“Between in or about 2019 and in or about February 2020, for each of the fifteen (15) school buildings listed below, Respondent failed to include element no. 10 (a description of steps taken to inform workers and building occupants, or their legal guardians, about inspections, reinspections, response actions, and post-response action activities, including periodic reinspection and surveillance activities that are planned or in progress) and element no. 11 (an evaluation of the resources needed to complete response actions successfully and carry out reinspection, operations and maintenance activities, periodic surveillance and training), which are required to be included in each asbestos management plan by 40 C.F.R. § 763.93(e)”

💡 This shows the district failed to include two of the twelve required elements in management plans for 15 schools, leaving occupants uninformed and planning inadequate.

“Between in or about 2019 and in or about February 2020, Respondent failed to maintain in its administrative office a complete, updated copy of a management plan for each of the nineteen (19) school buildings under its administrative control or direction, referenced in paragraph 27 and identified in Table 1, above, and failed to make the plans available without cost or restriction for inspection by representatives of EPA and the State, the public, including teachers, other school personnel and their representatives, and parents.”

💡 Critical asbestos safety information was not available at the district’s central office for oversight by regulators, parents, or school employees for over a year.

“Between in or about 2019 and in or about February 2020, Respondent failed to maintain in the administrative office of each of the nineteen (19) schools under its authority a complete, updated copy of a management plan for that school, and failed to make the plan available without cost or restriction for inspection by representatives of EPA and the State, the public, including teachers, other school personnel and their representatives, and parents, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 763.93(g)(3).”

💡 Workers at individual schools could not access asbestos safety plans before beginning work, potentially exposing them to hazards unknowingly.

“Section 207 of TSCA-AHERA, 15 U.S.C. § 2647, provides that, for purposes of the civil penalty provisions of the statute, a ‘violation’ means a failure to comply with respect to a single school building.”

💡 Federal law treats each school building’s failure as a separate violation, meaning the district committed dozens of separate offenses with potential daily penalties.

“The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (TSCA-AHERA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2641-2656, was enacted by Congress to provide for the establishment of federal regulations which require inspections for asbestos-containing material and implementation of appropriate response actions with respect to asbestos-containing material in the Nation’s schools in a safe and complete manner; to mandate safe and complete periodic re-inspection of school buildings following response actions, where appropriate; and to require EPA to conduct a study to find out the extent of the danger to human health posed by asbestos in public and commercial buildings and the means to respond to any such danger.”

💡 Congress created these laws specifically to protect children from a known carcinogen, making the district’s failures particularly serious.

“Asbestos-containing material (ACM), particularly when friable (easily crumbled), can release microscopic fibers into the air. If inhaled, these fibers can lead to serious and often fatal diseases, including asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma, often decades after exposure. Schools are of particular concern due to the long latency period of these diseases and the vulnerability of children.”

💡 This explains the serious health consequences of the district’s failure to properly manage asbestos, with effects that may not appear for decades.

“Respondent has represented and provided proof that it has spent more than $40,431 to achieve compliance with TSCA-AHERA and its regulations. In consideration of the expenditures which Respondent has made to achieve compliance, Complainant reduced the penalty by the full amount of these expenditures, resulting in a penalty of zero dollars ($0).”

💡 Despite years of alleged violations endangering students and staff, the district paid no financial penalty because it spent money on compliance it was already required to do.

“Respondent admits the jurisdictional allegations in this CAFO and neither admits nor denies the factual allegations in this CAFO.”

💡 The settlement allowed the district to avoid any formal admission of wrongdoing while still resolving the EPA’s enforcement action.

“A description of steps taken to inform workers and building occupants, or their legal guardians, about inspections, reinspections, response actions, and post-response action activities, including periodic reinspection and surveillance activities that are planned or in progress.”

💡 Federal regulations explicitly require schools to describe how they will keep the school community informed about asbestos hazards, which 15 Scranton schools allegedly failed to do.

“An evaluation of the resources needed to complete response actions successfully and carry out reinspection, operations and maintenance activities, periodic surveillance and training.”

💡 The district allegedly failed to even assess what resources would be needed to keep asbestos safely managed, suggesting planning failures driven by budget constraints.

“Local educational agencies may contractually delegate their duties under this rule, but they remain responsible for the proper performance of those duties. 40 C.F.R. §§ 763.93(a) – (i).”

💡 The district could not escape responsibility by claiming it had hired contractors to handle asbestos management, as the law makes the school district ultimately accountable.

“Section 207(a)(3) of TSCA-AHERA provides, inter alia, that any local educational agency which fails to develop an asbestos management plan pursuant to regulations under Section 2643(i) of TSCA-AHERA, 15 U.S.C. § 2643(i), is liable for a civil penalty of not more than $13,508 for each day during which the violation continues.”

💡 Each day of violation for each school building could have resulted in a penalty of over $13,000, showing how seriously federal law treats these safety failures.

“Section 11 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2610, provides EPA with authority to conduct inspections upon the presentation of appropriate credentials and written notice.”

💡 Federal law gives the EPA clear authority to inspect schools and uncover the violations alleged in this case.

“Within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this CAFO, Respondent shall submit documents proving that it is in compliance with Section 203 of TSCA-AHERA, 15 U.S.C. § 2643, and the regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 763, Subpart E, with respect to all of its school buildings, whether named or unnamed in the instant CAFO.”

💡 The consent order requires the district to prove within 90 days that it has finally brought all its schools into compliance with asbestos safety laws.

“Congress also directed EPA to promulgate regulations that require local educational agencies to, among other things, inspect their school buildings for asbestos-containing building material, prepare asbestos management plans and perform asbestos response actions to prevent or reduce asbestos hazards. 15 U.S.C. § 2643.”

💡 Congress specifically directed the EPA to create and enforce these regulations to prevent or reduce asbestos hazards in schools where children learn.