Archive for the ‘Asbestos Legislation’ Category

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.

July 25, 2008 – Further insight into why the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed to alter asbestos regulations has been attained after meetings with public officials and a scientific panel. The public meetings took place on July 21 and 22 in Washington D.C., where many authorities on asbestos and asbestos-related disease spoke out on the proposed changes.

The scientific panel denounced the EPA’s plans to change the way it measures the cancer-causing risks of asbestos, claiming the changes will dilute the regulation of the toxic mineral. Currently, only six types of asbestos are regulated by the government, and the new regulations would alter how the toxicity of those six types is defined.

Though the EPA claims the changes will improve current methods of assessing asbestos risks at Superfund sites, public health officials, scientists, and medical professionals warn these changes will water down asbestos regulations and place workers and the public at risk.

Apparently, pressure to have federal agencies dilute the regulation of hazardous substances comes from the Bush White House. Members of Congress are presently in the process of asking why the Labor Department sent plans to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that change how workers are protected from chemical hazards. Oddly enough, many government physicians and scientists who are usually intimately involved in such matters say they haven’t even seen the proposal.

According to employees at EPA headquarters, the hurry to change asbestos regulations is spawned in part by OMB’s motive to please the mining, chemical, construction, and automotive industries that are dealing with asbestos-related lawsuits. Yet again, politics are being put before public health and safety. This comes to no surprise, as the Bush administration has consistently sided with the industry’s position concerning asbestos issues. Bush even openly fought for almost four years for asbestos tort reform to put an end to workers’ rights to sue employers.

A total of 20 experts were appointed to the Scientific Advisory Board’s asbestos panel, who heard testimony and statements from more than two dozen witnesses at the public meetings earlier this week. Many witnesses spoke out against the validity of industry-financed studies cited in the EPA proposal.

Despite the fact that these studies are proven to have no scientific credibility, the EPA is submitting the fallacious studies as evidence for the proposed changes. These erroneous studies claim chrysotile asbestos, the most commonly used type of asbestos, is not dangerous and does not cause mesothelioma cancer.

The bogus studies go against decades worth of scientifically solid and credible studies that have long established chrysotile asbestos as a serious carcinogen, which has been proven to cause asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.

Lawyers who defend corporations involved in asbestos lawsuits explain passage of the new asbestos risk assessment methods would greatly affect asbestos litigation, making it much easier to argue that the asbestos used by these companies was and is not hazardous.

Counting down its final months in power, the Bush administration has little time to push the reform through the system, which needs no stamp of approval from the scientific panel that denounced the EPA’s plans. It seems the asbestos scandal, which is considered one of the biggest cover-ups in U.S. history, is reluctantly far from over.

By Michelle Whitmer

July 23, 2008 – Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced plans to hold a public View this Postmeeting to discuss the method of assessing asbestos-related carcinogenic risks as outlined by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). Many public health experts have subsequently spoken their concerns with the EPA’s plans, saying if the EPA gets its way, the rules which determine the risk of an asbestos hazard are in danger of being watered down.

Participants at the meeting will discuss and review OSWER’s approach for estimating toxicity factors relating to inhalation of asbestos.

The EPA hopes the result of the meeting will improve its methods for estimating asbestos-related risks at Superfund sites.

Currently the EPA uses methodology developed in the 1980s, which is based on phase contrast microscopy to measure the number of asbestos particles in samples of air, soil, and other media. This method was developed using existing data from workers previously exposed to asbestos in various industrial settings.

However, the EPA methodology currently in use does not account for differences between several types of asbestos. OSWER is proposing that an interim method be developed, which accounts for these and other factors when assessing asbestos exposure risks.

Experts are worried this may lead to several asbestos types being considered “safer” than others and that this is a dangerous way to regulate a substance, which can cause highly lethal diseases such as mesothelioma.

A number of asbestos and asbestos disease experts will be speaking at the meeting, including Richard A. Lemen, a pioneering asbestos researcher and former Assistant Surgeon General. Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization director Linda Reinstein will also speak at the meeting.

Reinstein explains the EPA must reconsider its plans to change the way asbestos risk is assessed. She believes constructing a new risk-assessment model will only make risk assessment more confusing and less safe.

The meeting is planned for July 21 and 22 at the Embassy Suites, 1250 22nd St., NW, Washington., DC. Contact for the event is Douglas Larkin of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization.

Duluth, Minn. – July 18, 2008 – The University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health is heading up an investigation as to why men in the Iron Range area of northeastern Minnesota are developing mesothelioma at twice the national average. In partnership with the Minnesota Department of Health and the Natural Resources Research Institute in Duluth, the university hopes to gain a clearer understanding of why taconite miners are dying of mesothelioma, a form of cancer caused by asbestos exposure.

After years of delay, the Minnesota legislature finally apportioned nearly $5 million to fund the investigation, which may take up to five years to complete.

Further details of the investigation were announced mid-June in a meeting among health officials and local politicians. Researchers are drawing upon a database of 72,000 miners, along with other various resources. Starting next summer, a health screening will begin including approximately 1,200 current and past miners, as well as their spouses.

Through investigation and interviews with miners, engineers, safety officials, and others familiar with taconite operations, researchers also hope to assess exposure risks and fill in gaps in historical data by creating mathematical models.

The Natural Resources Research Institute will be analyzing iron ore samples of the taconite, as well as dust contamination in the air of the Iron Range communities. This will be done in an effort to better understand the geological composition of the taconite and whether it could be contaminated with asbestos. According to the U.S. geological Survey and the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Iron Range area is known to contain naturally occurring asbestos.

Like asbestiform minerals, taconite is a silicate mineral that is found among layers of shale. Scientists have already stated that fibers in the rock were similar to asbestos. Mining companies, however, say they are not asbestos fibers, and even claim there are no fibers at all.

Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of discrepancy among the classification of fibers, and this has played a heavy role in the definition of asbestos. According to the U.S. Bureau of Mines, there are more than 100 asbestiform minerals, yet only six are regulated by the government (commonly referred to as “commercial asbestos”).

For years many have speculated that unregulated asbestiform minerals have the same potential to cause asbestos-related diseases, such as asbestosis and mesothelioma, as regulated forms of asbestos. Hopefully, research from these important studies will provide conclusive insight into the plausible asbestos contamination of the taconite, as well as the potential that taconite may also cause mesothelioma on its own.

By Michelle Whitmer