Source: http://www.freep.com, May 20, 2017
By: Jennifer Dixon
Frustrated with the City of Detroit’s “lack of oversight” of its demolition contractors, the state is pushing for fines and additional penalties against the city after environmental inspectors found dozens of properties where deadly asbestos was mishandled.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has already demanded thousands of dollars in penalties against Detroit’s demolition and asbestos abatement contractors after finding violations at more than 100 properties across the city since 2014, including multiple homes that were torn down before crumbling asbestos was removed.
The findings suggest the possibility of a larger problem with demolitions in the city.
DEQ can hold both contractors and the property owner — in this case the city, the Detroit Land Bank Authority and the Detroit Building Authority — equally responsible for asbestos violations. Until now, however, DEQ had sought fines against only contractors.
That changed May 4, when DEQ Director C. Heidi Grether told Detroit’s top lawyer that her department would seek a consent order or judgment against the city for asbestos violations. In the letter to Melvin Butch Hollowell and obtained by the Free Press, Grether said DEQ officials had “compliance concerns.”
The city, DEQ and the Michigan attorney general’s office will negotiate a consent order or judgment that will include fines for asbestos violations and an agreement the city will follow the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. An order or judgment will most likely include a provision that the city is subject to additional penalties if new violations are found.
It’s not clear when the state and city will reach an agreement, or how much the city will be required to pay for its violations.
Since 2014, when Mayor Mike Duggan took office and launched his ambitious effort to tear down 40,000 blighted buildings in neighborhoods, DEQ investigators have found dusty bags stuffed with asbestos siding and tossed into a garbage bin, pulverized asbestos-containing floor tiles left in a pile of demolition debris, and a dry pile of construction debris littered with asbestos.
“If asbestos is not identified and not properly abated it can represent a health risk. It’s why we pay close attention to contractor and city compliance,” said Tim O’Brien, senior adviser to Grether. “It’s an important public health issue, and we expect people to comply with the law and if they don’t … they’re going to hear from us.”
In a statement, Hollowell said Detroit is in “complete agreement with the MDEQ in its commitment to achieving the highest level of compliance with environmental standards in our blight removal program. We look forward to our continued partnership with the state and will fully adopt its recommendations.”
Tyrone Clifton, executive director of the Detroit Building Authority, said the city has recently put more safeguards in place, including additional inspections.
“We continually strive to improve the safety protocols of our demolition program,” Clifton said in an e-mail Saturday.
Nine Detroit contractors already are under their own individual consent orders with the DEQ, some dating to 2013. Four of  them have received additional penalties for violations discovered after the orders were signed.
Fines range from $2,500 to $40,000; combined they add up to about $130,000. A 10th contractor that was under a two-year consent order signed in early 2015 paid another $15,000 in penalties.
As the DEQ continued to find violations across the city, Grether stepped in last fall. Citing a “lack of oversight of the contractors,” Grether told the city in October to hire an independent environmental services firm to inspect no less than 10% of demolitions each month and report those results to the DEQ, according to a letter she sent city officials.
In response, the city agreed to have independent environmental consultants inspect all of its properties after asbestos had been removed, but before demolition, according to a letter it sent the DEQ. It also agreed to discipline contractors who violate federal asbestos regulations.
The city began those inspections in February, and DEQ did its own spot checks. DEQ inspectors found a problem: Asbestos had been left behind at some properties that had been cleared for demolition by the city’s consultants.
Lynn Fiedler, director of DEQ’s air quality division, said that out of DEQ’s 113 such inspections, it found 12 buildings that were cleared for demolition but still contained asbestos.
“This is a vulnerable community and we’re concerned about the potential impact, and we want to make sure the citizens are protected,” Fiedler said in an interview. “Asbestos is a known human carcinogen. It’s a very big deal. When the fibers get out there, they don’t get destroyed. … It’s important that we protect the public health.”
The city has reported demolishing nearly 11,500 structures since the start of Duggan’s blight removal program, the largest in the country. The DEQ inspects only a small sample — between 8% and 10% of sites targeted for asbestos abatement or demolition. It has found violations at more than 100 properties.
While that number represents a fraction of demolished structures, the findings could suggest the problem is more widespread.
At least 16 contractors have received violation notices at one or more sites.
In some cases, DEQ cited contractors for allowing asbestos to get into the environment. In other cases, DEQ cited them for failing to give the state 10 days’ notice before abatement or demolition. Notices are important because they allow inspectors from the DEQ or the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration to visit sites to ensure the work is done properly. Such notices also put neighbors on alert.
There is no known safe level of exposure to dry, crumbling asbestos.
Some contractors contacted by the Free Press said they are disputing the violation notices.
Nick Schroeck, director of the Wayne State University law school’s environmental clinic, said DEQ’s decision to seek a consent order or judgment with the city “says that there are significant problems with compliance and the city has not ensured the contractors they’ve hired are following proper laws and procedures.”
“To get this degree of enforcement from the state, this doesn’t happen very often,” Schroeck said. “There needs to be appropriate controls and oversight in place so you don’t have the opportunity for the public to be exposed to asbestos and other dangerous pollutants. The state having to come in and seek a consent order, it’s a big deal, it’s significant.”
DEQ isn’t the only agency taking a hard look at the city’s demolition program, which has cost $166.6 million to date. The FBI and the inspector general of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Trouble Asset Recovery Program, which provides a large source of the funding, launched an investigation.  The city’s auditor general has been auditing the program.
While the Clean Air Act and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants are federal rules governing asbestos, DEQ and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency share responsibility for enforcement in Michigan.
“Once asbestos is out there in the community, the cat’s already out of the bag. You can’t contain it,” said Celeste Monforton, a Farmington Hills native who has a doctorate in public health, lectures on environmental health at Texas State University and specializes in occupational and environmental health. “If those asbestos-containing materials are just chopped up, tossed out with the regular garbage, it’s just spreading asbestos throughout the community.”
Other violations that the DEQ found included bags with holes used to store plaster that contained asbestos, waste manifests missing from a landfill and a failure to store asbestos materials in leakproof containers.
In one case in June 2016, DEQ inspectors said in a violation notice to Brown Environmental Construction that it had torn down a house at 14220 Glenfield on the east side before the asbestos could be removed, and asbestos-containing material was “evident throughout the construction debris pile and on the surrounding property.” The asbestos-containing debris was dry and “not contained,” a requirement designed to keep fibers from becoming airborne.
“Any violation should be of concern to the city,” said Wayne State’s Schroeck.
City officials insist they’ve gotten tougher with their contractors.
Earlier this month, the city indefinitely suspended two of its environmental consultants after they cleared buildings for demolition, even though asbestos was still on the property, city officials said.
And, last December, the city spelled out in writing its disciplinary policy for contractors who violate regulations: Anyone cited by DEQ or the MIOSHA while working in Detroit will be suspended from bidding on new work for 30 days.
A second violation within a year would trigger a 90-day suspension from bidding, while a third violation notice within a year would earn a minimum yearlong suspension from bidding as well as termination of all contracts and demolition work. Contractors with more than three violation notices could be suspended up to 480 days.
The building authority’s Clifton, in response to Free Press questions, emphasized the importance of the policy.
“We take all MDEQ violations very seriously and immediately impose sanctions on contractors that receive them,” Clifton said in a statement.
According to city records, two contractors, Brown Environmental Construction and Professional Asbestos Services Inc., also known as P.A.S.I., were suspended from demolition or abatement work last year for 480 days each. City officials say they’re seeking to permanently bar them from the program.
Jesse Brown, owner of Brown Environmental Construction, and Danny Bennett, who runs Professional Asbestos Services, said the city owes them for their work and without that money, their companies are idle.
“We’re shut down completely,” Bennett said, saying that the city owes the company $500,000. The company is unable to pay its taxes, vendors, even its DEQ fines.
Bennett said his asbestos abatement violations involved workers who left “minor material, a little floor title,” at various sites.
A lawyer for Brown said he demolished properties where he thought the asbestos had been removed.
Contractors said the work is difficult: Houses may have been vacant for decades and are often packed with garbage.
Until the 1970s, asbestos was widely used in buildings for fireproofing, thermal and acoustical insulation, condensation control and decoration. It must be removed from most buildings before demolition if it is dry and crumbly, or likely to become pulverized. The EPA declared it a hazardous pollutant in 1971.
It can cause lung disease and cancer, although symptoms may not become apparent for decades. Asbestos fibers are smaller than a human hair and their aerodynamic shape helps transport them far beyond their original point of release.
“When the hazard is asbestos, you don’t want to be cutting corners,” Monforton said. “There’s no room for error when you’re handling asbestos; the hazard is too grave. There’s decades of history of individuals being exposed to asbestos and developing cancer as a result.”
Dr. Kenneth Rosenman, a professor of medicine at Michigan State University who specializes in the adverse health effects of chemical and mineral dusts, such as asbestos, said repeated exposure is usually what puts people at increased risk of developing cancer.
“Generally it’s the worker moving from house to house, eight hours a day, over 10 to 30 years, who’s most at risk,” Rosenman said. “But there is a risk with less exposure, and I wouldn’t want my children playing with asbestos debris. I wouldn’t want open or torn bags of asbestos left on the ground and exposing children in the neighborhood.”