Archive for the ‘Asbestos Legislation’ Category

A safety action plan launched by the Minister for Australia’s State Industrial Relations aims to prevent mesothelioma and asbestos-related disease through education and awareness.

Dubbed the Asbestos Safety Action Plan, the initiative was developed by the Asbestos Advisory Committee and announced during the Asbestos Victim’s Memorial Day.

Under the plan, new guidance and training materials for workers would be handed out by the government. The Environmental Protection Authority would allow information on how to dispose asbestos in a safe manner to be distributed to potential home buyers and real estate agents.

Paul Caica, Minister of Industrial Relations, held the launch at a service during the Asbestos Victims Memorial Day, which paid tribute to those that perished as a result of asbestos cancer.

Mr. Caica stated the plan would incorporate five strategic initiatives focusing on many aspects of society: communication, education, training, partnerships, research and intervention.

“For the first time, we have a comprehensive, community-wide plan of attack on the hazards of asbestos exposure,” Mr. Caica said.

Highly regarded as a an aggressive cancer, mesothelioma is both difficult to treat and diagnose.  With limited treatment and a short survival window, mesothelioma prognosis is usually poor and studies show an average survival rate of less than one per-year.

Due to a large rate of asbestos use in mining, Australia has one of the highest rates of mesothelioma in the world. According to recent studies, over 600 cases are diagnosed each year in Australia and that number is not expected to decline.  It is estimated that most public buildings, hospitals, schools and homes built between 1840 and 1987 in Australia contain asbestos.

Asbestos is a mineral found naturally in the environment and used commonly throughout the 20th century as a form of insulation, piping and roofing.  With asbestos still abundant in building fixtures, the plan will include extensive focus on asbestos information and education in communities, organizations and unions.

The plan was developed with an all-or-nothing approach, gaining support from industry and community groups. The hope is that everybody will work together to prevent and control further exposure to the corrosive substance.

“The Asbestos Action Plan demonstrates the Australian Government’s commitment to work together with industry and community organizations to address this terrible epidemic,” Caica said.

For information on mesothelioma treatment, please visit the Mesothelioma Cancer Center.

According to the corporate regulator in Australia, former directors and executives of James Hardie Industries have provided inaccurate, misleading, and deficient public announcements about the company’s ability to compensate asbestos victims. Because of this, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is now attacking the company in the NSW Supreme Court.

ASIC is alleging that a total of 10 James Hardie directors and executives purposely provided false information to avoid an obligation of paying asbestos sufferers. The information specifically pertained to the size of a compensation fund for those afflicted with an asbestos-related disease.

The $293 million fund that was supposed to be “fully funded” was actually found to be short by a large sum of money. ASIC lawyers allege that the 10 directors and executives lied in their statements because “they believed there would be a public outcry if the truth were revealed.”

In addition, many believe the false statements concerning the fund allowed James Hardie enough time to restructure and move its headquarters to The Netherlands without any scrutiny from the government, unions, and claimants.

This was achieved through the distribution of several media releases to the public announcing the establishment of a new entity under a different name (James Hardie Industries NV), which would secretly take the burden of asbestos claims and separate James Hardie from its asbestos-related companies.

Among those in the first court session was mesothelioma sufferer Brian Burrows and others who had experienced asbestos exposure. According to Burrows, “We’re here because we want to see justice be done. Many of the ladies here have lost partners years ago to asbestos and they too want to see justice being done.”

Adrian Desreaux, who has also been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, came to the court session saying, “It’s a big day for the people who have not yet got the disease but within the next 40 to 50 years will have it. If there’s no money around for them, what are they going to do?”

ASIC is seeking civil penalties against the defendants with each facing fines of up to $200,000 and a possible life-ban from managing corporations.

The first of 56 prosecution witnesses to take the stand was a former in-house James Hardie lawyer. Many are expecting witness examinations and the case to run well into next year.

For information on asbestos and mesothelioma, visit the Mesothelioma Cancer Center.

A push for Asbestos to be added to an international black list of dangerous materials took a step back this week as Canada will continue to export the highly controversial product.

During a recent international meeting, politicians did not achieve their desired goal of banning the hazardous building material. Known to cause deadly diseases such as mesothelioma, countries that have imported and exported the substance in previous years blocked the action.

A naturally occurring mineral, asbestos was used prominently as a form of insulation for homes and buildings throughout the twentieth century. Many organizations are angered at the meetings result.

Diplomats from all over the world congregated in Rome to discuss blacklisting the mineral. Although most types of asbestos are now banned, the material is still being used in building products. Banning any substance requires any government who signed off on the original bill to agree to the new petition.

Canadian Parliament member and supporter of the ban, Pat Martin vehemently stated: “Canada’s defense of asbestos has nothing to do with reason, logic or economics. It’s all about domestic politics.”

Previous meetings took place in 1998 in Rotterdam, Holland when a document was signed that stated that any exporters of dangerous materials need prior informed consent from their designated importer. This was created so countries that import the substance are aware of the risks involved.

The French speaking Canadian province, Quebec, is the main producer of asbestos in the country and according to Martin, will counter any attempts at blacklisting the substance. Comparing asbestos to the tobacco industry, Martin compared the two’s striking similarities due the false research, lobbying and propaganda that are normally involved.

Attacking a layer of tissue that covers a large area of your body’s internal organs, mesothelioma is a form of asbestos cancer. Research has indicated it can take anywhere from twenty to fifty years for these lung cancers to develop. With limited mesothelioma treatment and poor patient prognosis, those advocating for mesothelioma victims rights will have to wait longer for action.

With the next convention not scheduled until 2011, supporters of the ban will have to wait a few years for the initiative to be up for national debate once again:

“We have allowed commercial interests to take primacy over scientific opinion and that could spell the end of the convention,” Martin said.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a decision this week initially made in favor of Georgia-Pacific in a case where the plaintiff sued for compensation following a mesothelioma diagnosis, an asbestos-related disease.

Exposure to asbestos can cause a range of serious diseases, including asbestosis, a chronic, debilitating lung condition that reduces lung capacity. Asbestos exposure also causes the development of lung cancer and gastrointestinal cancer.

Malignant mesothelioma is a deadly form of cancer typically affects the lining of the lungs, usually appearing between two and five decades after asbestos exposure. Pleural mesothelioma is the most common form of the disease and is very resistant to mesothelioma treatments.

The unnamed plaintiff in the case worked for a Pennsylvania construction company in the 1970s and 1980s. Asbestos was used in thousands of construction materials throughout the twentieth century and can still be found in a number of construction products today.

The plaintiff alleged that he had been exposed to asbestos via a joint compound manufactured and sold by Georgia-Pacific and that the company knew of the dangers of asbestos even while it continued to make and sell asbestos-containing products.

An attorney for the plaintiff stated, “Georgia-Pacific did not see fit to warn workers about the hazards created when asbestos-containing joint compound is mixed or sanded, or tell them about appropriate safety precautions, even though basic prevention methods have been known since the 1930s.”

Georgia-Pacific attempted to avoid compensating the victim and his family by demanding that they produce proof of the specific dates and times when he had been exposed to asbestos in the company’s joint compounds. If the family could not produce this evidence, said Georgia-Pacific, they did not have sufficient proof that the man had been exposed to asbestos found in the company’s joint compound.

Initially, The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County ruled in favor of Georgia-Pacific. However, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has reversed that decision and has said the case can now be tried on its own merits.

Among the testimony which persuaded the Superior Court to reverse the decision was that provided by the plaintiff’s sons, who testified that they had seen their father working with the joint compound on several occasions. In addition, a coworker of the plaintiff testified to having seen the plaintiff working with the Georgia-Pacific compound.

On September 15, 2008, The U.S. House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials introduced a bill to ban asbestos. Known as H.R. 6903 and the “Bruce Vento Ban Asbestos and Prevent Mesothelioma Act of 2008,” the bill is an important piece of legislation to the movement to ban asbestos in the United States.

Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that is almost exclusively caused by exposure to asbestos. The only known way to prevent malignant mesothelioma is to avoid asbestos exposure, which is just one of the reasons why this bill is so vital to the health and welfare of the public at large.

If passed, the bill, among other provisions, would set a limit of zero percent asbestos in any product that is mined, processed, imported, sold, or used in any way. The bill would also set a limit of 0.001 percent for minerals that are commonly contaminated with asbestos, including calcium carbonate, olivine, talk, vermiculite, and wollastonite. In addition, the asbestos-contaminated waste that comes from taconite iron mining would also be banned (which is commonly sold for road surfacing).

This is not the first attempt to ban asbestos in the United States, as the Environmental Protection Agency issued a phase out and ban of asbestos in 1989. But just two years later the ban was overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on technicalities. Most recently, Senator Patty Murray fought for six years to get the full U.S. Senate to pass a ban on asbestos last October.

Unfortunately, the bill that was initially presented and the bill that the Senate voted on were quite different. Revisions had diluted the details of the ban and the piece of legislation was warped to please effective lobbyists and the asbestos industry. The revisions to this piece essentially rendered it useless to efforts to ban asbestos in the United States.

In response to the public outcry over Murray’s failed bill, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce stated it would try to issue its own ban without the loopholes that led to the demise of Murray’s bill. The new bill is sponsored by the chairman of the subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, Texas Democrat Gene Green.

The legislation is slated to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act in order to minimize the hazards of asbestos products and will help fund public education programs. Both the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and the Committee to ban Asbestos in America are in support of the bill and have urged the House to speedily pass the bill so presidential approval can be attained.

On September 4, 2008, a Bankruptcy Court ruled that Zonolite attic insulation claims may now be filed against W.R. Grace as part of Grace’s bankruptcy reorganization. From 1963 to 1990, W.R. Grace mined vermiculite asbestos from Libby, Montana for much of Zonolite’s in-home insulation and construction materials.

The Bankruptcy Court has issued an October 31, 2008 deadline for the filing of all claims. This includes all damages resulting from lowered property values, asbestos abatement fees, costs of removal, and economic loss caused by Zonlite.

The insulation manufactured by Zonlite was used in attics, crawlspaces, and rolled fiberglass insulation. When the material is new, it can usually be identified by a brownish–silver or golden color, and has a glittery, granular appearance. After the material has aged, its puffy, nugget–shaped granules turn black or gray.

This particular type of insulation poses a substantial risk, as asbestos has been known to cause serious diseases such as mesothelioma and asbestosis. If asbestos insulation is suspected in your attic, tests should be performed by a licensed professional. Any disturbance to the material should be avoided, and all safety precautions should be taken to prevent asbestos fibers from releasing into the air.

It’s also important to remember that belongings or any other kind of storage should not be kept near the contaminated insulation. Even the minor disturbance caused by walking around these lightweight, dangerous materials could result in fibers floating in the air or onto clothing. Any items that have been stored in the area should be thoroughly cleansed before moving them to another location.

Exposure to this toxic substance occurs when asbestos fibers are inhaled or ingested into the body. When this happens, the fibers typically attach themselves to the mesothelial linings of the lungs, which is known as pleural mesothelioma.

These fibers can also attach to the linings of the heart and abdomen. In addition to mesothelioma and asbestosis, other diseases that may result from asbestos exposure are lung cancer, colon cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer.

Only licensed professionals who have received specific training on asbestos abatement should be hired for the safe handling of this material. Self-removal should never be attempted, as those who do perform such projects often expose themselves to the dangerous substance. Asbestos abatement is extremely complicated and can result in heavy fines if not performed properly.

According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Environmental Protection Agency’s regional administrator in Dallas, Texas, Richard Greene, is trying to institute a questionable method of asbestos removal in what he refers to as “neglected urban areas.” This method of removal is known as the “wet method,” in which water is sprayed on the area where asbestos-contaminated materials are being removed.

Asbestos experts across the nation, including EPA scientists, have scrutinized the wet method and have attempted to warn the public that this method is not a proven way of eliminating, or substantially reducing, the risk of asbestos exposure. This is partially because the EPA has neglected to use conventional safeguards to test if the method is actually effective.

Numerous medical professionals and some government agencies have reported that even limited exposure to asbestos has been shown to produce disease later in life. For many decades it had been scientifically established that exposure to asbestos causes a range of terminal diseases, such as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma cancer. The latter disease is almost always fatal and is typically diagnosed in later stages of development due to an extended latency period. For this reason, mesothelioma treatments tend to be ineffective in curing the disease.

With no solid evidence of the efficacy of the wet method, those concerned for the safety and welfare of the public are alarmed that this method is even being considered. Some ethicists have even commented that the testing of this unproven method in poverty-level, minority communities is an infringement of environmental justice policies. These “neglected urban areas” are essentially serving as a testing ground for the controversial wet method of asbestos removal.

Despite numerous reasons to protect the public from an unproven asbestos removal method, Greene, along with others from the EPA, are pushing for this method to be institutionalized before the Bush Administration leaves office. The Bush Administration has a history of supporting the asbestos industry, and this industry-friendly asbestos removal technique would be much easier to approve under the current administration as opposed to a Democratic-run White House.

Unfortunately, this is not the only political attempt to undermine asbestos safety regulations in the United States. Under pressure from the Bush White House, and subsequently the White House Office of Management and Budget, the EPA proposed an alteration of asbestos regulations that would change the way the agency measures the cancer-causing risks of asbestos exposure.

A scientific panel met with public officials and the EPA on July 21 and 22 in Washington D.C. to discuss the potential regulation changes. The scientific panel, among others in attendance, openly criticized the proposed changes in regulations during the meetings and released an official opinion in early August.

“Not at this time,” read the statement from the Scientific Advisory Board’s asbestos panel, who apparently did not have a change of heart upon further analysis of the EPA’s proposal. Though the EPA does not need approval from the scientific panel to pass the regulation changes, the public denouncement of the proposal is certainly not advantageous for the asbestos industry.

An environmental newsletter on EPA’s website reported the panel’s decision is likely to stall further development of the proposed regulations. Legal counsel for the EPA stated it would be shocking if the agency pursued the issue any further in the near future.

The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) has denied the residents of Chafee, Arkansas to fall under “federal disaster area” status. Recently in the area, fires broke out and destroyed more than 150 World War II structures, all of which are suggested to contain asbestos materials. FEMA’s decision has prevented the town from receiving federal funds that would greatly finance the cleanup operations, including those concerning asbestos abatement.

In total, the entire cleanup project is expected to cost $4.6 million, and resident officials are worried about being forced to pay the costs themselves. If the town is responsible for the cleanup, it is likely that future development plans within the community will be set back several years.

The funds are being held from the city partly because of tests performed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which indicated that the asbestos levels are too low to qualify for the EPA’s Superfund designation. However, other tests taken by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality found asbestos contamination in several areas that were much higher than original EPA testing. This has local citizens fearing for their health, as well as for the future of their community. Because of these findings, the EPA has agreed to return in 30 days for additional testing.

Following a fire, tiny asbestos fibers can be released into the air. In fact, these fibers have the potential to suspend in the air for several weeks and pose a threat to anyone coming in contact with them. The inhalation of asbestos fibers has been linked to serious respiratory conditions, including mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive form of cancer.

Currently, the EPA has plans to alter the way it measures the risks of asbestos. As of now, only six types of asbestos are being regulated by the government, and the new regulations suggested by the EPA will change how the toxicity of those types are defined. Public health authorities are against the EPA’s proposals and claim the changes are for political reasons and not to protect public health.

The situation at Chafee is a prime example of what could happen across the country if the EPA changes its standards. As a result, more cases like this could arise throughout the nation and potentially expose innocent citizens to asbestos.

By Jensen Whitmer

July 28, 2008 – The Delaware Bankruptcy Court overseeing the W.R. Grace & Company case has set a bar date for claims related to Zonolite attic insulation to be filed in the W.R Grace case.

In order to preserve their case against the company, anyone who wishes to make a claim relating to Zonolite attic insulation must file that claim on or before the bar date, which has been set at October 31, 2008.

For the purpose of the bar date, Zonolite claims are property-related claims. These may include the costs of asbestos abatement, and any reduction in property value or other economic loss which results from the presence of W.R. Grace-manufactured Zonolite in a home.

Zonolite is a type of loose-fill, non-roll vermiculite insulation produced and sold by W.R. Grace & Co. The company mined the vermiculite from a mine located in Libby, Montana. The mine, the vermiculite, and all the insulation sold under the brand name Zonolite is contaminated with tremolite, winchite, and richterite asbestos.

The contamination of the Libby mine is so severe that the entire town has been declared an EPA Superfund site for almost a decade, with approximately $120 million spent on cleanup. More than 200 residents of Libby have died of asbestos-induced diseases such as asbestosis and mesothelioma. Additionally, more than 1,000 have been diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases as a consequence of working in or living near the mine. At the end of this year, the criminal trial against W.R. Grace and several of its top executives will finally get under way.

The consequences of the production and use of contaminated vermiculite are even more far-reaching than appears at first glance. Many more people than those residing in Libby may eventually be affected, as Zonolite is present in millions of American homes, up to an estimated 35 million to be exact.

Zonolite was sold from the 1920s up until the 1980s under several brand names, including Attic Fill, Attic Plus, Cashway Attic Insulation, Econofil, House Fill, Wickes Attic Insulation, Zonolite Insulating Fill, Sears Micro Fill, Quiselle Insulating Fill, Mica Pellets Attic Insulation, Unifil, and Ward’s Mineral Fill.

Zonolite insulation may appear as a glittery granular substance. Granules may be silvery, gold, or brown in color, and their color may have darkened after being present in an attic for several years. Even homes with newer insulation may still contain Zonolite, as the substance may be found underneath newer rolled insulation. People are advised not to go near or touch this product. Those who suspect Zonolite insulation may be present in their home should seek the advice of a professional abatement contractor, as exposure to this toxic material can result in deadly diseases such as lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis.

Schenectady, New York – July 25, 2008 –The Thomas O’Brien Academy of Science and Technology, an elementary school in the Albany School District, has been forced to close for the upcoming school year due to asbestos-related problems. The school will require considerable asbestos remediation before it can open again.

The school’s 500 students, in prekindergarten to grade six, will be relocated to other schools while the Academy is closed, said school district spokesperson Ron Lesko. According to Lesko, students will be relocated to the former Philip Schuyler Elementary School while the asbestos remediation is completed.

Work began on the Academy and its ‘parent’ school, Giffen Elementary School, when the school year ended in June 2008, as part of a general improvement project. The Academy was shut down, and a small asbestos remediation project was begun.

However, when the crews began their work, they discovered there was more asbestos located at the Academy than previously thought. According to Lesko, asbestos was found in places where it was thought to have been removed in the late 1980s.

Asbestos is an increasingly prevalent problem in schools across the country. The substance was once heavily used in construction materials of many different types, but due to its toxicity, the asbestos is now becoming a serious problem, particularly as these buildings age and the asbestos they contain becomes more exposed and begins degrading. Asbestos contamination in schools is especially disconcerting, as children are more susceptible to developing asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma.

Federal law requires that all schools adhere to Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) guidelines, which require schools to create and maintain asbestos management plans. The plans must include details of the location of any asbestos, as well as all measures taken to prevent exposure risks.

In addition, schools must be inspected every three years, and asbestos management plans must be available for public review by staff and parents.

After the discovery of the extra asbestos at the Thomas O’Brien Academy, air samples were taken in school buildings, but showed there were no elevated asbestos levels present. However, Lesko says that removing the asbestos is important to ensure students and staff are not put at risk of exposure, and also to alleviate public concerns.

The school estimates it will reopen for the 2009-2010 school year, and will meet with parents this week to discuss the temporary closure.