The former site of a motel in Warrensburg, New York, located next door to a local eatery known as Potter’s Diner, may be contaminated with dangerous asbestos fibers according to city officials. The property was tested after it was demolished as part of the State Labor Department’s attempts to ensure that asbestos regulations during renovation and demolition projects were being observed. Officials found that no test was conducted prior to the project, and that the contractor hired to perform the demolition lacked the proper license to handle asbestos contaminated materials. Richard Galusha, one of the owners of the property, was issued several citations for failing to adhere to state asbestos handling requirements.

Richard, who was not aware of the requirements and was bewildered by the citations, asked “How would anyone know that they’re supposed to have an asbestos survey done?”

Galusha is not alone when it comes to ignorance of state and federal asbestos regulations. While strict laws concerning the demolition and renovation of old buildings are certainly in place that deal specifically with asbestos testing and disposing procedures, not all contractors are aware of them. Often, building owners, home owners, or others who would contract the services of a demolition or renovation company are completely unaware of the dangers of asbestos or the regulations surrounding proper testing and safe handling.

The existence of these laws combined with spotty, almost random enforcement and a lack of public awareness about asbestos issues is a recipe for unexpected fines and citations. More than just the unhappily surprised home owner or building owner, however, the hundreds of projects which go untested and unnoticed present a growing concern and a serious health hazard.

With the diagnoses of mesothelioma, an aggressive and terminal cancer caused by asbestos, still on the rise in much of North America, it’s clear that asbestos contamination is far from a problem of the past. Stricter laws and special licensing requirements may seem like obvious solutions to asbestos problems, but without the bark of awareness and consistent enforcement, the bite of randomly enforced, surprising fines can hardly be expected to decrease the dangers of asbestos exposure.

The unfortunate truth is that state level agencies like the Labor Department and federal organizations like the EPA lack the resources necessary to keep new demolitions and renovations in check. Until asbestos related laws are common knowledge and their enforcement is all but guaranteed, random spot checks are unlikely to produce anything more than a few thousand dollars in fines after the damage has already been done.

“We were trying to fix the town,” Galusha said of the demolition project to a local news agency, “they inspect the site and they give you a permit. Nobody said anything about asbestos.”

The 43 year old owner of a demolition company licensed for asbestos abatement has been sentenced to just over a year in prison and fined $1,000 for negligently abandoning asbestos safe-handling regulations. The sentence, passed by the U.S. District Judge Robert Holmes Bell, is one of the first of its kind and may constitute the beginning of a firmer stance on safe asbestos handling procedures.

Scott Tucker, the owner of H & M Demolition Company based out of Holland, Michigan, demolished a condemned lumber mill without heeding the special precautions prescribed for buildings containing asbestos products. While state and federal regulations state that known asbestos contaminated products should be kept consistently wet and removed gently by hand to avoid producing airborne asbestos fibers, Scott had his team demolish tons of dry asbestos wall-board with an excavator. The debris was then transported to a cement recycling facility where it was processed alongside normal cement debris.

Asbestos regulations in the United States were developed to help the nation avoid the dangerous illnesses that can result from prolonged exposure to asbestos fibers. Asbestos products were used fervently throughout much of the twentieth century due to their cost efficiency, excellent insulating properties, and incredible fire retardation. Nowadays, however, it is known that accidentally breathing or ingesting microscopic asbestos fibers can lead to terrible diseases like mesothelioma, an aggressive and terminal cancer.

Plenty of asbestos still exists in buildings across America, but it’s not lying still in buildings where it produces the most serious threat. Only during renovation or demolition efforts does asbestos become truly dangerous, as it releases its toxic fibers into the air when crushed, broken, or otherwise aggravated.

Tucker’s failure to enforce the proper asbestos handling procedures in spite of having received the correct training knowingly put his employees, the employees of the recycling plant where H & M Demolition hauled the dangerous material, and the residents of nearby neighborhoods in harm’s way.

In the past violations of this sort have been punished almost entirely with fines, contracting license revocations, and other similar methods. U.S. District Judge Robert Holmes Bell, however, was determined to send a message to would be asbestos regulation violators about the seriousness of negligence when it comes to toxic substances. Sentencing Tucker to more than a year in prison in addition to a $1,000 fine did just that.

“I am convinced that the message has to be sent out to the larger community,” he said. “This is not to be tolerated. This is also way out of bounds.”

A jury in Newport News, VA arrived at a verdict last month requiring just under $6 million to be paid to the widow of Robert Hardick, a man who died of mesothelioma in March of 2009. Robert served in the United States Navy as a petty officer for some two decades, working in shipyards and at sea between the 1950′s and the 1970′s. Both at sea and onshore Robert was required to work in environments contaminated with airborne asbestos, a toxic substance known to cause the disease which took his life.

While strict state and federal regulations apply to the use of asbestos in present times, the substance was widely used in a variety of industries throughout most of the twentieth century. Its availability, cost effectiveness, ease of fabrication and incredible insulating and heat retarding properties made it a commonplace raw material within the ship building industry. Between high pressure rated, heat resistant gaskets, pipe insulation, fire retardant fabrics and more, sailors like Robert Hardick often worked with asbestos on a day to day basis.

Asbestos is an incredibly fibrous substance. Each piece of the dangerous material, whether it’s fabric, board, tile or anything else, is constituted of millions of tiny, microscopic hair-like fibers. When the material is handled and aggravated, these fibers can be released into the air and subsequently inhaled or ingested accidentally. Asbestos fibers pass through the lung or intestinal lining where they then become trapped in the mesothelium, a soft tissue that surrounds the body’s organs. The tissue scarring caused on the mesothelium can develop into malignant tumors years or even decades later. Sadly, once fully developed, mesothelioma is an aggressive and invariably terminal disease.

The defendants in the case were two separate companies which supplied asbestos products to the United States Navy. John Crane, Inc., and Garlock Sealing Technologies were both shown to have known about the potential dangers of asbestos while distributing products that contained the toxic material. While Garlock Sealing Technologies settled out of court for an unknown amount, John Crane, Inc. was held liable for half of the total verdict – $2.99 million.

The jury’s decision demonstrates a rising, poignant awareness of the dangers of asbestos exposure. While the ill effects of asbestos have been understood for nearly a century, law suits against the asbestos industry just thirty years ago were intensely difficult and unlikely to succeed. Nowadays, however, cases like Robert Hardick’s are often won twenty to forty years after initial exposure to asbestos and even a year after the victim’s death.

Robert Hardick, a father of four who became a successful businessman after his military service, is survived by his wife Diane.

The residents of Marco Island in south-west Florida are still waiting for a clear explanation of what dangers, if any, they face as a result of a recent asbestos related incident. The United States Environmental Protection Agency informed the city and the responsible contractors of six infractions of asbestos regulations that were accumulated during efforts to rebuild a local roadway several years ago in 2006.

The violations included failure to remove asbestos before demolition took place, failure to properly dispose of asbestos and materials known to contain asbestos, failure to inspect the work site thoroughly for the dangerous substance, and a failure to have a toxic substance handling professional on-site that was properly trained in local and federal asbestos regulations.

Asbestos exposure is certainly good cause for concern. Accidentally inhaling or ingesting microscopic, airborne asbestos particles can cause a wide variety of health complications that may not be detectable until years or decades after exposure. Serious respiratory complications, asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma have all been linked conclusively to asbestos exposure. Mesothelioma, an aggressive and terminal cancer of the lining of the lungs, has in recent decades become recognized as a tragic industrial disease often due to negligent, irresponsible practices.

The asbestos found at the Marco Island incident, present as an additive to cement piping, was removed during renovation work to Collier Boulevard, one of the community’s highly trafficked roadways. The project’s primary contractor responsible for rebuilding the roadway, Quality Enterprises, was accused by the EPA alongside the city for failure to adhere to asbestos handling regulations.

The Marco Island City Council meeting that followed the incident drew a concerned crowd that volleyed question after question at the Marco City Manager and the council concerning the potential danger of asbestos contamination. These questions were left mostly unanswered or vaguely answered at best. It’s believed that the EPA’s concern was directed towards the Marcus Island highway reconstruction through an anonymous tip-off, and it appears that more concrete details are still in the process of slowly surfacing.

These types of incidents in which impossibly large asbestos slip-ups occur in high visibility projects are the cause of some concern for the EPA as well as state level Environmental and Health agencies. While state and federal regulations concerning the safe handling and proper disposal of asbestos are fairly tight, enforcing the rules consistently and even ensuring that companies are working to adhere to them is a difficult process. In most states, only a tiny fraction of asbestos related work is actually audited by city or federal, leaving a huge opportunity for sloppy practices and fraud.