Living Near an Asbestos Factory or Mine

Mention mesothelioma and most people picture the victims as those who handled asbestos on a daily basis. Construction workers. Insulators. Tile installers. Welders. Pipe fitters. Steel workers.

But those affected by asbestos-related diseases aren’t always the ones who work directly with the hazardous mineral. Some people are exposed to secondhand asbestos, including the dust that is brought home on the clothes of those who worked with the mineral. Others simply live near a location where asbestos is manufactured or mined.

Consider a case that was recently brought to light in Japan. A news story in a Tokyo newspaper recently reported that four individuals that lived within 500 meters of each other in a densely populated area of that city – known as the Ota Ward – died of mesothelioma between 2007 and 2017.

Their only exposure to asbestos? They lived close to an asbestos factory that operated near their homes until about 1980.

A Tokyo-based grassroots organization known as The Asbestos Center reports that this is the first time that multiple cases of mesothelioma have been found near a former factory in the capital city.

They fear that more such pockets of diagnoses will pop up in the near future as mesothelioma can take decades to appear. It’s a natural assumption as cases of mesothelioma continue to grow in Japan, which finally banned all uses of asbestos in 2012.

Prior to that, asbestos use was abundant.

“According to doctors and others who saw or knew the four patients, they lived around the factory for seven to 76 years,” reports the story in The Mainichi, a daily newspaper in Tokyo. “Three male patients had lived within a 200-meter radius of the factory and died when they were between 73 and 82. The remaining female patient died when she was 59. She had frequented an area near the factory, which was about 500 meters away from her home,” the story explains.

None of them had work experience connected with asbestos and they had lived near the factory for long periods of time,” reiterated Hirokazu Tojima, a specialist on asbestos-induced illnesses at Tokyo Rosai Hospital.

In the U.S., this story isn’t a surprise.

Consider the town of Libby, Montana, where hundreds of residents who didn’t work in the nearby asbestos-tainted vermiculite mine have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases.

Asbestos dust regularly permeated the air in Libby and asbestos tailings were even used in gardens and – alarmingly – on playgrounds.

As a result of this somewhat indirect exposure, many have died.

The lesson learned should be that asbestos is deadly no matter how small the exposure and that individuals need to remain diligent about avoiding any asbestos-containing materials, especially since it has yet to be banned in the United States and can still be found in homes, offices, schools, factories, and numerous other locations.

Ban Asbestos Advocates Dismayed with Latest EPA Move

On June 1, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its “problem formulation” documents for the first ten chemicals under review as required by the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which was signed into law during the Obama administration.

Those chemicals include asbestos.

The “problem formulation”, which was released for public comment, includes a significant new use rule (SNUR) proposal enabling the agency to prevent new uses of asbestos. The EPA contends that this is the first ever such action on asbestos proposed in the United States.

“These actions provide the American people with transparency and an opportunity to comment on how EPA plans to evaluate the ten chemicals undergoing risk evaluation, select studies, and use the best available science to ensure chemicals in the marketplace are safe,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said. “At the same time, we are moving forward to take important, unprecedented action on asbestos.”
So those looking for a ban on asbestos should be pleased, right?

That’s not the case, says Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families’ Acting Director Liz Hitchcock, who claims that the new proposed legislation simply does not go far enough in helping to avoid exposure to toxic asbestos, which causes diseases such as mesothelioma, asbestosis, and other types of cancers.

“We are profoundly disappointed that the asbestos problem formulation released today by the EPA indicates that the agency will not consider legacy uses of asbestos in its risk evaluation of this deadly chemical,” she said.

“With an estimated 15,000 Americans dying each year from diseases associated with asbestos exposure, it’s past time for the EPA to finish the job of protecting human health from this notoriously deadly fiber. If the fatal flaw of ‘old TSCA’ was that the EPA could not use it to ban asbestos, the fatal flaw of the Pruitt EPA is that they will not use reformed TSCA to protect us from asbestos.”

It’s the existing asbestos that’s often a problem when it comes to exposure. Old homes, commercial buildings, and factories that were built prior to the 1970s often contain asbestos, yet the new laws will not make demands for asbestos removal or remediation in those cases.

Construction workers, DIYers, and others involved in demolition, renovations, or remodeling are often the ones unknowingly exposed to the materials, and with no total ban, that’ll remain the same.

The EPA should include all uses and exposures within the scope of risk evaluation, maintains Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families in a publication regarding the TSCA. This would include:

1. The complete life cycle of asbestos use in the chlor-alkali industry, including mining, bagging, shipping, distribution, processing, diaphragm manufacture, use & disposal;
2. All uses of talc and talc-containing products contaminated with asbestos; and
3. The use and disposal of all consumer & commercial products that contain asbestos.

Imerys SA Reports Settling Talc Claims

According to a story published today in Bloomberg, a unit of Imerys SA, a supplier of talc to Johnson & Johnson and various other similar businesses, has agreed to settle claims filed by 22 women who allege they developed ovarian cancer or mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos-tainted talc sold by the company to consumer products corporation J&J for use in its popular powders.

It has been reported that the minerals supplier, based in France, did not admit – as part of the settlement – that their talc was dangerous.

However, exact details of the agreement with the nearly two-dozen plaintiffs have not been released though two unnamed individuals familiar with the case reported that the amount paid will be at least $5 million.

This deal will allow Imerys to exit a high-profile case involving the women, which was due to begin on June 6. With Imerys out of the picture, the only defendant left in the upcoming St. Louis-based trial will be Johnson & Johnson.

Imerys Talc America “has reached a resolution with the 22 plaintiffs and is being dismissed from the action,” Gwen Myers, a company spokeswoman, said in an emailed statement, leaving out any further details.

However, Imerys still faces about 9,000 claims which allege that the company’s talc included hazardous asbestos, which can easily mix with talc while being mined. The two minerals are often found side-by-side.

Both Johnson & Johnson and Imerys have already been involved in a bevy of trials where plaintiffs allege that their cancer was caused by tainted baby powder or other talc-based products.

In some cases, the two companies have emerged victorious, convincing juries that the iconic baby powder in the white can – first produced in 1893 – is perfectly safe for use.

A recent case, however, resulted in a $117 million award for the plaintiff, with Imerys responsible for 30% of the payout. Another trial, just ending last week, resulted in a nearly $22 million award and another bitter loss for J&J and Imerys.

Australia Cracks Down on Notorious Asbestos Dumper

Dib Hanna has become famous – or rather, infamous – in Australia as an asbestos dumper. Over the last decade, the middle-aged man has become Sydney’s most notorious illegal asbestos dumper, local news outlets write, and now he’ll become more well known as the first person to be jailed under the new asbestos-dumping rules in the Australian state of New South Wales.

It’s a sentence that’s been a long time coming, say environmentalists in that country.

It’s not as if Hanna hasn’t been caught in the past. He has, but he’s gotten away with minimal fines and suspended prison sentences.

But this week, Australia’s Land and Environment Court sentenced the offender to three years in prison but no chance for parole until he’s reached two years, three months.

The sentence stems from his latest dumping antics, which had him disposing of waste on private properties in East Kurrajong, Llandilo and Wallacia in 2015 and 2016.

Not only will Hanna be required to serve prison time, but he’ll also be responsible for clean-up at those sites, will need to pay the EPA’s legal costs, and must place newspaper advertisements explaining his crime and his penalties, in hopes that this will deter others from committing similar infractions.

Hanna was sly in his actions, reports a story on ABC News Australia, and his victims had no idea that his schemes were so devious.
“He advertised free clean top soil, clay, crushed bitumen and the use of an excavation machines to Sydney residents via a letterbox drop,” the story explains. “When contacted by interested residents, he sent truck drivers to dump more than 460 thousand kilograms of waste, including asbestos, at their homes.”

Then he’d disappear, leaving them with a load full of toxins that they thought was clean topsoil.

People like Hanna operate in the U.S. as well and asbestos dumping is still common in America, usually because shoddy contractors don’t want to pay to dispose of the toxin in the proper manner.

Though this was the first jail sentence for an offender in Australia, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has long imprisoned individuals who’ve dumped illegally.

Nonetheless, anyone who suspects they’ve been foiled by someone like Hanna or who knows of a contractor who’s illegally disposing of asbestos should contact their local EPA for more information on how to finger the culprit and info as to who to contact so that the asbestos is contained and the public is kept out of harm’s way.

Austin Firefighters Concerned about Asbestos at Fire Station

A group of 24 firefighters in the Mueller neighborhood of Austin, Texas have filed worker injury affidavits with the city after they say they were exposed to asbestos due to dislodged asbestos-containing ceiling tiles in their station.

It’s just the latest in a string of incidents reported in the last two years involving asbestos contamination in city-owned buildings in Texas’ capital city.

This latest asbestos scare was uncovered by an investigative team at local KXAN-TV, which noted in a recent story that it took fire officials three days to report the asbestos tile problem to city officials.

These same officials claim that the loose tile should not result in any health problems for the two-dozen worried firefighters but admitted that the city has plenty of problems – in general – with decrepit buildings that simply aren’t safe.

The city has struggled to keep up with asbestos issues and to make repairs when needed. In the meantime, they’ve drafted rules to help avoid exposure.

“We have a crumbling infrastructure. We have a lot of repairs that need to be done in our buildings,” said AFD Division Chief Craig Walker. “So, we know that there is asbestos in the buildings. But we have policies in place where you don’t make any modifications, you don’t drive a nail without contacting Building Service and making sure that you’re not disturbing any asbestos.”

Already, however, KXAN reports that there have been recent asbestos-related incidents at five separate city departments, all of which may have affected some 200 workers total.

These include Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, the Water Utility, Fire Department, Municipal Court, and the Parks and Recreation Department.

Chief Walker seemed to be the person with whom most were upset in this latest incident and KXAN pressed him on why it took three days to make the incident known, leaving the firefighters to wonder whether or not they had been exposed when one tile fell on a desk at the station, generating potentially harmful dust.

“We take the safety of our firefighters very seriously. It’s not okay. To not know as quickly as we can,” he replied. “Over the weekend, not being able to get a hold of Building Services, I could see them not having 24/7 getting somebody in there.”

“The biggest thing that I want to take away from this is that we need to start earlier in getting the right information to our crews, making them understand truly what’s going on,” Walker added, noting that he believes the firefighters did an appropriate job in reporting the issue, even with the delay.

“I think the crews that were there took appropriate actions in covering the area and minimizing anything else that could be disturbed. It was a very limited area where the dust from the ceiling tile fell,” Walker said. “I think that given the time that it happened, appropriate actions were taken.”

Bob Nicks, president of the Austin Firefighters Association, added that he would like to see some further changes made and, moving forward, would like his men to be more aware of what’s in the fire stations in regards to toxins.

It’d be really good if we had a published manual on that, on every station, so firefighters knew where the risks are,” Nicks said of asbestos in the buildings. “So, if something happens to that wall, they know if there’s an exposure or not.”

Asbestos Clean-Up at Old Beech Nut Plant

Authorities report that the outdoor piles of asbestos-containing debris at the old Beech Nut baby food plant near Albany are now gone, offering locals some relief from the eyesore that has so long been a part of their neighborhood and providing them with the knowledge that asbestos dust will no longer be an issue in their community.

However, the demolition of the remainder of the plant remains stalled, reports a story in the Albany Times Union. Hopes are that the tear down will be completed at the end of this year, at the latest.

The plant has been closed for more than a decade but was purchased by developer Todd Clifford several years later after Beech Nut relocated the factory.

The small village of Canojaharie, where the 100-year-old plant is located, shut down the developer more than 4 years ago for violations during unauthorized demolition, and the complex has been a menace to locals ever since. The county foreclosed on it a few months ago.

“We are beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel,” said Montgomery County Executive Matt Ossenfort, agreeing that the sprawling 27-acre facility has become a decaying eyesore in the downtown section of the otherwise pristine village in Upstate New York.

He’s happy to see the EPA involved in the demolition process.

The EPA first arrived at the site to investigate the improper handling of asbestos after Clifford’s actions were reported to the agency’s local office.

They verified the fact that violations were in process though they’ve now assured the village that they would not hold it liable for the $4 million in environmental liens the agency has placed against the property.

In the meantime, locals are relieved that the piles of debris are gone and look forward to the day that the complex is demolished to make way for something more pleasing to the eye and more advantageous for the village.

Ossenfort said the county is now seeking qualified demolition companies to present plans on how to best demolish the eastern portions of the facility, which contains relatively modern warehousing.

Asbestos in USDA Building May Be Making Workers Sick

It’s rather ironic that the people who have been charged with watching out for the health and safety of America’s food supply could be risking their own health while doing their job, simply because of renovations in the building in which they work.

Recently, a union representing USDA employees working in Washington D.C. released a statement expressing concern that officials are exposing workers to both toxic asbestos and lead paint. Specifically, the union accused management of “failing to provide sufficient notice about asbestos and lead abatement or to maintain secure, sealed physical barriers between ongoing work and staff at nearby desks.”

A recent probe by OSHA into these allegations stems specifically from a complaint forged by a USDA employee in late March. In the complaint, the employee noted fearing for his health.

Sherrie Carter, a finance and business loan specialist for the agency’s Rural Utilities Service who serves as president of a union local affiliated with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Afscme), echoed the complaint, saying: “You have a lot of people here that are frustrated and feel as though their health is not being considered. It should’ve been handled way differently.”
Carter added that the agency’s “crackdown” on telecommuting (working from home) has made it difficult for employees to find a safe place to work.

Nonetheless, those who said they felt sick during the renovations were advised to contact their supervisors with a request to relocate or be able to work from home.

In a statement to the press, USDA officials said employees were given plenty of warning about the renovations and deny the fact that they were “discouraging” telecommuting. They also maintain that “protection procedures” were in place during the renovation work.

Miami Secretary Says Courthouse Gave Her Lung Cancer

The Miami-Dade County Courthouse is in deplorable condition. Built in 1928, it has certainly seen better days and is in need of much repair and renovation.

So, say some, it’s not a far stretch to imagine that daily exposure to asbestos may have caused a long-time employee at this old municipal building to develop lung cancer.

In an article in the Miami New Times, reporter Jessica Lipscomb quotes county commissioners that have described the courthouse as “hazardous” and “experiencing corrosion, rust, water intrusion, algae and mold penetration, termites, poor air quality, and potential asbestos exposure.”

In short, it’s a mess.

Unfortunately, however, it’s become clear that locals don’t want to pay to rebuild it, so employees like Yvonne Stanley have had to deal with the dangers of working in such conditions.

Now, Stanley is suing Miami-Dade County after being diagnosed with Stage II lung cancer, which her doctors say is likely caused by her daily exposure to both asbestos and mold. She has already undergone a thoracotomy, completed in late 2017, and is still facing more rounds of chemotherapy.

Stanley worked at the courthouse from 1994 to 2005 and was then moved to a different location. In her lawsuit, she claims that she was never a smoker nor did she suffer from any other respiratory problems prior to her exposure to toxic asbestos and mold. The exposure, the complaint states, also occurred at her office in the Northside District in Doral.

Sadly, the municipality has long known there is a toxin problem inside the courthouse and other government buildings.

“At a meeting of the county commission’s public safety committee in 2014, Chief Judge Bertila Soto said the 576 people who work at the courthouse were exposed daily to leaks, termites, mold, and asbestos.

The air quality on the 19th and 20th floors grew so bad at one point they had to be temporarily evacuated,” notes the article in the New Times.

“We have lawyers working from their homes through VPN, and other employees throughout the building, because they cannot be on those floors,” Soto also claimed.

In addition, other reports show that officials have not inspected the busy courthouse building since 1988.

In the meantime, courthouse employees say they feel as if they are being forced to continue working in a building that’s dangerous to their health. It’s that or lose their job.

“Every day this decision is delayed, there are more taxpayer dollars that are going into a courthouse that is too small, technologically inadequate, and it’s making people sick,” agreed Judge Jennifer Bailey.

So far, the county has not filed a response to Stanley’s lawsuit and a spokesperson refused to make a statement to the press.

Montana Creates New Asbestos Court

In 2001, the Montana Supreme Court passed a law that would establish a special claims court for individuals who developed asbestos-related diseases or died due to asbestos exposure from the now-defunct W.R. Grace and Co. mine in the town of Libby. However, the court was never activated.

But now, for the first time, the Supreme Court has ordered that the court be established and used to address remaining claims in a timely manner. It claims the number of asbestos-related cases is having a “detrimental impact” on a court system already overloaded, so the activation of a special court for this issue should bring cases to a resolution more quickly.

There are currently 548 asbestos cases in the Montana Supreme Court’s order, the court told the Great Falls Tribune. Not all are suing W. R. Grace. Other defendants named in these suits include both the State of Montana and the BNSF Railway as well as a number of insurance carriers. Now, these cases will be effectively consolidated, the article reports, all moved into a court with just one judge.

“I think it will allow for a fair and efficient management of these cases that involve particular challenges because of the nature of the disease,” said an attorney whose firm has represented about 2,000 individuals seeking financial compensation after being diagnosed with asbestos-related disease. “The new court formation allows the presiding judge to make sweeping decisions in managing the litigation, rather than on an individual basis.,” he adds, noting that because asbestos diseases are latent and develop in various levels of severity and at various times, prioritizing cases is naturally difficult.

The court will be used for pre-trial purposes, explains the Tribune article. If no settlement is reached and the need to go to trial happens, the case will go back to the original court at that point. If settlements are able to be reached on a large batch of related cases all at one time, then plaintiffs will receive a claim based on a determined scale.

“This is the only way for these parties, and the courts which are short on staff and money, to handle these cases from start to finish” considering the amount of time they take up on an individual basis, District Judge Elizabeth Best told the Tribune.

It took this long to activate the special court only because of W. R. Grace’s declaration of bankruptcy, which protected it from claims until it emerged from the bankruptcy in 2014. In the meantime, experts estimate that hundreds have died due to Libby asbestos exposure and thousands have been sickened. There is hope that by the 2030s, cases will begin to decline.

City Workers Followed Orders, Inhaled Asbestos

About twenty city employees in Austin, Texas say they were only following orders when, this past July, they entered a utility building, pulled down the ceiling, removed the furniture, and swept up the debris left behind. What they didn’t realize is that those orders put them in harm’s way as the building was already contaminated with asbestos.

The workers told a KXAN-TV reporter that they were not provided with the proper equipment to complete the job and are now fearful of the health ramifications of their exposure to the deadly toxin.

“I wore my dust mask for the majority of the day, but I did take it off from time to time during breaks. I guess that doesn’t really matter since they aren’t approved for asbestos,” one employee wrote on a form that was submitted to the city. “By the end of the day, I was drenched in sweat. My jeans and shirt were both dripping and completely covered in dust, dirt and asbestos, apparently.”

But, according to a KXAN investigation, these 20 workers aren’t the only city employees that have come face-to-face with asbestos while on the job in Texas’ capital city. The investigative team worked for six months to uncover two-year’s worth of incidents that resulted in similar exposure for some 200 Austin city workers in four different departments.

“Several city employees, who spoke with KXAN on a condition of anonymity because they fear retaliation, said individual departments cut corners, bypassed protocols and ignored warnings that could have prevented the asbestos disturbances and possible exposures,” said a reporter for the station.

City spokesperson David Green referred to these situations as “abnormal” but stopped short of taking the blame for the infractions that occurred.

After Green’s statement, the Office of the City Manager refused any further interviews with KXAN or any other news outlet and said it would be conducting its own “executive review” to look into the contamination scenarios. They promised to issue a statement by the end of the year.

But regardless of what the City Manager learns from the investigation, those 200 employees now face an uncertain future due to asbestos exposure. Once inhaled, asbestos dust can settle in the area around the lungs and cause the formation of tumors. Sadly, however, victims of asbestos exposure usually don’t know they’ve been affected by the dust until decades after they inhale the fibers.

It is likely the city will offer the employees annual medical testing, which is still too little, too late.