Archive for the ‘Illinois’ Category

Moline, Illinois – The owner of a former nurse’s dormitory is hoping to demolish and redevelop the site, but until the Environmental Protection Agency sees an asbestos remediation plan for the site, all work is halted. The EPA has now notified owner Mike Shamsie that it may refer the case to the Attorney General’s office.

The former dormitory was scheduled for demolition last summer—however the EPA received an anonymous complaint that improper demolition activities were being carried out on site. The subsequent site investigation located asbestos on the property.

Following the discovering the EPA issued a violation notice, citing violations of the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants and the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, for improper handling, removal, and disposal of asbestos waste. The notice was issued on September 5, 2007.

The EPA also requested that the development project hire a licensed contractor to design an asbestos removal plan that would provide details of handling, removal, and disposal of the asbestos on the site. However, more than six months later the EPA has still not received the plan.

Lew Steinbrecher, a Moline city administrator, said that the EPA had issued a notice to begin legal action in Mid-March. The developer had thirty days to comply, and that time period has now expired, but Steinbrecher said he did not know what action would be taken. The EPA must now provide notice of its decision to refer the federal Clean Air Act and the Pollution Control Board violations to the Attorney General.

The EPA still hopes to receive an asbestos removal plan, but the agency still has no plan, or even any information to suggest a contractor has been hired to create one. After a remediation plan has been lodged with the EPA, the agency must review it, and then accept the plan so work can begin.

The city of Moline would like the asbestos removed as soon as possible, but would prefer it to be carried out cautiously. The EPA has also advised that the city proceed carefully in its involvement in the case, because of the possibility of further disturbance of the asbestos that the city might become financially responsible for.

Steinbrecher said, “On the advice of the Illinois EPA, we have been very cautious in any enforcement actions on our part until it releases the property for demolition…If we order the property owner do certain things and those actions result in further disturbance of the asbestos, we could be financially responsible for the cleanup.”

Chicago, Illinois – An Environmental Protection Agency public health partner organization has issued a letter saying that the Chicago Oak Street Beach survey that came under fire several weeks ago used valid methods to assess the asbestos exposure risk at Oak Street Beach.

Early in March 2008, an EPA-affiliated scientist called for the beach to be retested after concerns about the validity of the initial tests.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) reviewed the data collected in earlier tests and said that the detection methods used were “appropriate and sufficient to reach a public health conclusion.”

The dispute over the asbestos risk at Oak Street Beach began when University of Illinois at Chicago scientists conducted the tests in 2004, and found asbestos fibers in eleven of twelve samples taken from Oak Street Beach.

The results were of particular concern because the type of asbestos found detected in the samples was amphibole, which is believed to be the most deadly.

Exposure to asbestos is the only known cause of deadly diseases asbestosis and mesothelioma. Mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that usually develops in the lining of the lungs, can develop after even low levels of asbestos exposure.

New tests ordered by the Chicago Park District in 2005 found only very low levels of asbestos, and Oak Street Beach was determined to be safe for the hundreds of thousands of beachgoers who visit each summer.

However, EPA-affiliated scientist James Webber, along with Illinois environmental group the Dunesland Preservation Society, had questioned the results of the 2005 Park District asbestos tests. In particular, Webber and the environmental group were concerned about who carried the tests out, and how they were conducted.

Webber and the Preservation Society believed that the methods used to carry out the tests were flawed because they were not sensitive enough to detect asbestos.

The ATSDR reviewed the tests, and concluded that asbestos levels detected at the beach were consistent with expected urban levels, and the methods used for the tests were valid, and sensitive enough to detect asbestos.

The Agency concluded that further testing was not needed.

Springfield, Illinois – Work has begun on the demolition of a former Cargill-Pillsbury plant on the northeast side of Springfield, Illinois, and Environmental Protection Agency representatives are keeping a close eye on the process.

The plant, which is almost eighty years old, is now owned by Ley Metals Recycling, Inc. The company purchased the plant from Cargill Corp., a Minneapolis-based organization. The former flour mill is currently classified as an ‘enterprise zone,’ meaning it might qualify for sales and property tax breaks if redeveloped.

Many residents of the area hope the building will be demolished and the site redeveloped. David Briggity Sr. and wife Ola number amongst them—they live just south of the plant and say that they frequently get run-off from the plant when it rains.

Although many locals and officials have assumed a demolition was planned, the new owners haven’t yet applied for a demolition permit for the site. New owner Jim Ley says he’s not ready to announce any specific plans for the site as yet.

Regardless of what Ley’s plans for the former Pillsbury plant turn out to be, the EPA will be keeping a close eye on the project.

Tests that were carried out several years ago indicated the present of asbestos at the site, and the EPA visited the property this week after locals had expressed concern that work on the site had already begun.

However, the EPA did not find any evidence that any violations, including illegal asbestos removal, had occurred. Maggie Carson, an Illinois EPA spokesperson, said that while workers had been removing items from the site, no asbestos-containing materials had been removed.

In addition, Carson said that the asbestos present in the plant is contained, and the EPA does not consider that the asbestos poses any public health hazards.

She also said that if any asbestos is disturbed during the course of any work carried out on the site, the EPA has to be notified. “Anytime you’re going through a demolition process, a business like this would have to document that the asbestos is being managed properly, or that it is being removed in an appropriate way.”

The owner of the plant must also apply for a permit to demolish the plant, and must remove any potentially hazardous asbestos materials before demolition is carried out. Demolition work can potentially release large quantities of asbestos fibers if the material is not removed beforehand, and in cases where asbestos is involved, demolition is generally regulated more tightly.

Madison County, Illinois – So far in 2008, asbestos-related lawsuits make up more than half of all the major civil cases filed in Madison County Circuit Court.

On April 10, number 165 was filed, on behalf of a deceased Virginia man who died from mesothelioma. This makes the 300th civil suit, and the 165th asbestos-related suit seeking damages of $50,000 or more this year.

According to this new lawsuit, the deceased, William Pierce, was employed as a welder and assembly line worker between 1940 and 1984.

The estate of the deceased claims he was exposed to asbestos fibers during the course of his employment and during home automotive repairs. The suit names ten defendants, including the Atlas Asbestos Company, Bell Asbestos Mines, Bondex International, Foseco, Georgia-Pacific, John Crane, Pneumo Abex, RPM International, RPM Inc., and T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition.

The estate claims that the defendants knew or should have known of the dangers of asbestos and negligently failed to provide workers with hygiene and safety information to prevent exposure.

The estate of William Pierce claims that the exposure prevented him from working and also caused physical and mental suffering. The suit is seeking at least $200,000 in damages.

In Madison County, Illinois, lawsuits like these are almost commonplace. With 165 filed already this year, that’s an average of more than one per day. Furthermore, a large number of the suits are filed by out-of-state plaintiffs.

The reason this occurs is that Madison County, Illinois (and other locations such as Kanawha County in West Virginia) has developed something of a reputation for finding in favor of the plaintiff in lawsuits such as these. Overall, judges in Madison County are more likely to hold corporations accountable for negligent actions such as those alleged in asbestos-related lawsuits.

And the law allows anyone from any part of the country to file a lawsuit in any other part of the country providing they can prove that one party (either a plaintiff or a defendant) has some connection to the state where the suit has been filed.

That means, as long as a plaintiff can establish a link to Madison County, they can file their case there. Given that many of these large asbestos companies are multi-state entities, establishing such a link is not usually difficult. The end result is a large number of asbestos-related cases being filed in likely locations such as Madison County, Illinois.

April 8, 2008, Madison County, Illinois - A Connecticut woman with mesothelioma has filed a lawsuit against a total of 52 defendants. The suit was filed in Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois on April 4.

The woman is Kimberly Kluntz, who claims she suffered secondary exposure to airborne asbestos by way of her stepfather, who has worked at Unas Grinding as a machine operator since 1972.

The complaint states that “Dust created by working with and around asbestos and asbestos-containing products would permeate the person and clothing of the plaintiff’s step-father. This dust contained asbestos fiber.”

Kimberly Kluntz says that this dust was carried home on her stepfather’s clothing, and that she herself was then exposed to asbestos because the dust would again become airborne after he arrived at home. The complaint alleges that she was repeatedly exposed to asbestos fibers via this secondary exposure.

Kluntz, who worked as a customer service supervisor from 1989 to 2006, claims that she has also suffered non-occupational exposure to asbestos. She claims that this exposure occurred as a result of projects that include automotive repairs, and home maintenance, repairs, and remodeling.

She says that she became aware that her mesothelioma was wrongfully caused after being diagnosed with the disease on December 12, 2007.

The complaint filed by Kimberly Kluntz alleges that the defendants failed to require that their employees use hygiene procedures that would prevent asbestos fibers being carried home, and also that they failed to advise employees that such procedures were necessary. The complaint alleges that Kluntz’ mesothelioma is a direct result of this asbestos exposure.

In addition, Kimberly Kluntz alleges that she sought but was not able to obtain from the defendants full disclosure of information and documents relevant to her case. As a result she believes that those documents were destroyed by the defendants.

The complaint says that because of this destruction of important documents, Kluntz’ case has been impaired, and that she “has been caused to suffer damages in the form of impaired ability to recover against defendants and lost or reduced compensation from other potentially liable parties in this litigation.”

Kimberly Kluntz is seeking more than $200,000 in compensation, as well as punitive damages, which the suit claims are necessary “in order to punish defendants for their willful, wanton, intentional and/or reckless misconduct.”

Cary, Illinois – Cary Country Preschool was closed on Wednesday morning after tests found asbestos present in the walls of the facility.

The owner of the preschool, Erika Huber, had last week begun to remove wallpaper, plaster, and drywall from the school’s interior, but did not have a permit for the work.

On the morning of Monday March 31, the construction work was discovered by an inspector after heavy dust triggered the school’s fire alarm. School was dismissed at 11am that day, and the three children present were sent home early.

Erika Huber said that asbestos wasn’t present in the air, but was present in the plaster or wallpaper she had been removing. “We are planning on doing procedures to do the correct things to remedy this issue. We should have this fixed by Tuesday.” She also said that only her own two children had been present in the facility during the construction project.

However, even if Huber claims there was no visible dust, asbestos may still be present in the air. The most dangerous asbestos fibers are thinner than a human hair, and are too small to be seen with the naked eye. What might appear as “normal” dust might actually contain microscopic asbestos fibers.

Inhalation of asbestos dust is known to cause serious lung diseases, including a chronic inflammatory disease called asbestosis, and an aggressive lung cancer called pleural mesothelioma.

While it’s not known whether or not the risks of developing cancer are greater in children exposed to asbestos, there have been cases where children who were exposed to the substance developed mesothelioma in their early thirties.

According the village’s Building, Planning and Zoning Director Bob Nowak, around half of the preschool’s first floor was under construction, and dust had been spread throughout the construction area. However, the small building had no doors in some parts, so there was the possibility that dust had spread to other areas of the school.

On Tuesday April 1, students were prevented from entering the preschool by members of the Department of Children and Family Services.

A village administrator said that “This building cannot be occupied for business until she gets it cleaned up and it needs to be handled by a qualified company,” while a village trustee, Rick Dudek, said the village would work with the preschool to ensure it was safe before being reopened.

Madison County, Illinois – The estate of an Illinois woman who died from mesothelioma earlier this year has filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in Madison County, Illinois. The lawsuit claims the woman’s death was due to wrongful causes.

The deceased, Geraldine James, worked from 1973 to 1997 as a secretary and school monitor in several Illinois locations. She was diagnosed with mesothelioma on November 7, 2007.

According to the lawsuit, Geraldine James was exposed to asbestos at work, and also while carrying out home and automotive repairs. The lawsuit alleges that products she was working with and around were releasing airborne asbestos fibers, which James inhaled or otherwise ingested.

The lawsuit names a total of 45 defendants, including RPM International, RPM Inc., John Crane, Owens-Illinois, Pneumo Abex, Bondex International, Garlock, Georgia-Pacific, and Young Insulation Group.

Among the allegations made in the lawsuit are that the defendants named either knew or should have known that the asbestos fibers in their products were highly hazardous to health, and that exposure could cause the development of serious diseases.

In addition, the lawsuit claims that the defendants added asbestos to their products even though acceptable substitute materials were available. The suit also claims that the defendants failed to provide instructions on how to work with and around asbestos and asbestos-containing products safely. Finally, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to provide their employees with information about hygiene practices that could prevent or reduce the likelihood of transporting asbestos fibers home from the workplace.

These types of negligence, claim the lawsuit, exposed Geraldine James to asbestos and caused her to develop mesothelioma, an asbestos-related disease that develops only as a consequence of exposure to asbestos. Pleural mesothelioma is a type of cancer that develops in the lining of the lungs. It is a highly aggressive cancer that is all but incurable.

According to claims made by the estate, Geraldine James suffered considerable mental and physical pain and anguish, and also lost a considerable amount of money in unearned wages, due to being unable to work.

The lawsuit filed by the estate seeks compensatory damages of at least $300,000.  In addition, the suit seeks punitive damages, claiming that “an award of punitive damages is appropriate and necessary in order to punish the defendants for willful, wanton, intentional and reckless misconduct and to deter them and others from engaging in like misconduct in the future.”

MADISON COUNTY, Illinois - On March 19, a Michigan man filed suit against 55 defendants, claiming that they are responsible for the asbestos exposure that resulted in his developing mesothelioma.

The suit filed by Charles Bird, Jr., states that his father was employed at Teledyne Continental Motors from the 1920s through the 1940s, and that he was exposed to asbestos fibers from his father’s clothing.

According to the complaint, when his father was at work, dust created by working with and around asbestos and asbestos-containing products would “permeate the person and clothing of the plaintiff’s father”, and that dust contained asbestos fibers.

The suit further alleges that his father would bring home asbestos dust on his clothing, and the dust would become airborne again, thus exposing him to the hazardous asbestos fibers.

The complaint states that Bird was repeatedly exposed to this asbestos from his father’s person and clothing.

In addition, Bird was employed as a welder, laborer and service station attendant from 1963 to 1995 in various locations, including locations in the state of Illinois. The suit also alleges that Bird was exposed to asbestos during non-occupational work projects such as home and automotive maintenance, repairs and remodeling.

The suit alleges that Bird was diagnosed with mesothelioma on February 21 and subsequently became aware that his illness was wrongfully caused. The counts of the suit include the following:

The defendants failed to require and advise their employees of hygiene practices that would reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home. Because of the negligence, Bird’s suit states that he was exposed to fibers containing asbestos and developed a disease caused only by asbestos, and that disease has disabled and disfigured him.

The suit also claims that Bird has sought but has not been able to obtain full disclosure of relevant documents and information form the defendants, which leads him to believe that the defendants destroyed documents related to asbestos.

The complaint states that a reasonable person in the position of the defendants could have foreseen that the documents and information were evidence material to potential asbestos litigation. Because each defendant breached its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying those documents and information, Bird’s suit claims that he has been impaired in proving claims against all potential parties.

The suit seeks damages in excess of $200,000 plus punitive damages, which it claims are appropriate and necessary to punish the defendants, and to deter the defendants and others from engaging in like misconduct in the future.

Madison County, Illinois – A Michigan man has filed a lawsuit at Madison County Circuit Court in connection with claims of both primary and secondary asbestos exposure. The lawsuit names a total of 55 defendants.

Charles Bird, Jr. was diagnosed with mesothelioma on 21 February 2008 and says that following the diagnosis he became aware that the illness was “wrongfully caused.”

Bird claims that secondary asbestos exposure occurred when his father was employed at Teledyne Continental Motors from the early 1920s to the 1940s. Bird’s father was a factory worker.

The complaint alleges that “Dust created by working with and around asbestos and asbestos-containing products would permeate the person and clothing of the plaintiff’s father” and that “This dust contained asbestos fiber.”

According to Bird, his father would unwittingly bring asbestos dust home on his clothing, and “The plaintiff would be repeatedly exposed to this asbestos dust from his father’s person and clothing.”

Charles Bird, Jr. also claims that he experienced primary asbestos exposure. He was employed as a welder, laborer, and service station attendant from 1963 to 1995, in various locations, including Illinois.

Bird also claims to have been exposed to asbestos during home work projects such as automotive repairs, home repairs and maintenance, and remodeling.

The complaint alleges that the defendants were negligent in failing to require their employees to perform hygiene measures that could prevent asbestos fibers being carried home and also failed to advise their employees that such measures existed.

Charles Bird, Jr. claims that as a result of the negligence, he has been exposed to asbestos fibers, and has developed a disabling and disfiguring asbestos-related disease.

Bird has also alleged that the defendants have destroyed certain documents relating to asbestos and asbestos use. Bird claims that he sought full disclosure of relevant documents from the defendants but has not been able to obtain it.

The complaint says “It was foreseeable to a reasonable person/entity in the respective positions of defendants, that said documents and information constituted evidence, which was material to potential civil litigation—namely asbestos litigation.”

The suit claims that because the defendants have breached their duty to preserve material evidence, Bird has been prejudiced and impaired in his ability to prove his claims. This, says the suit, means that Bird has suffered not only from an asbestos-related disease, but also from a reduced ability to claim damages and compensation from the potentially liable parties.

Charles Bird, Jr. is seeking compensatory damages of more than $200,000, as well as punitive damages, which, according to the complaint, is necessary to “punish defendants for their willful, wanton, intentional and/or reckless misconduct.”

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.