EvilCorporations.com · Corporate Accountability Reporting · Public Health Edition
Mistick Construction Co. · Pittsburgh North Side · 2019–2022
They Renovated 49 Pittsburgh Homes Without Checking for Asbestos. Six Had It.
Mistick Construction skipped mandatory asbestos inspections on an entire North Side neighborhood and paid a $754,600 fine, years after committing the same violation elsewhere in Pittsburgh.
■ Critical Severity
TL;DR
Mistick Construction Company and its affiliates renovated 49 occupied and recently occupied residential properties on Pittsburgh’s North Side without first conducting legally required asbestos inspections. When the Allegheny County Health Department investigated following a citizen complaint in 2019, inspectors found asbestos-containing material in six of those buildings. Workers had disturbed, removed, and improperly disposed of that asbestos without warning signs, without protective sealing, without negative air pressure systems, and without taking the debris to an authorized landfill. This was not a first offense: Mistick had been caught and penalized for the same type of violation at a South Side project in 2016. The company was fined $754,600 in December 2022.
Residents of Pittsburgh’s North Side deserve to know what happened in their neighborhood. Demand that every construction firm operating in Allegheny County be held to the letter of asbestos safety law.
$754,600
Total civil penalty assessed
49
Homes renovated without asbestos surveys
6
Buildings confirmed to contain asbestos
$4.2M
Initial penalty before negotiation
2nd
Repeat offense (prior violation in 2016)
10+
Distinct regulatory violations cited
Core Allegations
Core Allegations
What they did · 7 points
▼
| 01 | Mistick Construction and affiliates renovated 49 residential properties on Pittsburgh’s North Side without conducting any pre-renovation asbestos survey, a requirement under both federal NESHAP rules and Allegheny County Article XXI. | high |
| 02 | Respondents never applied for or obtained asbestos abatement permits before beginning renovation work on any of the 49 structures. | high |
| 03 | Asbestos-containing material was found in six of the 49 buildings only after post-renovation inspections. By that point, the hazardous material had already been disturbed. | high |
| 04 | Mistick had been cited and penalized for the same violation at a South Side Pittsburgh project in 2016, making the 2019 violations a documented repeat offense. | high |
| 05 | ACHD received a citizen complaint on May 16, 2019 alerting regulators to the ongoing renovations. The company’s violations were not self-reported. | med |
| 06 | The original penalty assessment before settlement negotiations was $4,212,000. The final penalty of $754,600 represents an 82% reduction from the initial figure. | med |
| 07 | The enforcement order names multiple Mistick-affiliated entities jointly and severally liable, including NorthSide Properties Residences II LLC, Northside Associates LP, and Tom Mistick and Sons Inc. | med |
Public Health Failures
Unsafe conditions created for residents and workers · 8 points
▼
| 01 | Respondents posted no asbestos warning signs at any worksite. Federal law requires clearly visible danger signs reading “CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD” to be posted at all entry points before abatement begins. | high |
| 02 | No negative air pressure systems were installed in the six asbestos-confirmed buildings, meaning asbestos fibers could migrate freely into surrounding air and adjacent spaces during renovation work. | high |
| 03 | Respondents failed to seal windows, doorways, ducts, and all other openings with six-mil plastic sheeting before asbestos removal, leaving pathways open for fiber release into living areas. | high |
| 04 | No decontamination enclosure systems were installed at entry or exit points of the work areas, meaning workers could carry asbestos fibers on their clothing and equipment out of the work zone. | high |
| 05 | Asbestos-containing material was not wetted and saturated before removal, a required procedure to suppress fiber release. Dry asbestos fibers become airborne and are inhaled into the lungs. | high |
| 06 | ACHD inspectors observed visible asbestos residue left on surfaces and floors after abatement work concluded in the six confirmed buildings, a direct violation of clearance requirements. | high |
| 07 | Respondents reopened or failed to maintain protective barriers in six buildings before ACHD issued a final clearance inspection, potentially exposing future occupants to residual asbestos. | high |
| 08 | The remaining 43 structures, although they did not test positive for asbestos at inspection, had already been renovated by the time inspectors arrived. ACHD explicitly noted that the absence of detectable asbestos at that stage was not proof the material was never present or disturbed. | med |
Illegal Asbestos Disposal
How hazardous waste was handled and discarded · 5 points
▼
| 01 | Asbestos waste was not placed in required leaktight containers before removal from the work site. Federal and county regulations mandate sealed, labeled containers transported to authorized landfills. | high |
| 02 | Containers used for asbestos waste were not labeled as required by federal regulations at 40 CFR Section 61.150, meaning disposal crews and future waste handlers had no warning of the hazardous contents. | high |
| 03 | Asbestos material with sharp-edged components was not placed into drums as required; instead it was bagged in single-layer materials that could tear and release fibers. | med |
| 04 | Removed asbestos was not transported to an authorized landfill. The enforcement order explicitly states that none of the asbestos waste material was taken to an approved disposal site. | high |
| 05 | Areas outside the work zones that became contaminated during abatement were not immediately decontaminated as required, meaning asbestos spread beyond the immediate work area without remediation. | high |
Corporate Accountability Failures
Weak penalties, repeat offenses, and settlement discounts · 5 points
▼
| 01 | The initial calculated penalty was $4,212,000. After negotiations and credit for cooperation, the final penalty was reduced to $754,600, an 82% discount from the full legal exposure. | high |
| 02 | Mistick entered a Consent Order with ACHD in 2016 for the same category of violation at its Brewhouse project in the South Side neighborhood. The 2019 North Side violations were its second documented offense. | high |
| 03 | The enforcement order acknowledges cooperation from Respondents as a mitigating factor in the penalty reduction, despite the violations being a repeat offense that exposed residents of 49 homes to potential asbestos hazards. | med |
| 04 | No individual executives were named in personal liability. The penalty is assessed jointly against the corporate entities, shielding individual decision-makers from direct accountability. | med |
| 05 | The enforcement order was not issued until December 2022, more than three years after the initial citizen complaint in May 2019. Residents lived near or in renovated buildings for years before a final order was finalized. | med |
How Oversight Worked and Where It Fell Short
The regulatory framework and enforcement timeline · 4 points
▼
| 01 | ACHD only launched its investigation after a citizen filed a complaint on May 16, 2019. No proactive inspection caught the ongoing violations across 49 properties. | med |
| 02 | Stop Work Orders were issued on June 11, 2019, but Respondents did not receive them until June 17, 2019. Work had already proceeded across all 49 buildings before any halt. | med |
| 03 | The July 10, 2019 Consent Order created a framework for lifting Stop Work Orders one property at a time, conditioning re-entry on passing ACHD inspections for asbestos. This process took until August 21, 2019 to complete. | low |
| 04 | The maximum statutory penalty is $25,000 per violation per day. Despite multiple violations across 49 properties spanning weeks of work, the final assessed penalty works out to a fraction of the maximum legally authorized amount. | high |
Timeline of Events
May 2016
Mistick enters first Consent Order with ACHD for asbestos violations at its Brewhouse project in the South Side neighborhood of Pittsburgh. Required to obtain remediation permits.
Pre-2019
Mistick affiliates begin multi-phase renovations across 49 residential properties on Pittsburgh’s North Side without conducting mandatory asbestos surveys or obtaining required permits.
May 16, 2019
ACHD receives a citizen complaint reporting Mistick’s ongoing North Side renovation project. Department launches investigation.
June 11, 2019
ACHD issues Administrative Field Orders (Stop Work Orders) to Respondents for violations of Article XXI and federal NESHAP requirements.
June 17, 2019
Respondents receive the Stop Work Orders. Renovations across all 49 properties must halt pending inspections.
July 10, 2019
ACHD and Respondents enter a Consent Order and Agreement establishing a property-by-property testing and clearance framework before Stop Work Orders could be lifted.
Aug. 21, 2019
ACHD clears the final North Side property. Stop Work Orders are lifted across all 49 structures after inspections confirm post-remediation status. Six buildings were confirmed to contain asbestos.
Dec. 19, 2022
ACHD issues the Enforcement Order, assessing a final civil penalty of $754,600 against all Respondents jointly and severally, more than three years after the initial complaint.
Direct Quotes from the Enforcement Order
FINDING 1
Failure to survey before renovation
Core Allegations
“Respondents failed to conduct a NESHAP survey for all 49 of the subject structures notwithstanding the fact that material from only six of those structures would ultimately test positive for the presence of ACM.”
💡 This is the foundational violation. The entire legal framework of asbestos safety requires the inspection to happen before work begins, precisely because you cannot know which structures contain asbestos until you look. Skipping that step is not a technicality; it is the harm itself.
FINDING 2
Repeat offender status confirmed
Corporate Accountability
“violations that gave rise to the Stop Work Order constituted the second violation of Article XXI attributable to Respondents’ renovation activity.”
💡 This was not a company that made an honest mistake. Mistick had already been penalized for the same class of violation in 2016 and continued the same practice at a larger scale three years later.
FINDING 3
No warning signs posted
Public Health Failures
“Respondents failed to post clearly identifiable signage anywhere on the worksite in a manner permitting a person to read the sign and take the necessary protective measures to avoid potential exposure prior to the removal of the asbestos containing material.”
💡 Residents, neighbors, and passersby had no way of knowing they were near an active asbestos removal site. The warning signs required by law exist for a reason: asbestos exposure causes mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis. The public was denied even the most basic protection.
FINDING 4
No negative air pressure maintained
Public Health Failures
“Respondents failed to maintain negative air pressure in the work area in six of the subject structures to prevent the contamination of asbestos fibers into the air.”
💡 Negative air pressure is what keeps asbestos fibers from escaping a work zone. Without it, every open window or doorway becomes a conduit for a carcinogen to reach neighbors, children playing outside, and anyone walking down the street.
FINDING 5
Visible asbestos residue left behind
Public Health Failures
“ACHD inspectors observed a visible residue of ACM on surfaces and floors left behind from abatement activity.”
💡 Inspectors could see the asbestos left on the floors and walls. This is not an invisible technical failure; it is evidence that hazardous material was abandoned in buildings people were expected to occupy.
FINDING 6
Asbestos waste sent to unauthorized disposal
Illegal Disposal
“None of the ACM was taken to an authorized landfill.”
💡 Four words. None of the asbestos removed from these six buildings was disposed of properly. Its current location is not disclosed in the enforcement order. Asbestos does not degrade. Wherever it went, it remains a hazard.
FINDING 7
Absence of asbestos at inspection is not evidence of safety
Core Allegations
“the properties had been in various stages of renovation by the time of the inspection, and, therefore, the absence of asbestos at the time of the inspection was not evidence that asbestos was neither present nor disturbed during the renovation work.”
💡 ACHD itself acknowledged that the 43 buildings which did not test positive may not have been safe either. The inspection happened after renovation, not before. Any asbestos that had been present could have already been disturbed, inhaled, or improperly discarded before inspectors arrived.
Commentary
Why is skipping an asbestos survey so dangerous?
▼
Asbestos is a known human carcinogen. When old building materials containing asbestos are disturbed during renovation, microscopic fibers become airborne and can be inhaled. Those fibers lodge permanently in lung tissue and can cause mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis, diseases that often don’t appear for decades after exposure. The pre-renovation survey requirement exists precisely because you cannot see asbestos fibers with the naked eye. Skipping the survey means choosing not to know, and choosing not to protect everyone in and around the building.
Is $754,600 a meaningful penalty for a company like Mistick?
▼
That figure represents an 82% reduction from the initial penalty assessment of $4,212,000. The statutory maximum under Pennsylvania law is $25,000 per violation per day. Given that violations occurred across 49 properties over an extended period, the theoretical maximum exposure was far higher. The final penalty was discounted significantly in exchange for cooperation and compliance. Critics of this framework argue that deep discounts for cooperation reward companies that only fix problems after they are caught, not before. For a multi-entity real estate and construction operation undertaking a 49-property renovation project, the cost of compliance would likely have been a fraction of the penalty paid.
Why does it matter that this was a second offense?
▼
In 2016, Mistick was caught doing the same thing at a different Pittsburgh neighborhood project, the South Side Brewhouse development. They entered a Consent Order, presumably paid penalties, and were required to comply going forward. Three years later, they renovated 49 more homes without asbestos surveys. The 2016 violation was not a one-time oversight; it appears to reflect a business practice of beginning renovation work without completing required safety steps. That pattern makes the harm to North Side residents not an accident but a foreseeable consequence of a recurring failure.
Could residents in the 43 buildings without confirmed asbestos still have been exposed?
▼
Yes. ACHD explicitly stated in the enforcement order that the absence of detectable asbestos at the time of inspection was not evidence that asbestos was never present or never disturbed. The inspections occurred after renovation was already underway or complete. If asbestos-containing materials in those 43 buildings had been disturbed and removed before inspectors arrived, any exposure would have already occurred. Without a pre-renovation survey, there is no baseline data showing what materials were originally present in any of the 49 buildings.
Where did the asbestos waste go if not to an authorized landfill?
▼
The enforcement order does not specify where the improperly handled asbestos waste was ultimately deposited. The document states that none of the asbestos-containing material removed from the six confirmed buildings was taken to an authorized landfill. This is a serious public concern: asbestos does not break down in the environment. If it was placed in a standard dumpster, transferred to a general landfill, or disposed of in any other unauthorized manner, it remains a hazard wherever it ended up.
Why did it take more than three years for a final enforcement order?
▼
The complaint was filed in May 2019. The enforcement order was signed in December 2022. The intervening period involved investigation, two Consent Orders, property-by-property inspections, penalty negotiation, and review. While regulatory processes require due diligence, a three-year timeline between complaint and final order is a feature of a system that prioritizes negotiated resolution over speed. In that time, Mistick’s renovated properties were occupied or sold, meaning the people living in or near those buildings had no public enforcement record to consult.
What can Pittsburgh residents do to protect themselves and prevent this from happening again?
▼
Contact the Allegheny County Health Department at its Air Quality Program if you see renovation work on older buildings (generally pre-1980) where no asbestos warning signs are posted. You can file a complaint directly; the 2019 investigation into Mistick was itself triggered by a citizen complaint. Ask your city council representative to support stronger pre-renovation notification requirements and public disclosure of asbestos survey results. Support organizations that monitor construction safety and environmental health in your neighborhood. Know your rights: if you rent in a building undergoing renovation, your landlord may be required to notify you of any asbestos abatement activity before it begins. And if you believe you have been exposed, consult a physician and document the timeline of your exposure.
Was this the fault of individual employees or a company-level decision?
▼
The enforcement order names multiple corporate entities under the Mistick umbrella as jointly and severally liable: Mistick Construction Company, NorthSide Properties Residences II LLC, Northside Properties Residence II LLC, Northside Associates LP, and Tom Mistick and Sons Inc. No individuals are named. The use of multiple entities in a single renovation project is common in real estate development and can complicate liability. The pattern of violations across two separate projects, in two separate neighborhoods, separated by three years, points to organizational practice rather than individual error.
This man right here is Bud Wilson. He was in charge of the construction of the commercial properties at Mistick when all this was going down.
He has a LinkedIn page.
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
