ST. LOUIS - On Feb. 17 2009, U.S. District Judge Carol Jackson listened to defense and plaintiff's arguments during the penalty phase of a civil action Jackson ruled on in Sept. 2008. The case is centered around the City of St. Louis' violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) during its demolition of numerous structures in preparation for the construction of a new airport in suburban St. Louis. The contested demolitions took place between the years 2000 to 2004, and opponents of the city's razing of over 1,900 homes and 70 commercial structures point specifically to the demolition of 99 residential structures that were heavily contaminated with asbestos-a known cancer-causing agent.
The controversy focuses on the City's use of the so-called "wet method" of demolition used to effect asbestos control, which refers to a technique that relies on heavy applications of water to a demolition site in order to control the airborne spread of asbestos fibers. Residents of the neighborhoods surrounding the demolition project were understandably concerned about the fact that the wet method is an unproven and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unapproved method of asbestos abatement. Opponents of the method point to the fact that it prohibits the obtainment of accurate air quality test results, therefore, it violates the spirit and the letter of the CAA legislation.
Once widely prized by a wide variety of manufacturing industries, asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that can be found in countries around the world. Now largely banned in many of those nations, asbestos has been proven to pose a serious threat to human health. Asbestos comes in a wide variety of types, colors, and chemical compositions, some deemed to be more deadly than others, though, no safe level of exposures to the material in any form has ever been established.
When microscopic, airborne fibers of asbestos are inhaled into the lungs, the body's defense mechanisms against foreign objects are typically defeated by these fibers-they can remain in the lungs for up to 50 years before finally causing the onset of serious respiratory diseases such as malignant mesothelioma, an aggressive and incurable form of cancer. Due to the extreme health hazards associated with asbestos, it's easy to understand the concerns of local citizens who felt they and their children could have been harmed by the City's airport demolition practices-practices that were finally halted by the EPA in 2004.
Judge Jackson agreed with the plaintiffs, a group of citizens from the airport adjacent suburb of Bridgeton, when she stated in her Sept. ruling, "The City didn't comply with federal regulations. The question now is, should the city be sanctioned for not doing a proper demolition, for violating federal law."
The plaintiffs in the action were represented by Jim Hecker, an attorney with the Washington-based Public Justice. "This has been the first time citizens anywhere in the U.S. have tried to stop the use of the illegal wet method," said Hecker, who went on to state that the EPA has been under "significant pressure from various industries to relax its asbestos abatement standards." Such a lessening of vigilance, said Hecker, "would undoubtedly expose countless individuals to the dangers of asbestos fibers exposure."
The city's punishment could range from civil fines to being ordered to remediate any identifiable asbestos contaminations caused by its actions. Many of the plaintiffs feel that no sanctions against the city could be too harsh, and they wonder if their health or the health of their children was in any way compromised during the four years the city had conducted their demolition project. Jackson is expected to hear further arguments on the matter before announcing the court's penalties sometime in the near future.
No comments:
Post a Comment