A California city faces a lawsuit claiming that park visitors could be faced with lung cancer from asbestos due to insufficient remediation.

Plaintiff Jeffrey B. recently filed a lawsuit against the Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Department of Berkley, California – claiming that Echo Lake Camp is riddled with asbestos. Jeffery, who used to work as a manager of the city-run camp, claims that he raised concerns to the city about asbestos in the camp’s cabins but was shot down.

City officials allegedly denied an investigation into the “cracking and peeling” asbestos because “it would look bad”. Instead, Jeffery was allegedly advised to move out of the cabin into his van and to wash his clothes that may have been exposed to asbestos. Jeffery claims that he was not offered compensation for his new risk for lung cancer from asbestos exposure.

Jeffery’s lawsuit also claims that he was wrongfully terminated by the city in August 2018 “for no other reason than the fact that he had complained about asbestos in his cabin and in the cabin of others.” He seeks compensatory damages for the emotional distress and lost wages reportedly resulting from his alleged wrongful termination.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring silicate mineral that can be mined and pulled into light fibers. These fibers were commonly used industrial materials such as insulation because of the mineral’s natural resistance to electricity, heat, and corrosion.

However, the use of asbestos was less common after officials discovered an increased risk of mesothelioma and lung cancer from asbestos exposure.

Despite these risks, there is no general ban on asbestos. The material is still used in the United States, although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates this usage. In fact, asbestos was one of the first air pollutants to be regulated under the Clean Air Act of 1970 and many of its applications have been outlawed by the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Last year, the public was concerned that the EPA was backtracking on asbestos regulations to allow more uses for the dangerous mineral. However, the agency assured the public that the opposite was true. The “significant new use rule” or SNUR instead aimed to create “a regulatory backstop where none has existed before”, according to CNN.

“The SNUR is really a good news story for public health protection,” said Nancy Beck, the deputy assistant administrator for EPA’s chemical program.

The EPA’s recent SNUR reportedly aims to close loopholes that previously allowed “grandfathered” uses of asbestos to remain legal. Because these uses are not banned, nothing would prevent companies from utilizing these loopholes in the future – something the EPA hopes to change with their new rule changes.

However, the Environmental Working Group is reportedly concerned that the EPA isn’t sufficiently considering legacy uses of asbestos and the damages they may cause.

“We’re very concerned that EPA is taking a lot of shortcuts in that risk evaluation,” said Melanie Benesh, an attorney for the EWG, speaking to CNN. “There is lots of asbestos still out in the environment, particularly in older homes and schools.”