the lining of the lungs.

According to the lawsuit, filed in the LA Superior Court, the lab tests showed that the fingerprint dusting powder in the toy kits contained “substantial quantities of tremolite asbestos…one of the most lethal forms of asbestos.”

The manufacturer of the toys, Planet Toys Inc, had removed the toy crime-scene kits from the market late in 2007, after the ADAO made their asbestos claims public in a press release issued late November. Planet Toys Inc said it had conducted multiple tests on the toys but had not discovered any asbestos.

Planet Toys Inc said that some of the kits had been manufactured in China. Millions of toys, recalled last year, which had been sourced from China, had been found to contain hazards such as small magnets or lead paint. Planet Toys Inc issued a “stop sale” on all CSI fingerprint kits “until further information can be ascertained as to the discrepancy between…respective test findings.”

The ADAO claims that the defendants failed to warm consumers that the kits were contaminated with asbestos, a known hazardous material. Such warnings are required by state law. The ADAO wants a court order to stop the kits being sold unless they carry the state-required warning. The organization wants companies to allow consumers to return the kits and obtain a full refund, pay for asbestos testing of returned kits, and pay for medical treatment if it becomes necessary. ADAO also believes that civil penalties are required.

The lawsuits were filed by Public Justice on behalf of ADAO. Victoria Ni, lead Public Justice attorney, said “…this powder has been marketed and sold to thousands of children who are told to spread it around and blow off the excess. It’s a shame that we’ve had to resort to litigation to force these companies to do what they should have done in the first place to protect the American public.”

A spokesperson for the CBS company’s consumer products division said that CBS had ended its licensing agreement for the toy crime scene kits with Planet Toys Inc.

San Andreas, California - The chief building inspector of Calaveras County may have cost the county hundreds of thousands of dollars due to shoddy or inappropriate building practices.

Documents released by the Calaveras County council relate to the firing of Ray Waller, former chief building inspector. The documents allege that Waller negligently exposed people to asbestos by allowing unsafe demolition of a county building.

Other allegations include that Waller signed off on defective buildings, and told plan-checking firms and office subordinates that Calaveras County did not have to comply with certain state building codes.

Those actions, which Walker was allegedly fired for, may cost the county hundreds of thousands of dollars in construction overruns and lawsuit settlements.

Ray Waller has denied any wrong-doing, saying that “I don’t think the county can release these documents for the good of the public or the press. I think this was a vengeful, spiteful act by them…” Waller says he may take legal action against the county for releasing the documents, claiming that information in the documents was distorted or fabricated by Community Development Agency Director Stephanie Moreno.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Steve Wilensky said he is proud that the county did the right thing in making the documents public, and providing the public with an explanation of the incidents that led to Waller being fired.

The documents number some 1,300 pages, with allegations that Waller allowed certain property owners and developers to adopt illegal practices such as unsafe sewage disposal and constructing substandard building foundations. Some incidents date back more than a decade.

The asbestos-related incident Waller was allegedly responsible for occurred in 2003. Waller allegedly failed to comply with asbestos inspection requirements, which required that Waller have the Building and Planning Department’s San Andreas offices surveyed for asbestos before beginning planned remodeling activities.

Waller failed to have the survey carried out. During the remodeling, workers discovered asbestos-containing materials. After the discovery, an employee in the building turned on the air-conditioning system, not realizing that asbestos had been discovered. The air-conditioning system spread asbestos dust throughout the building, including in the city’s Air Pollution Control District offices.

Donna Koplen, co-owner of the contracting firm carrying out the remodeling, said that she and the workers had no ideal the building contained asbestos.

That incident cost the county nearly $500,000 for asbestos removal, $60,000 in fines paid to the Environmental Protection Agency, and more money on legal fees for subsequent lawsuits.

Waller claimed that he was unaware there was a legal requirement for an asbestos survey, and further claimed that even if he had known, it was not his responsibility to check for asbestos.

San Diego, California – For many people, 9/11 brought grief and fear, after the devastating attacks killed several thousand people. The aftereffects may linger much longer than was first thought. Men and women who worked at ground zero for days and weeks afterwards are at risk of serious health problems in the future due to the quantity of asbestos in the air following the attacks on the World Trade Center.

The experience of Elliot R., who volunteered to work on the clean-up crew following the attacks, is similar to that of many people who helped clean up the site in the weeks that followed. “The amount of particulate matter in the air was palpable…and a lot of asbestos was in the air,” he says.

Elliot R. developed serious respiratory problems that required hospitalization on two separate occasions, and he eventually had to leave New York

Now living in California, Elliot R. is concerned because of information indicating that there was asbestos in the air for many days following the 9/11 incident.

Having worked for an insurance company, he also knows that many people have filed asbestos-related lawsuits against the city.

He’s also certain that asbestos was heavily used in the Twin Towers, saying “When those towers were built, there is no doubt that asbestos was used as a primary material in the construction. My father is an engineer and he built skyscrapers, projects that were huge. He told me that indeed, asbestos was widely used.”

Many rescue workers and clean-up volunteers had only paper masks, or no protective respiratory equipment at all, in the first few days following 9/11. Of those who didn’t use such equipment, many are now experiencing serious respiratory issues.

In 2003, Dr. Robin Herbert, a Mt. Sinai Hospital physician and researcher who had been involved in screening and treating rescue and volunteer workers, said “a substantial percent continue to have persistent upper and lower respiratory symptomatology — coughs and sinus problems.”

The Environmental Protection Agency, when referring to the safety of the site, initially said that the air was safe to breathe. This almost certainly influenced people who were debating whether or not to use respirators and other protective equipment.

In addition, the EPA actually did find asbestos in up to 25% of dust samples taken from the site.

Many years later, people are still suffering respiratory problems, and there is concern that the worst has yet to be seen.

Diseases such as mesothelioma and asbestosis, which are caused only by asbestos exposure, are long latency diseases. That means several decades may elapse between asbestos exposure and the onset of the first symptoms of disease.

For the people who worked on-site in rescue and clean-up activities, the long-term health consequences may take decades to appear.

San Francisco, California – A former San Francisco Bay Area couple who filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in 2005 have won for a second time. The jury in the case decided in their favor in July 2006, and the couple have now won their appeal case, too.

The state appeals court upheld an award of more than $11 million that was granted by the jury in the original case. In the 2006 verdict, the jury awarded over $1.1 million to Joseph Garza, and $400,000 to wife Mary Garza. The jury also awarded $10 million in punitive damages against the defendant, Asbestos Corp.

Joseph Garza was diagnosed with asbestosis in 2005, and the couple, who are now residents of Colorado, filed a lawsuit against Asbestos Corp in the same year.

During the trial, Joseph Garza testified that he cannot breathe without an oxygen unit, that he can walk only half a block at a time, and that his health problems had made it increasingly difficult to care for his wife. Mary Garza, who also had health problems, was almost entirely dependent on her husband for care and support.

The jury also heard how Joseph Garza had joined the Navy at the age of 17, and had worked for over a decade on ships in locations such as Hunters Point Shipyard in San Francisco.

Garza’s work involved using asbestos-containing products to repair boilers. He was not provided with protective clothing, or any warnings about the potential health issues associated with asbestos exposure.

Joseph Garza was also exposed to asbestos-containing insulation in later employment. However, Asbestos Corp, as the manufacturer of the sealant used by the Navy at the time Garza was in its employment, was assigned 75% of the responsibility for Garza’s illness by the San Francisco jury.

The First District Court of Appeal rendered their verdict on the last Friday in March, and upheld the verdict originally given by the jury in the 2006 trial. The appeal court echoed the jury’s sentiments in saying that Asbestos Corp had acted “reprehensibly.”

The three-judge appeals panel cited testimony that had been given during the trial, saying that Asbestos Corp had “intentionally marketed a defective product knowing that it might cause injury and death.”

In the trial, it was shown that Asbestos Corp had been aware of the dangers of asbestos since the 1940s, but had sold the product until the 1970s without attaching any warning labels.

March 24, 2008 - With half a dozen stories about asbestos in schools popping up in the news every week, it’s easy to forget that many schools are beset by many other environmental and safety problems in addition to asbestos.

The problem of asbestos and how to manage asbestos in schools might be a major issue-particularly as schools age and deteriorate-but that’s not the only problem schools are facing.

Deborah Moore, the executive director of a California action group called the Green Schools Initiative, says that asbestos is only part of the story. Moore says that “out of 135,000 schools in the country, only a fraction are green schools.” But what’s a green school, and why is this an important issue?

The goal of the Green Schools Initiative is to ensure that schools in the Brookfield-based action group’s area are safe and healthy places for Brookfield’s children. Clean air, quality drinking water, energy efficiency, healthy food served in the school’s cafeteria, and other environmental and health issues are just as important as the question of how to manage asbestos, since they affect the health of children at the schools, and in turn may affect their ability to learn.

The Green Schools Initiative believes that making environmentally sound choices for schools is crucial, and Moore says that thinking of schools as “little cities” is important to understand why. Schools use energy, produce waste, have transportation systems, and can make many decisions autonomously, meaning that schools have the capacity to make decisions that affect health, safety, and the environment.

This concept is well-illustrated by the EPA’s asbestos in schools management plan program. All schools that contain asbestos must produce an asbestos management plan that details where asbestos is located in the school, the condition of the asbestos, and what steps have been taken to contain the asbestos and prevent exposure.

The school must keep the plan updated any time its asbestos status changes, and parents and school employees can request to see a copy of the asbestos management plan at any time.

The asbestos issue also illustrates the ‘green schools’ concept fairly well. Older schools-those built prior to the 1980s-are highly likely to contain asbestos, due to the widespread use of the substance in construction materials between the 1940s and 1980s.

These older schools are also more likely to have outdated, inefficient heating and lighting systems, less likely to be able to meet the needs of today’s students, and more likely to be unable to cope with the demands of an increasing school roster.

Older schools are also more likely to be riddled with asbestos. Hundreds of thousands-even millions-of dollars may be needed over the long term to update these schools, and continue to protect children from dangerous substances such as asbestos.

March 21, 2008, Madison County, Illinois – Over the past few years, asbestos cases had dropped off in Madison County. This week, however, that all changed, as twenty asbestos-related lawsuits were filed between March 13 and March 18.

That’s a total of 1,036 summonses being sent to defendants in the suits, and a total of $129,997 in fees paid to the Madison County Circuit Clerk’s Office.

March 13

* Marcella Walters (Nebraska) was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2007 and claims she was exposed to asbestos between 1946 and 1977 while working as a secretary. She also claims she received secondary exposure from her husband’s work clothes.

* The estate of Mary Hazelrigg (Indiana) claims she was exposed during the 1970s while working as a welder’s assistant, and via secondary exposure from her ex-husband’s clothing. She died in April 2007 after being diagnosed with mesothelioma in October 2006.

* Darrel Henderson (Kansas) claims he has lung cancer that developed as a result of asbestos exposure during his service in the US Navy. He was diagnosed in 2007.

* The estate of Nancy Foster claims her lung cancer developed following asbestos exposure during the 1960s and 1970s while working as a laborer and housekeeper.

* Edward Kronsperger, diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2008, claims he developed the disease as a result of asbestos exposure while in service to the US Navy.

* The estate of James Price (Tennessee) claims he developed lung cancer as a result of asbestos exposure while working for Texaco, Shell Oil, Amoco, Anheuser-Busch, Chrysler and American Zinc between 1964 and 1993.

March 14

* William Yeager (Missouri) claims his mesothelioma developed following asbestos exposure during his career as a boilermaker.

* Forrest Bateman (Idaho) developed mesothelioma, allegedly following work as a dairy farmer, machinist, and x-ray technician, between 1949 and 1990. He also claims to have suffered secondary exposure from his wife’s work clothes.

* Nina Anderson (Illinois) claims her mesothelioma developed from a mixture of occupational and secondary asbestos exposure from her husband’s work clothes.

* The Estate of Daniel Malcolm claims he died of mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure that occurred during his career as a teacher and foundry-worker.

March 17

* Larry Marlow (Texas) was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2007, following a 41 year career working as a laborer.

* The estate of Doyle Clayton claims his mesothelioma developed after working as a machinist between 1956 and 1990.

* The estate of Lois Nisi claims her mesothelioma developed as a result of asbestos exposure that occurred during her 48-year machinist career.

* Gloria LaBargage (California) claims she developed mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure that occurred after 1968.

* Roy Brown (Indiana), diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2007, claims his disease results from asbestos exposure during his work as a laborer between 1972 and 1974.

March 18

* John Barringer (Pennsylvania) was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2007 and claims it’s the result of exposure that may have occurred while in service to the US Navy or during his time as a computer manager in Pennsylvania.

* Dolores Joppa (Arkansas) claims her mesothelioma is the result of both primary and secondary asbestos exposure.

* The estate of Frederick Shuberg claims he died from mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure that occurred from 1964 during the deceased’s work as a technician.

* Lawrence Schmidt claims his colon cancer developed as a result working with asbestos during his work as a painter.

* The estate of Charles Lampin, Sr. claims his esophageal cancer occurred as a result of asbestos exposure.

March 18, 2008 - Schools such as Asa Wood Elementary School in Libby, Montana, Bethel High School in Connecticut, and Mokelumne River School in Lodi, California have been in the news recently over asbestos-related issues. However, they’re by no means the only schools that have been having asbestos problems in the last few months.

While the schools of Libby definitely have more to be worried about, there are many other schools where asbestos has become a problem.

In the last couple of days alone, several schools have reported discovering deposits of asbestos-containing materials, or have published plans for management of existing asbestos materials.

Among them are Gibson City School in Gibson City, Illinois, Falmouth High School in Falmouth, Massachusetts, Harding High School in Warren, Ohio, Bancroft School in Swea City, Minnesota, and Main Street Middle School in Montpelier, Vermont.

Each of the schools is planning asbestos abatement activities to ensure the school remains safe for students. In some cases there are other problems, such as mold, making students and teachers sick.

In the case of Harding High School, the situation is somewhat different. Parts of the school are intended to be demolished, but asbestos abatement must be carried out before demolition can occur.

Abatement activities for these types of projects are typically expensive, and many schools are feeling the pinch. Even smaller projects can cost several thousand dollars. In the case of Mokelumne River School, for example, the cost of clean-up of a relatively small area was expected to reach $50,000. It’s not uncommon for the cost of larger asbestos abatement projects to run to several hundred thousand dollars.

Over the next several years increasing numbers of schools are likely to face asbestos problems. The mineral substance was widely used in construction materials from the 1940s to the 1980s, and those materials were used in both private and public buildings. Schools were certainly no exception, and unfortunately today’s students and school employees are paying the price for the enormously widespread use of asbestos in those five decades.

As these asbestos-containing materials age and deteriorate, needed repairs and renovations will uncover pockets of asbestos that need to be removed, potentially disrupting education for children in those schools. More importantly, health hazards are a very real possibility.

The EPA has taken steps to deal with the issue by requiring all schools that contain asbestos to formulate an asbestos management plan. The plan must indicate where in the school asbestos is located, as well as the condition of the asbestos-containing materials, and a description of the steps taken to prevent exposure from occurring. Parents of students who attend schools where asbestos is present can ask to see a copy of their school’s management plan at any time. School employees also have a right to view the plan.