Archive for the ‘Ohio’ Category

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.