(855) 972-2045
CATEGORY: Consumer Protection – GeneralBlog
AUG. 26, 2015
The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released an indoor air quality app for Android and iPhone that addresses indoor air quality (IAQ) issues…
The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released an indoor air quality app for Android and iPhone that addresses indoor air quality (IAQ) issues in schools. The IAQ App can be obtained for free by school administrators from EPA’s website.
It provides resources and checklists for school administrators concerned about air quality in their schools. The app is an extremely thorough tool to help guide school administrators in addressing IAQ issues, but has one glaring omission — any recommendation or suggestion that administrators test for toxic polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination.
The indoor air quality app, and the related IAQ “Tools for Schools Action Kit,” provide guidance on an incredibly wide range of potential IAQ issues, including chemical contaminants such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from paints; microbiological issues such as mold; building material issues such as asbestos; outdoor air pollutants from vehicle emissions and industrial sites; and naturally-occurring contaminants such as radon. Indeed, this list only scratches the surface of the various potential air quality issues that are discussed.
The app provides links to resources about various contaminants, as well as checklists to guide school officials when considering renovations, dealing with waste management, handling building maintenance and numerous other situations. EPA is to be commended for the wide range of topics covered and the easy use of the app, even for people who are not tech savvy.
App Overlooks Critical School Issue — PCBs
However, missing from the app appears to be any significant discussion of one of the recently emerging significant indoor air quality issues that schools face — PCB contamination from building materials. The app information recommends beginning an evaluation of IAQ issues with various walkthrough checklists to determine if potential IAQ issues exist at your school.
These include a Renovation and Repair Checklist, which would be particularly relevant in addressing PCB issues. That list includes:
- Checking paint for lead
- Consulting an asbestos professional to inspect for asbestos
- Evaluating work areas for signs of mold
- Allowing time for off-gassing of new materials in the space before it is occupied
However, there is no mention in this checklist (or any other that I could find) for testing for PCBs.
The app itself omits PCBs from its recommended evaluations and checklists. It does not appear to have any specific reference to PCBs as even a potential issue, aside from the discussion in the “Energy Efficiency” section of the Action Kit.
This omission is not due to a lack of knowledge at EPA of the prevalence of PCB contamination in schools. The reason for this omission is entirely unclear.
EPA Offers Guidance for PCB Contamination in Other Materials
Indeed, the EPA publishes information for schools and other buildings dealing with PCBs in building materials. The EPA also publishes indoor air quality standards for PCBs in schools and has sections on its website addressing PCBs in various building materials such as caulking and light ballasts. Yet, testing for these potential issues does not appear in its recently released IAQ app.
To be fair, there is a substantive discussion of PCBs on page 37 of the “Energy Savings Plus Health” section of the Action Kit. In this section, the EPA discusses how to assess and mitigate PCB issues — at least as related to caulking and fluorescent light fixtures.
Removing PCBs from School is Expensive
The potential costs associated with remediating building materials in schools that contain PCBs can be extraordinarily high. Schools across the country — Massachusetts, Washington state, Connecticut and elsewhere throughout the U.S. are dealing with this expensive issue in increasing numbers in recent years.
Accordingly, school administrators may have an understandable hesitation to open the can of worms by testing for PCBs voluntarily. This is one potential explanation for EPA’s omission of that suggestion in the app.
But ignoring a potential hazard does not make it disappear. The omission may have been merely an oversight by the EPA, rather than an implicit encouragement of adoption of the ostrich approach by school districts. As the app gains traction and is revised in future versions, hopefully this omission will be corrected.
In the meantime, as the EPA has recognized elsewhere, testing for and properly addressing PCB contamination issues are important steps for schools to take. These issues have potentially high costs — costs that rightfully should be borne by the manufacturer of PCBs, Monsanto — not by local school districts and taxpayers.
LOOKING FOR LEGAL HELP?
We would feel privileged to assist you.
For a free case review, please contact us today.
Asbestos Information
CATEGORY: Consumer Protection – GeneralBlog
AUG. 19, 2015
In a previous blog post PCBs and health concerns in schools, I described how caulking and older overhead fluorescent lighting are the two leading…
In a previous blog post PCBs and health concerns in schools, I described how caulking and older overhead fluorescent lighting are the two leading sources of toxic polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination within a building. In this post, I focus on PCBs in fluorescent lighting in New York City schools, which illustrates a problem that also exists in many government buildings, hospitals and college facilities constructed between 1950 and 1978.
The size and scope of New York City’s school system, with its 1200+ buildings striving to educate approximately one million students, demonstrates the public health threat from PCBs. Although new PCB use in the United States essentially ended with the Carter administration, a 2011 NYC Department of Education survey found that PCBs most likely remained present in the ballast of light fixtures in 738 New York City school buildings. The City, in part to resolve litigation, set aside more than $700 million to remediate and remove these lights, and hopes to complete this work by 2016.
The amount of PCB fluid within the capacitor of a fluorescent light fixture is, seemingly, relatively small. For example, all high-power fluorescent lamps that General Electric manufactured prior to May 1977 contained approximately10 grams of PCB fluid. That amount, however, may present a significant health risk if released into the environment.
PCB-Contaminated Fixtures Last for Decades
PCB contaminated fluorescent light fixtures within the ballast can be identified through elimination. Consistent with regulations, light fixtures manufactured between 1978 and 1998 feature a label that states “No PCBs” within the ballast. Unless the fixture is manufactured after 1998, the absence of a label suggests the probable presence of PCBs within the fixture.
Indeed, both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) recommend that individuals presume that a fluorescent light’s ballast contains PCBs unless a “No PCBs” notation appears on the ballast, or the manufacturing of the fixture occurred in the current century.
The durability and manner in which fluorescent lights are actually used help to explain why fluorescent light fixtures continue to present a PCB risk more than 35 years later. Most fluorescent light ballasts are designed for 50,000 hours of operation under standard conditions. One manufacturer’s calculation indicates that at an operating temperature of 65ºC, ballasts can be expected to operate for 50,000 hours with only a 10 percent failure rate.
If lights are operated in a building for 10 hours per day for 250 days in the year, then it will take nearly 20 years to reach 50,000 hours of use. School buildings are occupied for fewer days in the year and, typically, have the lights on for a shorter period in the day. Therefore, lights in school buildings can, and do, last well beyond the 20-year mark.
PCBs May Exist in Schools Despite Renovations
The age or renovation history does not necessarily predict the extent of contamination within a building. The EPA’s study of six NYC schools found PCBs in the fluorescent fixtures of each building, involving between 24 and 95 percent of the fixtures.
The City constructed the buildings in 1959, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1968 and 1972. The 1959 building, a pre-kindergarten to fifth grade single-story school, was the smallest building of the six and the City had conducted renovations in 1968 and 2005.
Neither renovation, it appears, addressed the light fixtures. For that building, 879 light fixtures had ballasts likely containing PCBs, while only 48 ballasts did not utilize PCBs. The EPA’s testing indicated that 57 percent of the ballasts in the 1972-built school were likely to contain PCBs and the 1962-built school had an estimated 77 percent of PCB-containing ballast.
Some school buildings may use mixed lighting. In the sixth NYC school that the EPA examined, a high school built in 1968, upgrading appeared to have removed most of the potential threat.
The EPA, however, found that nearly a quarter of the remaining fluorescent lights contained PCBs. The different generations of lighting resulted in the cafeteria containing four lights with ballast, but only half of those fixtures used PCBs within the ballast.
Although most classrooms lacked fluorescent lighting with ballast, one classroom had three PCB-containing ballast light fixtures out of the 16 in the room. These missed results within the same room highlights the need for any investigation of the lighting to be thorough and to avoid any assumptions about the lighting.
Warning Signs of PCBs in Fluorescent Light Fixtures
Additionally, a leaking ballast produces higher PCB emission rates and may go undetected for a prolonged period of time. Even if one replaces the ballast within the light fixture, PCB residue from previously failed ballast capacitors may remain and be released into the classroom environment.
In seeking to identify a leaking fluorescent light fixture, a few warning signs do exist. These signs include:
- Evidence of brown, oily stains on the light fixture itself or on its glass lens
- Evidence of oil stains on the floor or carpet under the fixture
- Past episodes of smoke or burning odors from the fixture
- A burned out light that refuses to work, even after replacement of the bulb
PCB Removal Often Requires Legal Action
What should a school district do if it suspects it has older fluorescent lighting fixtures containing PCBs? As the New York City example shows, remediation can be expensive. The identification of this potential problem should prompt a series of steps.
First and foremost, the school district should contact its attorney. The school district is about to enter a complicated situation and, most likely, will require specialized assistance on several fronts.
The district’s education attorney may lack familiarity with the applicable federal regulations, but will know or be able to identify individuals with the appropriate experience in this field. The district will require appropriate regulatory advice and oversight for its actions.
Next, the district should conduct an assessment of the light fixtures within its buildings. Initially, individuals will need to conduct a visual inspection of a representative number of the ballasts for fluorescent lights within each applicable building.
The review may shift to a full inventory of fluorescent lights within the building if the initial examination proves to identify a significant number of older fixtures. The federal government recommends building operators to assume that their fluorescent light ballasts contain PCBs unless they expressly state “No PCBs” or were manufactured after 1998.
The school district needs to develop a plan for the removal and replacement of these fixtures. The condition of the ballast in the light fixtures will dictate, in part, both the handling and disposal.
While school districts may look to replace only leaking ballasts at the outset, the age and associated risks with any PCB-containing ballast should prompt full replacement.
If you believe that your school building may be affected, we encourage you to contact our offices for a free consultation.
LOOKING FOR LEGAL HELP?
We would feel privileged to assist you.
For a free case review, please contact us today.
Asbestos Information
CATEGORY: Consumer Protection – GeneralBlog
AUG. 12, 2015
On August 4, 2015, the District Court for the District of Idaho in Animal League Defense Fund v. C.L. Butch Otter (“Otter”), struck down…
On August 4, 2015, the District Court for the District of Idaho in Animal League Defense Fund v. C.L. Butch Otter (“Otter“), struck down as unconstitutional an Idaho statute that made it a crime to perform undercover investigations and videography depicting animal welfare, worker safety and/or food safety violations at factory farms, slaughterhouses and other agricultural facilities.
The court found the statute violates the First Amendment by restricting protected speech and discriminating based on content and viewpoint. The court also found the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause both on its face and through its purpose of discriminating against whistleblowers in the agricultural industry.
The ruling is significant, not only for the citizens of Idaho, but also because it establishes important precedent for other challenges to similar unconstitutional “ag gag” laws.
What Is the Factory Farm Trying to Hide?
The facts underlying the Otter case are typical of the circumstances that trigger states’ passage of “ag gag” laws. In 2012, an employee of Mercy for Animals videotaped widespread animal abuse at the Bettencourt Dairies’ Dry Creek Dairy in Hansen, Idaho.
The recordings show unthinkable cruelty to the cows inside the factory; abuse that would not have been disclosed but for the video, which the organization posted on YouTube. The video resulted in criminal charges against the workers shown abusing the animals.
Yet despite the exposed cruelty, the Idaho legislature responded with an “ag gag” law which created more severe criminal sanctions, including possible jail time and criminal fines, for those who expose animal cruelty than for those who commit such atrocities. Idaho legislators referred to the videographers as “terrorists” and “marauding invaders.”
An “ag gag” law is particularly disarming in a place like Idaho, the nation’s third largest producer of milk, with a dairy industry that generated more than $2.5 billion in 2012.
The Idaho story is not isolated. At least seven other states have “ag gag” statutes in one form or another that either make it illegal to photograph or videotape inside a factory farm or slaughterhouse, or require that any photograph or videotape taken be disclosed to authorities within 24 or 48 hours, making it nearly impossible to perform a thorough investigation of malfeasance within the facility.
Utah’s “ag gag” statute makes undercover investigations and recordings of animal agricultural operations a misdemeanor punishable up to one year in jail. That statute is currently being challenged in the federal district court in Utah. The court denied the state’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not suffered harm as a result of the statute.
Investigations on Corporate Agricultural Practices
Rest assured, this area of speech is critically important to the safety of the food we eat and the conditions the animals face within the factories:
- PETA’s 1998 investigation and hours of video footage of systematic cruelty — including daily beatings of pregnant sows with a wrench and iron pole, skinning pigs alive and sawing off a conscious animal’s legs — resulted in felony indictments of workers of Belcross Farm in North Carolina.
- PETA’s 2001 investigation and video footage of employees of Seaboard Farms in Oklahoma — who routinely threw, beat, kicked and slammed animals against concrete floors and bludgeoned them with metal gate rods and hammers — resulted in the first conviction for felony animal cruelty to farmed animals.
- PETA’s 2008 investigation of the factory farms of Aviagen Turkeys resulted in the first-ever felony indictments and convictions for farmed poultry.
- A 2008 undercover investigation and video of a California slaughterhouse captured gruesome images of inhumane treatment of cows, resulting in the president’s admission that his company produced hamburger meat from sick cows and sold the meat to the federal government for the National School Lunch Program and a judgement in a False Claims Act prosecution of $497 million.
The recordings of the above abuses, and many more, are important to our society as they influence public opinion and consumer demand.
For example, Purdue University’s Department of Agricultural Economics and Department of Animal Sciences conducted a 2012 consumer survey that demonstrates how the public positively relies on the information gathered and presented by animal protection groups and investigative journalists alike, more than they rely on industry groups and the government combined.
And as the Court noted in Otter, the material Upton Sinclair gathered for his novel, The Jungle, was through his misrepresenting his identity so he could be hired at a meat-packing plant and expose the industry’s intolerable labor conditions and unsanitary conditions in Chicago’s stockyard in the early 20th century. His investigation led to the passage of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act. Yet Sinclair’s practices under Idaho’s statute would have subjected him to criminal prosecution.
Defeating All “Ag Gag” Statutes to Ensure Food and Worker Safety and Prevent Animal Cruelty
I live and practice law in New York and am pleased that my state has taken a different path – one that protects the rights of animals from abuse at the hands of factories raising them for food.
And rest assured, New York’s law, and ones like it in several other states, are the direct result of the brave and dedicated people who enter these facilities and memorialize, for the world to see, the abuses and cruelty the animals suffer at the hands of this industry. Quite the opposite of terrorists, the people who expose these evil practices are heroes whose efforts to ensure food and worker safety and animal husbandry should be applauded.
The victory in the Otter case should be the catalyst for challenging all remaining “ag gag” laws around the country. We welcome the opportunity to work with animal welfare, food safety and worker safety groups in bringing challenges to the remaining laws.
View Sources
- http://bit.ly/1Iitu22 at pp. 6-7.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN_YcWOuVqk&has_verified=1&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DlN_YcWOuVqk%26oref%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.youtube.com%252Fwatch%253Fv%253DlN_YcWOuVqk%26has_verified%3D1&has_verified=1.
- Kansas, K. S. A. 47-1825 et seq.; Montana, MT ST 81-30-101 et seq.; North Carolina, H.B. 405 (becomes effective January 1, 2016); North Dakota, North Dakota, ND ST 12.1-21.1-01 et seq.
- Missouri, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 578.013.1.
- Utah Criminal Code, Title 76, Section 76-6-112.
LOOKING FOR LEGAL HELP?
We would feel privileged to assist you.
For a free case review, please contact us today.
Asbestos Information
CATEGORY: DATA BREACHESBlog
Jul. 28, 2015
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently showed considerable mettle by standing firm in the face of a massive onslaught by a variety of business…
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently showed considerable mettle by standing firm in the face of a massive onslaught by a variety of business groups largely dedicated to weakening the valuable consumer protections provided by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). On July 10, 2015, the FCC released a long-awaited Declaratory Ruling and Order to resolve 21 separate petitions for clarification or other action regarding the TCPA.
The majority of petitioners were industry players, such as the American Bankers Association, the Direct Marketing Association and the Retail Industry Leaders Association. The Ruling is a victory for consumers who face a seemingly never-ending barrage of calls and text messages from advertisers. The industry petitions are the result of continued legal victories by individuals harmed by invasive and unwanted robocalls and text messages, as well as by the FCC imposing regulatory fines on violators.
My earlier robocalls and spam text message post explained the specific practices that the TCPA prohibits. The statute bars unsolicited telephonic communications except for emergency purposes or from some nonprofit entities. Each violation subjects the caller to a $500 fine, which may add up quickly to million-dollar judgments or settlements where tens of thousands of individuals were targeted.
Robocallers and spam texters complain about the avalanche of litigation they face. However, instead of putting an end to the robocalls and text messages, they petitioned the FCC to change its pro-consumer interpretation of the statute — an interpretation that conforms to the text of the TCPA and its underlying purpose.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and FCC Complaints
However, the FCC does not listen only to businesses and industry trade groups. Unwanted robocalls and text messages top the list of consumer complaints received by the FCC. In the fourth quarter of 2014, for example, the FCC received more than 36,000 informal complaints about TCPA violations. The next largest complaint subject area was “wireless telecommunications,” about which only 4,000 complaints were lodged for such issues as customer service and billing. In 2013 and 2014, the FCC received 5,000 to 6,000 TCPA complaints per month.
In its July 10 Ruling, the FCC addressed a wide variety of issues, a few of which are highlighted here. First, the FCC clarified that autodialers include dialing equipment with the potential ability to store or produce, and dial, random or sequential numbers — even if the equipment is not presently used or configured for that purpose. One such example is when a telemarketer is calling a set list of consumers.
The industry trade groups wanted to avoid liability for using autodialing equipment for any purpose other than generating and dialing random or sequential numbers. The FCC closely followed the statute, which defines “automatic telephone dialing system” as equipment with the “capacity” to store or produce random or sequential numbers and dial them. The FCC reasonably interpreted “capacity” to include potential future equipment configurations.
The FCC also ruled that consumers can revoke previously-granted consent through any reasonable means. Amazingly, Santander Consumer USA, a consumer lender and automobile finance company, wanted the FCC to rule that consent to receive telemarketing could never be revoked. If consumers initially wanted to receive advertising from a particular entity, but changed their minds because, for example, the rate and frequency of ads were increasing, they could never stop the company from contacting them.
FCC Rules that Call Permission Can Be Revoked
As an equally absurd backup position, Santander Consumer USA wanted a ruling that callers could unilaterally designate the method of revocation. The FCC rejected these positions, in light of statutory language and common law and First Amendment principles, in ruling that any reasonable means of revocation, including oral, is valid.
In addition, the FCC rejected the industry’s request for excessive lenience when calls are made to reassigned phone numbers. The FCC clarified that the term “called party” in the statute refers to the current subscriber, not the intended recipient of the call or text message. In other words, express consent of a former subscriber of a particular phone number is insufficient to permit calls to the current subscriber.
As a reasonable protection for good-faith callers, and because there is no universal database for reassigned phone numbers, the FCC ruled that a caller is not liable for calling a number for which it believes it has consent and does not discover that the number has been reassigned before making the call. However, the liability shield extends only to the first call to this number. The caller is liable for future calls.
In an odd part of the ruling, the FCC stated that businesses can obligate consumers, by contract or other agreement, who consent to receive telemarketing to notify the business when a phone number is relinquished. It is easy to imagine that businesses will now include a “phone relinquishment” clause in their standard form contracts.
But it’s unclear what the remedy would be if the consumer failed to so notify the business. If a business calls a new subscriber for a number for which the business previously had consent, the new subscriber is not party to the contract at issue.
Would the business seek indemnity for its TCPA liability from the consumer who originally consented? Although the TCPA does not prohibit this type of contractual arrangement, it is unclear why the FCC highlighted this possible defensive approach for businesses to ponder.
Several other highlights included that the court reiterated that text messages are “calls” subject to the TCPA; carriers and Internet phone providers can implement consumer-initiated call-blocking technology; “on demand” text messages sent in response to specific consumer requests do not violate the TCPA; certain pro-consumer financial- and healthcare-related messages are exempt from the consumer-consent requirement; and Internet-to-phone text messages require consumer consent.
Although not ideal in all respects, this ruling is highly beneficial for consumers and shows that the FCC is taking its consumer-protection mandate seriously.
Filing a Lawsuit for TCPA Violations for Robocalls and Spam Text Messages
Weitz & Luxenberg is investigating potential claims of TCPA violations. If you have received any of the following, please contact us at 877-540-2553:
- Unsolicited or unwanted phone call, text message, or advertising fax;
- Phone calls in spite of being on the Do Not Call Registry;
- Phone calls before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m.
If you have received these unwanted communications, you may be entitled to monetary compensation and we may be able to help you.
LOOKING FOR LEGAL HELP?
We would feel privileged to assist you.
For a free case review, please contact us today.
Asbestos Information
CATEGORY: CONSUMER PROTECTION – GENERALBlog
Jul. 17, 2015
Many school districts face a toxic chemical threat within their aging school buildings. Approximately half of the public buildings constructed between 1950 and 1978…
Many school districts face a toxic chemical threat within their aging school buildings. Approximately half of the public buildings constructed between 1950 and 1978 contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) well above federally permitted levels.
The PCBs within the buildings are often present at 200 to 1000 times this permitted level. Remediating PCBs within buildings in order to bring them into compliance with federal law could cost a school district millions of dollars.
How PCBs Were Used
PCBs are a manmade chemical best known for their use as coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors and other electrical equipment. The manufacturer of PCBs, however, also sold the chemical for a variety of different uses.
During the 1950s to 1970s, PCBs were used in caulking, oil-based paints, thermal insulation material, fluorescent light ballasts, and adhesives and tapes (including ceiling mastics). Given these uses, PCBs were prevalent in public construction during this period.
Studies conducted in San Francisco and Boston have helped to quantify the chances of a public building containing PCBs.
PCBs are also common in lighting ballasts of original fluorescent lights in these buildings. If there have not been renovations or retrofitting, it is likely that older lighting fixtures containing PCBs still remain.
The Federal Standards for PCBs
Two different federal standards are relevant to the presence of PCBs in school buildings. The first standard concerns the use of PCBs in open system materials and the second addresses them in the air.
Federal regulations prohibit the use of products containing PCBs at or above 50 parts per million (ppm). This number is essentially meaningless if the original construction involved the use of PCBs in caulking or ceiling mastics.
If the contractor blended PCBs into caulking material to enhance the elasticity and durability of the caulking, the PCB levels will be in the tens of thousands ppm, and may exceed 100,000 ppm. Along with the caulking itself, the passage of time has probably resulted in PCB contamination migrating into surrounding material or even into the soil outside school windows.
The EPA has also established air standards for PCB exposure. These numbers address the level of PCBs in the dust that is in the air. This dust rests on desk tops and in ventilation systems. These standards vary by the age of the individuals:
| Age | 2<3 | 3<6 | 6<12 | 12<15 | 15<19 | 19+ |
| Level (ppb) | 70 | 100 | 300 | 450 | 600 | 450 |
Various factors may impact PCB air levels. For example, testing has demonstrated that the amount of PCBs in air levels increase during summer months due to higher temperatures.
Health Risks Associated with PCBs
Conclusive evidence exists that commercial PCB mixtures are carcinogenic in animals. Once PCBs enter an individual’s body, they accumulate in the fatty tissue and tend to remain there.
Based on this and other available information, and following a new assessment of PCBs’ carcinogenicity in 1996, the EPA concluded that PCBs are a probable carcinogen.
Studies also indicate other potential health risks. Birth defects have been linked to mothers who have been exposed to PCBs.
Developing fetuses and young children are the most vulnerable to PCBs. Therefore, children and women who may become pregnant, are pregnant, or are nursing should limit their exposure to PCBs.
A Michigan study indicated that pregnant women exposed to high levels of PCBs give birth to children with significant neurological and motor control problems. Their children are also born with a lower average weight and smaller head size.
PCBs may also disrupt hormonal function, the immune system, and interfere with liver and thyroid functions.
Impact of PCBs on School Districts?
School districts typically discover the presence of PCBs within their buildings during major renovations. The identification of PCBs within building materials, in most circumstances, necessitates remediation work to remove the PCBs.
The EPA requires school districts to remediate buildings where PCB levels in materials exceed 50 ppm. Because the government categorizes construction debris containing PCBs as a hazardous waste, removal requires special handling, removal and disposal.
These remediation efforts may cost the school district several million dollars, depending on the size of the building and the extent of the PCB presence.
The EPA issued guidelines for school districts in 2009, directing testing when the district is demolishing or renovating a building. The EPA recommends testing peeling, brittle, cracking or deteriorating caulk directly for the presence of PCBs.
The federal regulations only compel mandatory testing within school buildings in this situation. As a result, the presence of this toxic chemical remains undetected in thousands of buildings across the country.
Identifying the Presence of PCBs
PCBs defy immediate identification in most situations. Testing of the materials throughout the building is a necessary first step in the identification of PCB contamination.
Leaking ballast in an old fluorescent light is an obvious, probable source. However, an individual cannot look at exterior door caulking in a school building and state whether or not it contains PCBs. Various environmental consultants are available to perform such testing.
If you have any further questions, the attorneys in Weitz & Luxenberg’s Environmental Toxic Torts group can recommend testing companies to contact, assist in your interaction with the EPA and provide information about potential legal options.
LOOKING FOR LEGAL HELP?
We would feel privileged to assist you.
For a free case review, please contact us today.
Asbestos Information
Categories