The Clean Air Act and the Removal of Asbestos
Introduction
Asbestos is normally defined to constitute fibrous minerals that occur naturally. High heat resistance, strength as well as flexibility also characterize these fibrous minerals. These properties of asbestos allowed it to be used as an important additive in the manufacture of constructive materials provided for commercial purposes (Latimes, 2009).
Construction industry as well as environmental institutions had not realized any harm from asbestos before 1970s. Therefore, asbestos was included in such construction materials as fireproof spray, boiler insulation, floor tiles and roofing shingles (Latimes, 2009).
Asbestos has a considerable difference from several other mineral since in disintegrates into fibers that are rather lightweight as well as fine. These fine asbestos fibers are not visible with bare eyes and one needs a microscope in order to be in a position to view them. When asbestos is undisturbed, it poses minimal danger to surrounding environment but upon occurrence of damage, deterioration or crumbling, its fibers tend to spread extensively.
These fibers remain in the surrounding environment particularly the air for a considerably long time during which human beings get to inhale then as part of air, hence posing danger to their bodies’ health wise (Latimes, 2009). Diseases resulting from being exposed to asbestos vary greatly and they include gastrointestinal cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma as well as lung cancer.
Just as asbestos fibers remain within the atmosphere for a long time, the period during which illnesses associated with asbestos remain within the body before being realized tends to be exceptionally long. That is, upon getting exposed to these dangers fibers, it can take even more than twenty years for the symptoms to appear or reveal themselves on the outside. However, during all this time, the fibers as well as the symptoms remain within the body where they continue to harm the body slowly.
It is after a realization of the great danger to humanity that asbestos posses that governments in collaboration with environmental departments have seen the need to formulate an Act that will regulate asbestos usage (Latimes, 2009). This Act’s principles ensure that harmful asbestos is removed and disposed accordingly in order to protect humanity from taking in the fibers and finally suffering from the very dangerous diseases.
Literature review
Undertakings involving asbestos removal as well the application of the Act of Clean air have attracted a wide range of concern from environmental departments and research institutions. The main area of concentration has been on practices constituting asbestos regulation as well as those involved in government action. It is through these operations that it has been realized that about sixty countries are engaged in the process whereby asbestos usage is banned either entirely of partly.
Among the countries that have already taken this significant step of environmental is Australia that carried out a ban on usage and importations of all asbestos kinds (Mesothelioma 209). This ban was not specified to a particular state in Australia but to the entire country which was to start its operation from December 2003.
This ban was revised by a national safety commission otherwise known as NOHSC in order to ensure that even the materials constituting asbestos were included and specified accordingly (Mesothelioma 209). The ban is found to exclude asbestos materials that had started being on and prior to ban implementation. The reason behind the tough action by Australian government is the situation whereby it records a high number of fatalities resulting from asbestos fiber inhalation.
US have also assumed the same practice of considering the impact of asbestos and its associated materials and taking the necessary legal step. Information from Action fund assigned to an environmental group in US shows that about ten thousand people are recorded to suffer death annually resulting from fatalities associated with asbestos (Mesothelioma 209).
This is considered a great threat to US citizens having in mind that the larger percentage of the ten thousand individuals is men who are over fifty years. Although EPA has not had a chance to formulate and place its own ban featuring asbestos usage, its specifications are represented in the Act of clean Air whereby asbestos together with associated materials are pointed out as among the most dangerous air pollutant.
A report by an American Journal dealing with respiratory care shows that by September the year 2004, asbestos posed danger for US workers amounting to about 1.3 million who are employed within construction industry while others are responsible in building maintenance
. The society operating in America and specializing in testing building materials otherwise known as ASTM, normally takes great precaution in making decisions on the type of construction survey whereby asbestos is involved needs to be carried on with. Asbestos inspectors who are rather licensed are accorded the responsibility of performing the surveys in order to ensure that the public is safe (Mesothelioma 209).
The act of clean air’s implementation has been found to result to filling or several lawsuits that are related with practices involving asbestos material (Mesothelioma 209). This has greatly affected those companies engaged asbestos manufacturing operations whereby some have suffered bankruptcy as others opt to take up asbestos removal operations or even the production of asbestos substitutes.
In this particular case, focus will be on W Grace, which is a company that was found to provide its surrounding community with asbestos material. This company also engaged in asbestos mining operations knowing too well of the danger it was posing to the surrounding community members (Mesothelioma 209). Prior to detailed report undertakings involving the prosecution of this company, it is necessary to get a clear picture of the constituent of the Act of clean Air.
The Act of clean air
This particular Act constitutes requirement whereby the agency that is in charge of protecting the environment in US is expected to develop as well as implement regulations associated with asbestos reduction and its consequent disposal. The main responsibility for EPA is to conduct a close observation and inspection of work practices that entail dealing with asbestos materials including any kind of handling, disposal as well as removal (Tennessee department of Environment and Conservation, 2009).
It is through the provision of this particular Act that companies and individuals found not to observe environment conservation as pertaining asbestos usage are prosecuted and charged accordingly (Tennessee department of Environment and Conservation, 2009). One of the companies operating within Tennessee that was caught up in the event of failing to measure up to the Act’s requirements is W. Grace.
This company became a victim when it had its three ex-officials together with the company administration at large accused for knowingly exposing the surrounding environment including Libby residents to poisoning from asbestos (Mesothelioma 209). This particular asbestos poisoning originated from mining operations conducted by W. Grace.
The worse thing about the entire issue was that even after this company together with its ex-officials realized the harm that Libby residents were exposed to, they still proceeded to conceal and assume that nothing was wrong. Action was taken on this company whereby it was present before the jury for prosecution.
The fact that this company as well as Marion Company which is the environmental company accorded the responsibility of asbestos removal operate within Tennessee, it goes without saying that they need to adhere to provisions stated in Tennessee law.
In this case, the ultimate EPA responsibilities are delegated to such agencies as Marion Company which operate locally or within Tennessee (Tennessee department of Environment and Conservation, 2009).
The manner in which asbestos regulation is undertaken within Tennessee tends to be very strict as these practices are normally supervised by a fore-man and/or an experienced representative from management-level. Both the representative as well as the supervisor is expected to be trained on the manner in which asbestos is handled safely.
More so, he/she is expected to also show compliance to the rule on dangerous air contaminants. However, apart from these senior individuals, other workers involved in asbestos related work are not expected to be specially trained for handling asbestos which is a major requirement in several other states.
Any practice dealing with asbestos that has intentions of exposing the community to asbestos is expected to have the company executing the practice to notify a certain division entitled the regulating Air control (Tennessee department of Environment and Conservation, 2009). More so, Tennessee State is also observant on the situations whereby asbestos is to be disposed. The vehicles in which to transport asbestos require labeling accordingly and those involved in disposing require to have been in this occupation for a period of about two years.
Case proceedings of W. Grace
A grand jury operating under federal government involved itself in indictment of this particular company together with its executives. This took place in the month of February, 2005 and as mentioned earlier, the reason for the indictment or accusation was the instance whereby the company got itself involved in operating vermiculite mine based in Libby. The indictment constituted several accusations all of which were based on the fact that W Grace intentionally exposed the community to dangerous asbestos materials.
A breakdown of the indictment include such accusations as concealing information regarding danger exposed to community members, causing interruptions during EPA investigations, going against the Act of clean air, wire fraud, provision of asbestos to community members including learning institutions and finally a plan to conduct asbestos discharge then hide health problems accruing from consequent contamination (Tennessee department of Environment and Conservation, 2009).
By the time this particular indictment was taking place, significant damage was evident among community members some of whom were already dead as an even larger percentage were ailing with diseases resulting from asbestos. Among those that were dismissed is wire fraud together with conspiracy whereby prosecutors decided to drop the case of wire fraud while the one on conspiracy was dismissed upon a realization that several defendants were not part of the company by the time the statute was commencing (Justice Department, 2005).
The ultimate ruling for the case involving W. Grace left a large number of Tennessee residents astonished since they expected the ruling to be in accordance to the significant harm it caused the community. The jurors dealing with this particular case finally returned a verdict pronouncing the company as not guilty (Justice Department, 2005).
This particular trial commenced with presentation of several reports towards the end of 1999 which were forwarded by a post-intelligencer dealing with asbestos impact within Libby. EPA developed an interest in the matter and directed investigations in order to get all the relevant information concerning Grace Company (Justice Department, 2005).
Just before the final day of the trial, the jury was presented with more legal definitions together with some other fifty instructions from a rather renowned judge by the name Molly. This judge was considerably agitated prior and during trial proceedings as he felt that the ruling was moving in a direction that would limit stand of the government regarding the case (Justice Department, 2005). It is after the ruling that W Grace presented a statement whereby it expressed the much relief it got from the verdict. It also went ahead to argue that the company’s management had exerted significant efforts in order to ensure that it observed compliance to environment related standards.
The great relief was among other reasons be explained by the situation whereby the company would not face the tough charges expected in case the ruling had not favored the company. That is, the company would have paid a compensation of $280 million which would in turn have a considerably great negative impact on its financial status (Justice Department, 2005).
Community members who had been significantly affected by the asbestos associated undertakings were not happy with the verdict outcome. They could not understand the reasons as to why a company whose deeds had cost the community their health and even worse their lives would be announced free without suffering the consequences (Justice Department, 2005).
Not only community members were astonished by verdict outcome but also the environmental as well as health departments that had witnessed the extent to which the company had cause environment pollution which in turn affected the community at large. This great astonishment was evident by the situation whereby the entire trial period was characterized by great tension, dismissals as well as scandals instead of charges for the irresponsible behavior of the company in question.
More so, the issue that made the community more worried is fact that even with the large amount of deliberations and reports presented during the final day, the proceedings took considerably minimal time to get to the final verdict. On the contrary, public including environmentalists, health experts as well as affected community members argued that if only these reports were reflected on, it would have considerably changed the ruling outcome to be on their favor.
Justice department that was in charge of the court proceedings only presented a statement in which there were no specifications of any appeal intention (Justice Department, 2005). It did not also include further comments that would give the community some hope of being compensated, but made it short owing to the fact that there was a pending trial for one of the company’s executives.
Grace company’s intentions of settling injury claims resulting from asbestos production
Although the ruling on the involvement of Grace Company in asbestos production undertakings that posed the surrounding environment to danger favored the company, it went ahead with intentions of having its name cleared as well as winning back its customers (Grace $ co., 2009). This is did in April, the year 2008 when it publicized an agreement directed towards settling the already existing as well as any expected claims of private injury that is associated with asbestos.
Several recognized parties were involved in the event of settling this essential agreement including official committee attached to claimants of private injury regarding Asbestos as well as future representatives attached to Equity Security (Grace $ co., 2009).Other than the signatories, this particular agreement also involved specific assets whose payment was to be made in an established trust associated with Bankruptcy Code of US.
The assets include $250 million in cash, a go ahead involvement in insurance coverage specifications associated with asbestos operations of W. Grace and guarantee to acquiring Grace shares amounting to ten million which are to be presented at the $17 each and to expire an year from when reorganization plan commences (Grace $ co., 2009).More so, there was an inclusion of deferred payments one of which amounted to $110 million annually which was to take place for a period of five years starting 2019 and another one for $100 million annually for a period of ten years and starting 2024.
The last one constituted W.Grace obligations that were accompanied by common stock of this particular company in order to meet section 524(g) requirements (Grace $ co., 2009).Despite the fact that the agreement appears to be considerably involving for the company in question, its completion is expected to result to a better operational position that is rather reorganized.
Though by April the year 2008 there was pretty much that required to be carried out prior to confirmation of this reorganization plan, Grace Company was already optimistic of the expected outcome. This included not only helping in completion of Chapter 11 undertakings but also in advancement of shareowner value as well as a remarkable progression in the entire business operations (Grace $ co., 2009).
Conclusion
This particular reorganization plan for W. Grace is expected to have its employees retained accordingly owing to the fact that they have shown great efforts towards progression of company’s business undertakings during the period it has been operating within Chapter 11.
The company is quick to note in the statement constituting the agreement that its contents are just what it hopes to achieve hence the inclusion of words such as targets, expects, believes as well as plans (Grace $ co., 2009).
Considering the uncertainties to which W. Grace is exposed to, the specified results may differ considerably from those cited within the agreements statements (Grace $ co., 2009). However, Grace Company has all that it finds necessary in place to ensure that it achieves reorganization goals and hence be in a position to offer environmental conservation which will limit chances of getting involved in such cases as that of dangers caused through asbestos mining.
References
Grace $ co. 2009, Jury Acquits W.R. Grace In Asbestos Case, retrieved 2009 from
Justice department, W. Grace and executives charged with fraud, obstruction of justice, and endangering libby, Montana community, retrieved 2005 from www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2005/…/05_enrd_048.htm – United States,
Latimes, firm acquitted in asbestos case, retrieved 2009, from http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/09/nation/na-asbestos-trial9.
Mesothelioma, Not Guilty Verdict in W.R. Grace & Co. Criminal Case, retrieved 2009 from www.mesotheliomaweb.org/may200913a.htm
Tennessee department of Environment and Conservation, W.R. Grace In Asbestos case, retrieved 2009 from http://tennessee.gov/environment/permits/asbnot.php
www.grace.com/Media/NewsItem.aspx?id=1126367
