Here's a look at what has been making news in the Illinois environmental community:
(1) Governor Pat Quinn announces 20-year agreements with wind and solar energy vendors to supply Ameren and ComEd with renewable electricity to provide to consumers throughout the state. http://tinyurl.com/4quhbny
(2) The Illinois EPA refers to the Illinois Attorney General’s office an enforcement action regarding alleged improper removal, handling, and disposal of asbestos-containing material. http://tinyurl.com/4lw4pj7
(3) The Illinois Department of Natural Resources approves allowing 10 Lake County communities to tap into Lake Michigan water. http://tinyurl.com/4hsdk7n
(4) The Illinois EPA issues violation notices to a southern Illinois landfill for violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act that resulted in strong odors several miles away. http://tinyurl.com/4cpn6ax
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Showing posts with label Asbestos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Asbestos. Show all posts
Friday, January 28, 2011
Monday, June 28, 2010
Illinois Appellate Court Rules That Employers Must Protect Family of Employees From Asbestos Dangers
In Simpkins v. CSX Corp., No. 5-07-0346, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, recently ruled that employers owe the immediate families of their employees a duty to protect against take-home asbestos exposure.
The Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she contracted mesothelioma cancer due to exposure to asbestos brought home on her husband's body and work clothes (commonly referred to as "take-home" asbestos exposure). The complaint named numerous defendants, including asbestos manufacturers and former employers. The three counts of the complaint here at issue named only CSX (as a successor to the B&O Railroad) and the Dow Chemical Company, where the husband worked from 1964 through the end of the marriage in 1965. Count VII of the complaint alleged that both former employers negligently failed to take precautions to protect the family from take-home asbestos exposure, count VIII alleged that both defendants were strictly liable for engaging in an ultrahazardous activity, and count IX alleged willful and
wanton conduct on the part of both employers.
The trial court granted CSX's motion to dismiss, which argued that an employer does not owe any duty to the families of its employees. On appeal, the Appellate Court disagreed and reversed the the trial court's decision. The Appellate Court held that "ordinary principles of Illinois negligence law" supported the conclusion that employers owed a duty to protect family members of employees in take-home asbestos cases. The Court ruled:
(1) That the harm to be prevented was reasonably foreseeable: "We believe that it takes little imagination to presume that when an employee who is exposed to asbestos brings home his work clothes, members of his family are likely to be exposed as well."
(2) That the likelihood of serious or fatal injury to anyone foreseeably exposed to asbestos is substantial enough to warrant the imposition of a duty on employers.
(3) That "the burden of guarding against take-home asbestos exposure is not unduly burdensome when compared to the nature of the risk to be protected against."
(4) That the consequences of placing the burden on employers are acceptable if the scope of liability is limited to immediate family members.
According to the opinion, this is the first time that an Illinois appellate court ruled on the issue of liability for take-home asbestos exposure. CSX is likely to appeal this decision to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she contracted mesothelioma cancer due to exposure to asbestos brought home on her husband's body and work clothes (commonly referred to as "take-home" asbestos exposure). The complaint named numerous defendants, including asbestos manufacturers and former employers. The three counts of the complaint here at issue named only CSX (as a successor to the B&O Railroad) and the Dow Chemical Company, where the husband worked from 1964 through the end of the marriage in 1965. Count VII of the complaint alleged that both former employers negligently failed to take precautions to protect the family from take-home asbestos exposure, count VIII alleged that both defendants were strictly liable for engaging in an ultrahazardous activity, and count IX alleged willful and
wanton conduct on the part of both employers.
The trial court granted CSX's motion to dismiss, which argued that an employer does not owe any duty to the families of its employees. On appeal, the Appellate Court disagreed and reversed the the trial court's decision. The Appellate Court held that "ordinary principles of Illinois negligence law" supported the conclusion that employers owed a duty to protect family members of employees in take-home asbestos cases. The Court ruled:
(1) That the harm to be prevented was reasonably foreseeable: "We believe that it takes little imagination to presume that when an employee who is exposed to asbestos brings home his work clothes, members of his family are likely to be exposed as well."
(2) That the likelihood of serious or fatal injury to anyone foreseeably exposed to asbestos is substantial enough to warrant the imposition of a duty on employers.
(3) That "the burden of guarding against take-home asbestos exposure is not unduly burdensome when compared to the nature of the risk to be protected against."
(4) That the consequences of placing the burden on employers are acceptable if the scope of liability is limited to immediate family members.
According to the opinion, this is the first time that an Illinois appellate court ruled on the issue of liability for take-home asbestos exposure. CSX is likely to appeal this decision to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Owner of Apartment Building to Pay $43,000 Penalty For Failing to Follow Asbestos Requirements During Renovation
The Illinois Pollution Control Board recently accepted the parties' settlement in People v. Al-Algonquin Apartments, LLC, Case No. PCB 09-39, which concerned a residential apartment building at 1605 East 50th Street in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.
The State alleged that the owners of the building violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by: (1) failing to adequately wet and keep wet all regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) removed during renovation operations until such asbestos-containing waste materials were collected and contained in leak-tight wrapping in preparation for disposal, (2) failing to provide notice of a renovation activity, (3) failing to have a trained foreman or representative present during the disturbance of regulated asbestos containing materials, (4) failing to maintain adequate containment of RACM, thereby causing and allowing the release of asbestos fibers into the environment, and (5) failing to deposit all asbestos-containing waste material within a site permitted to accept such waste as soon as practicable.
Under the terms of the settlement, the owners do not affirmatively admit the alleged violations but agree to pay, jointly and severally, a civil penalty of $43,000.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The State alleged that the owners of the building violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act by: (1) failing to adequately wet and keep wet all regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) removed during renovation operations until such asbestos-containing waste materials were collected and contained in leak-tight wrapping in preparation for disposal, (2) failing to provide notice of a renovation activity, (3) failing to have a trained foreman or representative present during the disturbance of regulated asbestos containing materials, (4) failing to maintain adequate containment of RACM, thereby causing and allowing the release of asbestos fibers into the environment, and (5) failing to deposit all asbestos-containing waste material within a site permitted to accept such waste as soon as practicable.
Under the terms of the settlement, the owners do not affirmatively admit the alleged violations but agree to pay, jointly and severally, a civil penalty of $43,000.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Settlement of State Enforcement Action Alleging Asbestos-Related Violations
The Illinois Pollution Control Board recently accepted the parties' stipulation and proposed settlement in People v. Schultz, PCB 09-74, which concerned the defendant's property located at 400 N. Ninth Street, Springfield, Sangamon County, Illinois. The property is a commercial building (Building T), formerly a part of St. John’s Hospital of the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis.
The State alleged that the defendant violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and environmental regulations by not providing timely advance notification of renovation; failing to properly wet, collect, and deposit “regulated asbestos-containing material” (RACM); improperly disposing of RACM; and by failing to have a person properly trained in NESHAPs requirements present during the renovation activities.
According to the terms of the settlement, the defendant admits the alleged violations and agrees to pay a civil penalty of $7,000.00.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
The State alleged that the defendant violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and environmental regulations by not providing timely advance notification of renovation; failing to properly wet, collect, and deposit “regulated asbestos-containing material” (RACM); improperly disposing of RACM; and by failing to have a person properly trained in NESHAPs requirements present during the renovation activities.
According to the terms of the settlement, the defendant admits the alleged violations and agrees to pay a civil penalty of $7,000.00.
Stay tuned to the Illinois Environmental Law Blog for more news and developments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
