Archive for the ‘Ohio’ Category

East Liverpool, Ohio – A meeting between East Liverpool officials and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has been scheduled for May 28, for discussion of the proposed $30,000 fine the agency plans to impose on the city.

The incident which prompted the fine came to light in May 2005, says Jim Swoger, Mayor of East Liverpool. 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 and buried by Earl Taylor at a clean landfill site on city-owned property. Several days later William Cowan, then-Service Safety Director, notified the Ohio EPA about the asbestos removal and disposal and expressed concerns about the safety of the procedure.

Asbestos removal must be carried out carefully to prevent exposure, which can cause cancer and other serious diseases. Safe and legal removal of asbestos includes wet-removal procedures to prevent dust dispersal.

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.

As it turned out, the removal and disposal of the asbestos was 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 safety standards required to limit the production and spread of asbestos dust. In addition the asbestos was disposed of at a site that was not licensed to receive asbestos waste.

Soon after the problems were discovered, several workers from Cardinal Environmental Services cleaned up the remaining asbestos at the removal site and at the landfill, at a cost of around $15,000.

Subsequently the Ohio EPA notified city officials of its intentions to impose a fine, and gave the city 14 days in which to respond with payment or a negotiation request. East Liverpool will negotiate the fine at the May 28 meeting which has now been scheduled.

Swoger says he doesn’t understand why the EPA has imposed the fine, because city officials didn’t try to hide the incident, the asbestos has been cleaned up, and Earl Taylor himself had already been fined $2,000.

The EPA’s proposed fine of $30,000 will be split, with $24,000 going 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.

When the Southwyck Shopping Mall in Toledo, Ohio, was surveyed on May 2, asbestos and toxic mold were found in the building. As a result the city had threatened to close the building down, giving owners of the mall just 72 hours to clean it up. However, third-party testing carried out on Friday May 9 failed to confirm the presence of asbestos and toxic mold.

During the May 2 inspection, black mold was found on ceilings in the main concourse of the mall. Asbestos was discovered in a store that is currently vacant but City Building Inspection Commissioner Chris Zervos said that maintenance personnel who entered the vacant area could have inadvertently allowed asbestos to escape the contaminated area.

Mall representatives released a statement about the problems, saying they were “surprised by the City of Toledo’s allegations that any unsafe conditions exist in the Mall since the City has conducted regular inspections for the past several years…and until today we had never been notified of anything of this nature.”

The statement also said that the Southwyck Mall and its representatives have taken the city’s allegations seriously and “even though we believe no safety problem exists we have engaged an independent third party inspector to evaluate the situation.”

That third-party inspector, from Watterson Environmental Group of Sylvania, found no visible evidence of airborne asbestos or mold growth in the Southwyck buildings, according to Kenneth C. Baker, a mall management attorney.

Baker said that the Watterson report found “no visible evidence of suspect mold growth on the interior, exposed surfaces of the skylights of the mall,” and “no obvious visible evidence that any airborne asbestos debris is being tracked into the mall.”

However, the mall isn’t yet free to remain open. Carty Finkbeiner, Mayor of Toledo, said that the building would have to undergo yet another inspection. Last week, the mayor said, “I hope it does not come to the point where we have to shut down the mall. If it does come to that, the city of Toledo department of development will work with current tenants to assist them in their relocation efforts.”

Baker also said that the mall owners had not received “the results of any analytical tests by the city or anyone else which would lead us to conclude that any asbestos dust has escaped from the sealed-off.”

In addition, says Baker, mall management “fully expects that all of the issues which may have caused the city to issue its closure notice will have been addressed to the city’s satisfaction by the opening of business on Monday.”

Lisbon, Ohio – South of Lisbon, Ohio, the A&L Salvage Landfill is a sight for sore eyes—and noses. Apart from the dust and the smell, however, residents are concerned more about the possibility of asbestos exposure. After allegations made by locals of improper asbestos handling, the Environmental Protection Agency may even step in and take action.

Local resident John Richmond says he shot four videos of day-to-day operations at the A&L Landfill, and claims that his videos show employees handling bags of asbestos in an unsafe manner.

The videos show, says Richmond, that harmful asbestos dust is being released into the air. “I’m not anti-landfill; the stuff has to go somewhere. Everybody makes the stuff that goes into these places, but there’s a right way and a wrong way to do this, and this is constantly done the wrong way.

Residents who live near the landfill say they’ve been concerned about water contamination and dust clouds at the site for a long time.

Karen Ray, a local who lives close to the site, says, “The chemicals and things like that are going into the water we’re drinking. I have three children and that’s just something you have to think about. Not only from now but what’s going to happen to them with their health in the future.”

John Richmond believes it’s time the Ohio EPA forces the A&L Landfill comply with state codes, or shut the operation down. Richmond turned his video footage over to the EPA, and the agency has since asked the state Attorney General to deny the A&L Landfill—which allegedly has as many as 23 previous violations—a continuing operating license.

The A&L Landfill Director of Operations, Stephen Callahan, has attempted to reassure neighbors that everything possible is being done to minimize risk at the site.

“I think that we can give them some level of comfort that they’re not being exposed to anything dangerous,” Callahan says. “We understand it’s a landfill and that’s not the preferred neighbor to have, but I think if they could continue to educate themselves on what we do, that they will have much less concern on what goes on at the site.”

Stephen Callahan has encouraged locals to visit the facility if they have any questions. For now, though, talks between the A&L Landfill and the Ohio EPA continue, and nothing has yet been decided.

Toledo, Ohio – Southwyck Shopping Center, the Toledo, Ohio mall with asbestos and toxic mold issues released a statement following the news that the center would be closed after the weekend if its health and safety issues weren’t resolved at that time.

City Building Inspection Commissioner Chris Zervos said that the present condition of the mall is a health hazard for employees and the public, and that management has just 72 hours to clean up the mold and contain the asbestos so that the public is not at risk of exposure. If the problems aren’t fixed by Monday, says the city’s statement, the mall will be closed down.

Inspections of the Southwyck Shopping Mall were carried out on Friday May 2, and the asbestos and mold problems were discovered at that time.

Black mold was found on ceilings in the main concourse of the mall. Asbestos was discovered in a store that is currently vacant but Zervos said that maintenance personnel who entered the vacant area could have inadvertently allowed asbestos to escape the contaminated area.

Carty Finkbeiner, Mayor of Toledo, said “I hope it does not come to the point where we have to shut down the mall. If it does come to that, the city of Toledo department of development will work with current tenants to assist them in their relocation efforts.”

Mall representatives today released a statement about the problems, saying they were “surprised by the City of Toledo’s allegations that any unsafe conditions exist in the Mall since the City has conducted regular inspections for the past several years…and until today we had never been notified of anything of this nature.”

In addition, the statement says that the asbestos is located in a building that is currently vacant and has been vacant for eight years.

“Access from the building to the mall has been sealed off for some time. Mall employees rarely enter the building. Additionally, the building has its own self-contained air handling system and if any ambient air problems were to exist in the building these should not be transmitted into the Mall.”

The statement also says that the Southwyck Mall and its representatives have taken the city’s allegations seriously and “even though we believe no safety problem exists we have engaged an independent third party inspector to evaluate the situation.”

The inspection of the Southwyck Shopping Center is scheduled for the morning of Friday May 9.

Toledo, Ohio – The Southwyck Shopping Mall in Toledo, Ohio, might end up being closed down after the weekend if its owners don’t clean up the asbestos and toxic mold that was found there.

According to a statement from the city of Toledo, Southwyck Mall management will receive 72-hour orders for cleaning up the site.

City Building Inspection Commissioner Chris Zervos said that the present condition of the mall is a health hazard for employees and the public, and that management has just 72 hours to clean up the mold and contain the asbestos so that the public is not at risk of exposure. If the problems aren’t fixed by Monday, says the city’s statement, the mall will be closed down.

Inspections of the Southwyck Shopping Mall were carried out on Friday May 2.

Black mold was found on ceilings in the main concourse of the mall. Asbestos was discovered in a store that is currently vacant but Zervos said that maintenance personnel who entered the vacant area could have inadvertently allowed asbestos to escape the contaminated area.

Carty Finkbeiner, Mayor of Toledo, said “I hope it does not come to the point where we have to shut down the mall. If it does come to that, the city of Toledo department of development will work with current tenants to assist them in their relocation efforts.”

In addition, said Finkbeiner, “We don’t want to inconvenience these business owners or their employees. But we have a responsibility to protect their health and the health of the general public.”

The mall is currently somewhat empty, with just six stores present. Developer Larry Dillin is attempting to buy the site.

However, a buyer might get more than they bargain for. Asbestos in one location means it’s likely to be present in many other places in Southwyck Shopping mall.

Asbestos was so widely used in construction between the 1940s and 1980s that it might be present in many different materials used to build the mall.

Abatement or removal of asbestos can be particularly costly due to the necessary precautionary measures needed when handling and working with the substance. Many states require professionally trained asbestos workers to carry out abatement, and have strict regulations that control how asbestos is removed and disposed of.

Disposal of asbestos waste, for example, is around three times more expensive than disposal of non-hazardous waste. Failure to comply with a state’s asbestos laws can bring costly penalties.

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.

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.

Wayne County, Ohio – An asbestos-removal company based in Toledo, Ohio, was fined a total of $12,600 for the mishandling of hazardous materials.

The asbestos-removal company is Total Environmental Services. According to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, the company failed to comply with the state’s asbestos emission control regulations during an asbestos abatement project carried out in 2006.

Most states have laws pertaining to the safe removal, containment, and disposal of asbestos-containing construction materials and waste.

Ohio is no exception: there are certain safety-enhancing practices that must be carried out by asbestos abatement and removal companies that are working with the toxin. Failure to comply with the laws can result in fines, as is the case for Total Environmental Services, and may even result in jail time depending on the circumstances and the severity of the violations.

Safe removal of asbestos includes a requirement to wet asbestos-containing materials during the process of removal and containment. Wetting the materials greatly limits the potential for inhalable asbestos fibers becoming airborne.

In its dry state, when asbestos is disturbed it can break up into tiny fibers that have a much higher chance of becoming airborne. The health risks of airborne asbestos include the development of a cancer called mesothelioma, which can develop in the lining of the lungs after exposure to inhalable asbestos fibers.

According to the EPA, “The company [Total Environmental Services] failed to adequately wet asbestos-containing material that had been stripped from Gourley Hall at Ohio State University’s Agricultural Research and Development Center in Wooster. The company also neglected to wet the asbestos-containing waste while collecting and bagging it for disposal.”

Inspectors for the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency discovered and documented the violations in February of 2006. The violations were discovered when inspectors examined disposal bags containing asbestos waste at the Gourley Hall site. The company corrected the problem immediately by wetting the contents of the disposal bags, but the violations still stand.

In its April 4 press release about the incident and the fines, the Ohio EPA indicated that the fine money would contribute to several different environmental funds. The $12,600 that Total Environmental Services must pay includes $2,520 to be paid to the Ohio EPA’s clean diesel school bus program, $5,040 for the Ohio Environmental Education Fund, and $5040 to help administer the Ohio EPA’s air pollution control programs.

BELLAIRE, Ohio – The contractor who is handling the demolition of a historic downtown building says that the EPA is wrong about asbestos in the building, and their mistake could add nearly $150,000 to the demolition costs.

On February 18, the EPA issued an order to halt demolition at the historic downtown Bellaire building because, they said, the building is riddled with asbestos, which must be removed before the rest of the building can be demolished.

The four story building caught fire and burned to a shell in December of 2007. The demolition originally began on January 23, and was expected to take 90 days and cost the small village $50,000. Contractor Nick Masciarelli knew from the start that the EPA would have to inspect the structure for the presence of asbestos and approve an abatement plan before the demolition could be completed. He and his crew intended to remove the top ten feet of the structure by hand, and then have the EPA inspect.

On February 18, Masciarelli’s work crews took off a front wall, and discovered what they thought was asbestos. Work was halted immediately and the EPA called. The agency confirmed the suspicion, and Masciarelli prepared to have the asbestos removed.

Asbestos, widely used in building construction before 1980, is often found in older buildings, and can become a problem during renovations and demolition because of the potential for asbestos fibers to become airborne. Asbestos dust is easily inhaled, but once it is in the body, it can cause serious health problems. While the effects of asbestos are not immediate, they can be devastating, and include lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis. For that reason, the EPA requires that buildings that contain asbestos must be handled with care and precautionary measures.

The precautionary measures include both handling of the asbestos while it is being removed and the eventual disposal of any materials that are contaminated with asbestos. Asbestos-containing materials and any debris that is contaminated with asbestos dust must be disposed of at special landfills that are licensed to deal with the contamination. That is where the issue lies for Masciarelli. The contractor claims that the EPA has overestimated the amount of asbestos in the building.

According to the EPA, the entire building is full of dangerous asbestos. Removing all of the tainted items and shipping them to a specialized landfill would quadruple the original cost estimate of demolishing the four story building. The original estimate was for $50,000 for the ninety day contract. Asbestos removal, if the EPA is right, could add an additional $150,000 to the cost of the job.

And according to Masciarelli, the EPA is wrong. The contractor brought in another independent hazardous waste testing firm to check up on the EPA’s findings. According to Masciarelli, the independent tests showed that the only asbestos concern in the building is the old boiler in the basement. Boilers and furnaces were often wrapped in asbestos coatings for insulation and fireproofing purposes.

If that’s the case, then the contractor can simply remove the boiler and dispose of it, then finish the demolition as planned. He has passed on his test findings to the EPA and is awaiting their ruling on the subject.

March 12, 2008 – Judge Paul E. Pfeifer, Ohio Supreme Court Justice, this week commented in an article that provided some insight into an asbestos disability compensation case that was resolved on October 23, 2007.

Judge Pfeifer commented on a worker’s compensation case that focuses on Ferall L. Limle, who had been a DuPont employee for almost 27 years before leaving the company in 1992 to work for the Zane Trace school district.

Limle was diagnosed with asbestosis, pneumoconiosis, and pleural disease in 2001. Asbestosis is a chronic lung disease that is characterized by lung scarring and symptoms such as painful and difficult breathing. As the name of this debilitating disease suggests the only cause of asbestosis is exposure to asbestos.

Limle had been exposed to asbestos during the years of his employment with DuPont. Following the diagnosis, Limle filed a workers’ compensation claim for the asbestos-related conditions. Three years later he filed for permanent total disability compensation.

This second claim was considered by the Industrial Commission of Ohio. Among the evidence discussed were reports from Dr. Michael L. Corriveau, who estimated that Limle was 75% work-impaired as a result of the asbestos-related conditions, and further stated that Limle was not capable of physical work-related activity.

Limle was granted permanent total disability compensation based on this and other medical reports. The Commission’s findings included that Limle was medically incapable of permanent employment, and further that his retirement from DuPont was not a voluntary “abandonment of employment.”

However, Limle’s former employer, DuPont, disagreed, and filed a complaint with the court of appeals, alleging that the commission’s decision constituted an abuse of discretion. The court of appeals is the next step in the process of deciding a workers’ compensation claim.

The DuPont complaint was not upheld, and the court of appeals agreed that the commission’s findings were based on solid evidence from Limle’s doctors.

Finally, the case came before the Ohio Supreme Court. Judge Pfeifer notes two important points here. First was DuPont’s claim that other non-related medical conditions suffered by Limle were included in the medical assessment, and contributed to an incorrect medical evaluation. That, says Judge Pfeifer, was simply “not true.”

DuPont also claimed that Limle should not be compensated because he had retired from DuPont before becoming disabled, he should be ineligible for total permanent disability. Judge Pfeifer, however, notes that Limle did not leave the labor market entirely, so the claim cannot be negated on that basis.
In addition, says Judge Pfeifer, the Supreme Court considered a previous legal decision made in 1995, in which the court upheld a similar case in which claimants had suffered long-latency diseases that did not manifest until after retirement.

This, says Judge Pfeifer, illustrates another reason why DuPont’s argument was wrong. Long-latency occupational diseases can manifest decades after exposure, and in the intervening years the affected person may be completely unaware of the exposure and the resulting health risks.

After consideration of these facts, the court voted by a seven-to-zero margin that Ferral L. Limle’s retirement from DuPont did not affect his eligibility for the claim for permanent total disability.