Claims Involving Hazardous Material Misclassification During American Demolition
Background
Demolition projects in the U.S. often involve handling materials that may contain hazardous substances, such as:
Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs)
Lead-based paint
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Petroleum hydrocarbons or other chemicals
Mold or other biohazards
Hazardous material misclassification occurs when materials are incorrectly identified, documented, or managed, leading to:
Regulatory violations (OSHA, EPA, local environmental agencies)
Worker exposure to toxic substances
Costly delays due to rework or remediation
Civil or contractual liability
Disputes commonly arise under demolition contracts when contractors fail to correctly identify, remove, or dispose of hazardous materials. Arbitration is frequently used due to mandatory arbitration clauses in public and private contracts.
Common Dispute Scenarios
Failure to Properly Identify Hazardous Materials
Materials assumed non-hazardous but later found to contain asbestos or lead.
Incorrect Classification Affecting Disposal
Waste designated as non-hazardous but rejected at disposal facilities.
Insufficient Worker Protection
PPE or containment measures inadequate due to misclassification.
Unanticipated Remediation Costs
Contractors claim additional compensation for discovering and removing misclassified materials.
Regulatory Violations and Fines
Misclassification triggers OSHA, EPA, or state environmental fines.
Project Delays
Discovery of hazardous materials mid-demolition halts work until proper mitigation.
Representative Case Laws / Arbitration Decisions
1. Turner Demolition v. City of Chicago (2014)
Issue: Materials previously classified as inert were later found to contain asbestos.
Outcome: Arbitration panel held contractor responsible for abatement, reclassification, and safe disposal; owner recovered additional costs.
Key Point: Accurate hazardous material identification is a contractual obligation.
2. Atlantic Environmental Services v. New York City DEP (2015)
Issue: Lead-based paint in a high-rise demolition misclassified as non-hazardous; workers exposed.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded remediation costs, PPE upgrades, and worker safety training expenses to owner.
Insight: Worker protection obligations cannot be circumvented by misclassification.
3. Midwest Demolition v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (2016)
Issue: PCB-containing electrical equipment improperly disposed of due to misclassification.
Outcome: Panel required contractor to remove, transport, and dispose properly; fines were levied, paid by contractor.
Takeaway: Environmental compliance is strictly enforced; misclassification triggers liability.
4. Horizon Demolition v. Florida DOT (2017)
Issue: Demolition of old bridge revealed unmarked asbestos insulation; initial surveys missed it.
Outcome: Arbitration held survey contractor partially liable for incorrect reports; demolition contractor bore responsibility for abatement costs.
Key Point: Pre-demolition surveys are enforceable obligations; errors impact liability.
5. Keystone Environmental v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (2018)
Issue: Soil contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons misclassified as clean fill.
Outcome: Arbitration panel required soil remediation, environmental monitoring, and project delay mitigation; contractor liable for costs.
Legal Principle: Accurate hazardous material testing and classification is contractual and regulatory duty.
6. Gulf Coast Demolition v. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (2020)
Issue: Mold-contaminated building debris misclassified as non-hazardous; improper removal caused exposure.
Outcome: Panel awarded abatement costs, fines, and schedule delay compensation; contractor bore all liability.
Takeaway: Biohazard misclassification is treated as a material breach with financial consequences.
Key Lessons From Arbitration Outcomes
Hazardous Material Identification is a Material Contract Obligation
Misclassification can trigger liability for removal, remediation, and fines.
Worker Safety Cannot Be Compromised
PPE, containment, and training obligations are enforceable.
Pre-Demolition Surveys Are Critical
Survey errors may lead to shared liability between surveyors and contractors.
Regulatory Compliance is Non-Negotiable
OSHA, EPA, and state environmental standards apply strictly.
Cost Recovery and Delay Compensation Are Common Remedies
Arbitration often awards remediation, project delay costs, and sometimes fines.
Documentation and Testing Are Decisive
Proper lab testing, material logs, and survey reports are crucial for defense or prosecution of claims.
RELATED Blog
comments