Archive for the ‘New York’ Category

Fairmont, New York - The most recent deadline for an asbestos abatement project in Goldens Bridge has come and gone, and town officials have extended the deadline yet again.

Town officials have made several efforts to get property owner Brian Stein to clean up the three dilapidated cottages on the property, but Stein has not responded to any requests. All three of the dilapidated cottages contain asbestos, which must be removed before the cottages can be demolished.

Members of the Town Board finally agreed that the town would complete the work and temporarily cover the costs involved.

Asbestos, which is known to cause an aggressively lethal type of cancer called mesothelioma, was widely used in construction materials for much of the twentieth century, and due to the widespread use of the substance, older buildings must be demolished with special care.

Older buildings which contain asbestos must have all the asbestos removed before demolition can go ahead, to prevent the generation and dispersal of large clouds of asbestos dust which could contaminate the environment and be breathed in by locals.

Removal of asbestos is costly and time-consuming, however, due to the need for specially trained and licensed workers, the need for special removal techniques to limit the production of dust, and the increased costs of disposal of asbestos-containing materials.

Area residents have been complaining for almost a decade that the three cottages are dangerous, not only due to asbestos, but also due simply to their run-down state.

Three successive town administrations have had discussions on what to do about the situation, but no action was taken until this year, when Town Supervisor Edward Brancati gave Stein a deadline of May 19 to locate and hire a contractor to carry out the asbestos remediation, but the deadline passed with no progress made.

Stein responded with a letter stating that he was “appalled at [officials'] behavior and blatant lies.” Stein claims that he had been negotiating a contract with an asbestos abatement contractor, and that town officials had interfered and caused the deal to fall through.

Even so, the town has issued yet another deadline, saying that Stein now has until Monday June 9 to contact officials. Bracanti says of the new deadline, “This is really it. It’s June 9 and I am not kidding.”

Two contractors have this week been fined as a result of improper handling of asbestos-containing materials. They are the Cinter Construction Company, Inc. of Williamsburg, VA and AAPEX Environmental Services Inc. of Liverpool, NY.

Asbestos was a common component of construction materials up until the 1980s due to its high fire resistance and other desirable factors, but the demolition or renovation of older buildings means the asbestos they contain must be dealt with appropriately.

Dumping of asbestos-containing waste in any location other than a licensed landfill is illegal due to the hazards associated with asbestos exposure. Inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause lethal diseases such as asbestosis and mesothelioma due to the chronic inflammation that the fibers cause in the lungs.

Due to the hazards of asbestos exposure, removal and disposal of the substance must be carried out in accordance with strict state and federal regulations. This means asbestos must be removed from buildings using specific safe methods, and must only be disposed of at landfill sites which are equipped and licensed to handle the substance.

Failure to adhere to laws and regulations controlling asbestos handling can lead to hefty fines, as the two contractors discovered this week.

The Williamsburg, Virginia incident concerns the Cinter Construction Company, Inc., which was found by the Department of Environmental Quality to have dumped asbestos-containing waste from a $14 million Navy housing construction site in downtown Newport News.

The construction company had illegally dumped asbestos waste at a Suffolk landfill, mistakenly believing it was uncontaminated soil. However, when DEQ officials took samples of the twenty truckloads of waste dumped at the landfill, they found that asbestos was present.

The second incident, in Liverpool, New York, occurred after a contractor admitted in federal court to illegally removing and disposing of asbestos-containing materials. The contractor admitted to having been handling asbestos illegally for more than ten years.

AAPEX Environmental Services Inc. of Liverpool, NY also admitted to defrauding an insurance company. It had done so by failing to inform its insurer that it was carrying out activities in which asbestos handling was involved, in order to obtain lower insurance premiums.

AAPEX Environmental Services Inc. has agreed to pay a fine of $166,700 as part of a plea deal. The deal also involves an agreement to permanently cease handling asbestos-related work.

Corinth, New York - Clean up of asbestos-laden fire debris has been a week-long job in the village of Corinth, New York, where fire destroyed three businesses on the town’s main street in February.

Clean up of the burned-out building sites began on Thursday and could be finished as early as Monday, says site supervisor for Rensselaer-based BCL Services Inc, Brian Hladik.

The presence of asbestos in the burned buildings has increased the cost of the clean up somewhat. Asbestos was a common addition to many different types of construction materials up until the 1980s. Cheap, light, durable and highly fire resistant, asbestos was typically considered something of a “wonder mineral” and was used in appliances, fire-resistant protective fabric, and many other items in addition to construction materials.

However, many businesses and home-owners and workers are now paying the price, due not only to the high cost of asbestos abatement and removal, but also to the personal costs of asbestos exposure, in the form of chronic lung diseases and asbestos cancer.

Cleaning up a burned out building which contains asbestos construction materials is a difficult and time-consuming-not to mention expensive-process due to the precautions which must be taken to protect workers and the public from asbestos exposure, and to prevent the release of asbestos fibers into the environment.

Asbestos fibers are considered safe as long as they are trapped within the matrix of construction materials such as cement products and plasters. However, damage such as remodeling, demolition, and fire damage breaks up construction materials and can potentially release large amounts of inhalable asbestos fibers into the air.

For workers involved in cleaning up the three Main Street businesses in Corinth, that means extra precautions taken to prevent asbestos exposure and release of asbestos fibers.

For the business owners, that means extra expenses incurred in clean up, due not only to the measures that must be taken on site, but also because disposal of asbestos containing waste is around three times more expensive than disposal of non-hazardous waste.

Luckily for these business owners, the clean up has been partly funded by a “small cities” grant which was given to the village. In mid-May, members of the Village Board voted to help the owners of the businesses clean up the sites by providing a subsidy of $74,000.

New York - Town officials of Goldens Bridge in New York say they have made ever effort to have property owner Brian Stein complete the repairs needed to make his property at 28 Fairmount Road in Goldens Bridge less hazardous, but to no avail.

Members of the Town Board have now agreed that the town will complete the work and temporarily cover the costs involved.

The town had previously asked Brian Stein to contract out the work that would be required to safely demolish three summer cottages on the seven acre Fairmount Road property. All three of the dilapidated cottages contain asbestos, which must be removed before the cottages can be demolished.

Asbestos, which is known to cause an aggressively lethal type of asbestos cancer called mesothelioma, was widely used in construction materials for much of the twentieth century, and due to the widespread use of the substance, older buildings must be demolished with special care.

Older buildings which contain asbestos must have all the asbestos removed before demolition can go ahead, to prevent the generation and dispersal of large clouds of asbestos dust which could contaminate the environment and be breathed in by locals.

Removal of asbestos is costly and time-consuming, however, due to the need for specially trained and licensed workers, the need for special removal techniques to limit the production of dust, and the increased costs of disposal of asbestos-containing materials.

Area residents have been complaining for almost a decade that the three cottages are dangerous, not only due to asbestos, but also due simply to their run-down state.

Three successive town administrations have had discussions on what to do about the situation, but no action was taken until this year, when Town Supervisor Edward Brancati gave Stein a deadline of May 19 to locate and hire a contractor to carry out the asbestos remediation, but the deadline has passed with no progress made.

According to Edward Brancati, “The Town Board is now authorizing our building department to move forward with this. We will work with our own consultants to apply to the New York State DEC [Department of Environmental Conservation] for the required permits so we can begin demolition at the Fairmount Road property.”

Town officials said that the DEC usually takes between two and three weeks to respond to requests, but hope that the work can begin quickly once the permit is received. All of the costs the town incurs in getting the work done will be charged to Brian Stein.

After the Manhattan Institute released its damning report on asbestosis lawsuit scams, a doctor who has been involved in testifying as an expert witness commented on the situation.

Dr. David Weill, who has testified twice as an asbestosis expert before Senate committees, is the director of the Lung and Heart-Lung Transplant at the Stanford University Medical Center.

Asbestosis, says Weill, is a “pretty serious thing, possibly fatal.” That makes it frustrating that thousands of fake asbestosis claims have made it difficult for the genuine asbestosis sufferers to obtain fair compensation for their injuries.

Weill says that the genuine claims “get diluted out by the false claims.” In the very large class action lawsuits, plaintiffs often receive only a few thousand dollars. A windfall for people who don’t actually have the disease, but for people who are genuinely affected by asbestosis, a few thousand dollars can’t begin to compensate them for the way their lives are changed by the disease.

In recent years, Weill helped uncover facts about a massive scam that was carried out in Texas. It was discovered that plaintiffs suing for compensation for silicosis had already received compensation for asbestosis, a disease with an entirely different cause. The scam involved both lawyers and doctors, and the manufacture of thousands of false silicosis claims.

In testifying to the Senate, Weill explained that on an x-ray asbestosis and silicosis look like entirely different diseases, and furthermore than it “would be extremely unusual for one person in a working lifetime to have sufficient exposure to both types of dust to cause both diseases.”

In addition, said Weill, “outside the litigation setting, confusion between silicosis and asbestosis does not occur.”

Weill says that the attempted fraud in the Texas case was so blatant that the same plaintiff was diagnosed with asbestosis by one screening firm in February, and the next month was diagnosed with silicosis by another screening firm. However, in both cases the screening firm didn’t pick up any symptoms of the other disease. According to Weill, a treating physician would have diagnosed both silicosis and asbestosis in the same x-ray if both diseases were present.

However, in these massive class action suits, the physicians who read the x-rays rarely had any contact with the patients who supposedly had the diseases.

Weill was later hired by W.R. Grace & Company to help design a clinical study of the asbestos claims that had been made against the company. The study demonstrated that more than 80% of the asbestosis claims that had been made against W.R. Grace & Company were actually false.

The American Bar Association has been supporting federal legislation that would establish specific medical criteria for asbestos-related litigation since 2003. However, the Manhattan Institute report says even that may not be enough, as unscrupulous attorneys might soon find ways around such legislation.

A new report from the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy part of a series of reports called “Trial Lawyers, Inc.,” describes how some unscrupulous attorneys have turned to profiteering and “abusive litigation” involving asbestos.

The Manhattan Institute’s report centers on the practice of using class action lawsuits to generate thousands of false asbestos claims. This practice, says the report, not only allows people to claim compensation falsely; it also means that people who are genuinely affected by asbestos-related diseases don’t get the compensation they need or deserve.

The report proposes four law reforms that, it says, will “prevent the worst of [the] documented abuses.”

First, the report says, medical criteria laws should be established, to prevent the practice of mass screening. The report points to an example of a law passed in Texas in 2005 as a good example of such a reform: “Texas legislation outlaws mass screenings, requires a certified medical report, and places mesothelioma and other malignant cases at the front of court dockets.”

Second, states should prevent trial lawyers from “forum-shopping.” This refers to the practice of lawyers hunting down the states and court rooms that are most likely to look upon their cases favorably. A good example, says the report, are the laws established in Mississippi in 2004, where “a plaintiff could file a claim only in the county in which he resided, where the defendant corporation was headquartered, or where the injury actually occurred. In addition, Mississippi’s reform required that the rule apply to every plaintiff so that lawyers could not bundle claims together and ship them to a permissive county where only one of the plaintiffs resides.”

Third, says the Manhattan Institute, states could adopt “joint-and-several” liability reforms that would solve the “solvent defendant” problem. This problem occurs when lawyers sue companies that are more or less unrelated to the manufacture of asbestos products. The report suggests that such companies should not be held “severally liable.” meaning they shouldn’t be held 100% responsible for asbestos-related damages in cases where they are not 100% responsible for a plaintiff’s injuries.

Fourth, the practice of “double-dipping,” where plaintiffs can win compensation multiple times for related conditions, should be outlawed to prevent scams of the type that was uncovered in Texas in 2005. In that scam, plaintiffs were receiving compensation for both asbestosis and silicosis in separate lawsuits.

The Manhattan Institute report also points out, however, that “judges, prosecutors, and even corporate defendants must be involved in defeating the asbestos litigation morass.”

A new report from the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy part of a series of reports called “Trial Lawyers, Inc.,” describes how some unscrupulous attorneys have turned to profiteering and “abusive litigation” involving asbestos.

The Manhattan Institute’s report centers on the practice of using class action lawsuits to generate thousands of false asbestos claims. This practice, says the report, not only allows people to claim compensation falsely; it also means that people who are genuinely affected by asbestos-related diseases don’t get the compensation they need or deserve.

The business of asbestos-related lawsuits began in the 1970s: since then, more than eighty companies have declared bankruptcy as a direct result of dealing with hundreds or thousands of lawsuits. Their insurers have paid more than $70 billion in asbestos-related claims. However, the report points out that of that $70 billion, attorneys received $19 billion and $21 billion went to pay court fees: only $30 billion actually reached the plaintiffs.

The report says that some attorneys have set up asbestos litigation as a business with “sophisticated marketing to attract thousands of claimants,” and that attorneys “package claims together to overwhelm defendants and courts.” It criticizes attorneys that bully plaintiffs into accepting settlements that are more profitable for the lawyer than their client.

In addition, says the Manhattan Institute report, “much of modern asbestos litigation has involved the filing of lawsuits by individuals who aren’t sick against companies that never made the product alleged to have caused their sickness.”

That’s not to say there are no real plaintiffs-there are plenty of those. And most lawyers involved in these cases aren’t resorting to these types of dirty tactics. But the problem definitely exists.

Asbestos litigation has gotten out of hand because plaintiff attorneys involved in class action lawsuits have begun advertising for people to join in those suits-but the attorneys aren’t always picky about whether or not all of the plaintiffs actually have asbestos-related diseases.

There have even been cases where attorneys have paid doctors to read diagnostic x-rays and falsely diagnose people with asbestosis.

Massive fraud was discovered in one case where U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack unearthed facts about plaintiffs suing for compensation for silicosis had already received compensation for asbestosis, a disease with an entirely different cause.

Since 2003 the American Bar Association has supported federal legislation that would establish specific medical criteria for asbestos-related litigation.
However, the Manhattan Institute report says even that may not be enough, as unscrupulous attorneys are always on the lookout for new ways to profit from asbestos-related claims.

New York City, New York - On Wednesday April 30, New York City lifted the stop-work order that had delayed deconstruction of a condemned skyscraper adjacent to the ground zero site of the WTC attacks. The stop-work order had been in effect for eight months, since a fire at the site had killed two firefighters.

The stop-work order on the former Deutsche Bank building was lifted after contractors spent several weeks building new systems control any future fires that might occur at the site.

The Deutsche Bank building was severely damages after the September 11, 2001 attacks: The World Trade Center’s south tower collapsed into the building, creating enormous clouds of toxic dust, including asbestos, lead, glass dust, and other toxins.

The fire that broke out at the former Deutsche Bank building on August 18, 2007 is believed to have been sparked by a discarded cigarette. The grand jury criminal investigation saw work stopped at the site.

Avi Schick, chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., the state agency that owns the building, said that now the order has been lifted a total of 300 workers can be employed at the site, “We have entered a new critical phase that will enable us to bring a hundred additional workers on to the building to finish abating it, taking us a step closer to completing this project.”

Deconstruction of the building was originally scheduled for completion in 2005, but the schedule was readjusted for a 2008 completion. After the 2007 fire, the deconstruction is now scheduled for completion in 2009.

The workers will be removing tons of toxic asbestos-containing materials from the remaining nineteen floors of the building that haven’t yet been decontaminated. Workers will be on-the-job six days a week to ensure the project is completed according to its latest deadline.

Decontamination barriers used at the site-which were made from plywood and polyethylene sheets-have been implicated in the spread of the fire.

Since February, LVI Environmental Services has been at the site restoring the barriers using more fire-resistant materials. In addition, two interior fire-rated stairwells have been constructed. Fire control measures within the decontamination chambers in the building have also been improved.

These changes should make it safer for asbestos removal workers at the site in the event that another fire occurs.

Cayuga County, New York – John Chick, the former Cayuga County carpenter who was convicted of conspiring to violate the Federal Clean Air Act, has said that he has stepped up and admitted his mistake, and that now it’s time for others involved in the illegal asbestos removal to do the same.

John Chick was sentenced to fifteen months in prison after pleading guilty to illegal asbestos removal and will begin serving his sentence on May 20. In addition to the fifteen month prison sentence, a further sentence of three years supervision following his release from prison, as well as ordering him to pay a total of $108,000 restitution, to cover the costs of cleaning up the asbestos waste.

The incident for which Chick received the sentence took place during February 2006, when he illegally displaced and removed asbestos-containing materials from the Cayuga County Board of Elections building.

However, Chick claimed he had not acted alone, but had been told to remove the asbestos by his supervisors. Chick’s defense attorney named two other people who he claimed should have shouldered some of the responsibility for the illegal asbestos removal.

One of these was former Building and Grounds Superintendent Ernie DeCaro, who had testified to knowing about the illegal asbestos removal. DeCaro claimed that he had told Cayuga County Legislator George Fearon. However, Fearon denied having any knowledge of the activities.

Earlier this week, Chick said that it was time for other people involved in the incident to admit their responsibility, including George Fearon, who Chick claims to have told about the asbestos before removing it.

Chick says he told Fearon in February 2006 before removing the asbestos that there was a “probability” that asbestos was present in the insulation surrounding the pipes. Fearon, however, claims that he had no idea asbestos had been removed from the area illegally until the June 2006 investigation of the incident.

In response, Chick claimed that Fearon had given conflicting testimony and that Fearon knew what Chick was doing about the asbestos insulation. Chick said he had showed Fearon the material and said it could contain asbestos, and that they spoke about the problem for an hour or longer.

Fearon said the conversation lasted only a few minutes, and also said he may have known asbestos was present, but had no idea that Chick had planned to remove it. Fearon said he believed the asbestos would not be touched and therefore wouldn’t be a problem.

Auburn, New York – John Chick, the Cayuga County carpenter who was sentenced to fifteen months in prison after pleading guilty to illegal asbestos removal, will begin serving his sentence this week at a minimum security prison in Allenwood, PA.

The sentence was announced on Thursday March 6, 2008. Presiding Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. gave Chick a further sentence of three years supervision following his release from prison, as well as ordering him to pay a total of $108,000 restitution.

The illegal asbestos removal took place at the Cayuga County Board of Elections building during February 2006. The incident occurred following the breakdown of the building’s boiler. During the work carried out in the building, -containing materials were displaced. Pieces of the materials were taken to the Auburn landfill.

The building was closed in August 2006 when air quality tests revealed the presence of airborne asbestos fibers. The building was closed for several weeks for asbestos abatement and removal, at a cost of $134,000.

During 2006 and 2007 around thirty county employees and members of the public filed claims against the county due to possible asbestos exposure.

In January 2007, John Chick pled guilty to one charge of conspiracy to violate the federal Clean Air Act, and agreed to cooperate with the investigation of the incident.

In court, Chick claimed he had not acted alone, but had been told to illegally remove the asbestos by supervisors. Chick’s defense attorney named two other people who, he said, should have taken some measure of responsibility for the incident.

One of these was former Building and Grounds Superintendent Ernie DeCaro, who had testified to knowing about the illegal asbestos removal. DeCaro claimed to have told Cayuga County Legislator George Fearon, who had denied any knowledge of the activities.

Fearon also claimed Chick had acted alone and out of greed, alleging that Chick removed 600 feet of copper pipe without authorization, and planned to sell the material for personal profit.

In June 2007, a federal prosecutor said that because Chick lied about the involvement of his supervisors during the early part of the investigation it was too late to connect county officials to the incident. During several interviews, Chick denied receiving orders to remove the asbestos. Chick’s defense attorney later said that Chick had lied out of a sense of loyalty to his supervisors.

During the trial, Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. said it was clear that Chick knew what he was doing, knew he was illegally removing asbestos, and knew others might be exposed. However, Scullin seemed to agree that Chick had not acted alone, saying it was clear the former carpenter was acting on the orders of others.

Chick still maintains that he was not the only County employee involved in the incident, and still says Fearon and DiCaro should also be held partially responsible.