In Reversal, AoC to Pay for Diagnostic Exams, by Jackie Kucinich, The (Washington DC) Hill, November 17, 2006
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/111606/reversal.html
Reversing its earlier decision, the Architect of the Capitol (AoC) has now agreed to pay for the diagnostic examinations for the 10 Capitol Power Plant tunnel employees who believe they were exposed to extremely high levels of asbestos, according to a letter to key Senate appropriators released Friday.
"This evaluation will be paid for by the AoC, and will be in addition to the ongoing medical surveillance services rendered by the Office of the Attending Physician," the letter signed by Architect of the Capitol Alan Hantman and Attending Physician John Eisold stated. "The employees will be authorized administrative leave and reimbursed for travel expenses for the evaluation."
The decision signals a shift from the AoC, which on June 23 denied a request made by the tunnel employees to pay for travel to seek testing in Detroit.
After that initial AoC decision, the tunnel workers Oct. 18 delivered a letter to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) requesting that Congress pay for the group to visit the National Center for Vermiculite and Asbestos-Related Cancer in Detroit for diagnostic testing by Dr. Michael Harbut, the chief of the Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Several members of the tunnel crew visited Harbut earlier this year and had paid for the visit out of pocket.
The AoC letter recommended Drs. Gregory Diette and Melissa McDiarmid who are located locally, to assess the medical condition of the tunnel shop employees.
"We are fortunate to have such leaders in the field of Pulmonary and Occupational Medicine in the Washington D.C. area," the letter said.
Hantman and Eisold noted in the letter that McDiarmond knows Harbut and offered to consult him during the tests.
Durbin, a senior appropriator with jurisdiction on the matter, called the action prudent in a letter to Joanne Royce, general counsel for of the Government Accountability Project and David Marshall, a lawyer for the employees.
"The health of the tunnel employees remains my primary concern," Durbin said. "I reviewed the approach outlined in the response and believe it is a prudent one."
Royce said GAP contacted Harbut and were reviewing the qualifications of the recommended doctors.
"This is a step in the right direction," she said.
The letter noted that the AoC could only legally fund the tests and that examinations reveal a medical problem the treatment must occur through the Federal Workers' Compensation program.
"It should be noted that AoC's authority to pay for medical surveillance is limited to diagnostic examinations and tests," the letter said.
Codes of Practice Published to Support New Asbestos Regulations, Workplace Law Network, November 16, 2006
http://www.workplacelaw.net/display.php?resource_id=7957
The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 came into force on 13 November 2006, and the HSE has published two new Codes of Practice to support the Regulations.
The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, Approved Code of Practice and guidance L143 replaces the previous ACOPs, L27 and L28. It also replaces the guide to the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983, L11. In particular this code applies to work on, or which disturbs/is liable to disturb, materials containing asbestos; asbestos sampling; and laboratory analysis. It’s particularly relevant to those who are responsible for the maintenance and repair of non-domestic premises where asbestos-containing materials are or are likely to be present.
The second code, Approved Code of Practice and guidance L127 on Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, gives advice on how to comply with the duty in Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 to manage asbestos in non-domestic premises. It explains the duties of building owners, tenants and anyone else with legal responsibilities for such premises.
The Regulation requires:
* taking reasonable steps to find asbestos-containing materials in premises and checking their condition;
* presuming materials contain asbestos unless there is strong evidence to suppose they do not;
* keeping an up-to-date written record of the location and condition of asbestos-containing materials;
* assessing the risk of exposure to asbestos-containing materials; and
* preparing and putting into effect a plan to manage the risk.
The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 bring together three previous sets of Regulations covering the prohibition of asbestos, the control of asbestos at work and asbestos licensing.
The Regulations prohibit the importation, supply and use of all forms of asbestos. They continue the ban introduced for blue and brown asbestos 1985 and for white asbestos in 1999. They also continue the ban the second-hand use of asbestos products such as asbestos cement sheets and asbestos boards and tiles; including panels which have been covered with paint or textured plaster containing asbestos.
The Regulations also include the ‘duty to manage asbestos’ in non-domestic premises. Guidance on the duty to manage asbestos can be found in the Approved Code of Practice The Management of Asbestos in Non-Domestic Premises'.
The Regulations require mandatory training for anyone liable to be exposed to asbestos fibres at work. This includes maintenance workers and others who may come into contact with or who may disturb asbestos (e.g. cable installers) as well as those involved in asbestos removal work.
When work with asbestos, or work which may disturb asbestos, is being carried out the Regulations require employers and the self-employed to prevent exposure to asbestos fibres. Where this is not reasonably practicable, they must make sure that exposure is kept as low as reasonably practicable by measures other than the use of respiratory protective equipment. The spread of asbestos must be prevented. The Regulations specify the work methods and controls that should be used to prevent exposure and spread.
Worker exposure must be below the airborne exposure limit (Control Limit). The Regulations set a single Control Limit for all types of asbestos of 0.1 fibres per cm3. A Control Limit is a maximum concentration of asbestos fibres in the air (averaged over any continuous four hour period) that must not be exceeded.
In addition, short term exposures must be strictly controlled and worker exposure should not exceed 0.6 fibres per cm3 of air averaged over any continuous ten minute period using respiratory protective equipment if exposure cannot be reduced sufficiently using other means.
Under the Regulations, anyone carrying out work on asbestos insulation, asbestos coating or asbestos insulating board (AIB) needs a licence issued by the HSE unless they meet one of the exemptions above.
If the work is licensable there are a number of additional duties. You need to:
* notify the enforcing authority responsible for the site where you are working (for example HSE or the local authority);
* designate the work area (see regulation 18 for details);
* prepare specific asbestos emergency procedures; and
* pay for your employees to undergo medical surveillance.
The Regulations require any analysis of the concentration of asbestos in the air to be measured in accordance with the 1997 WHO recommended method.
From 6 April 2007, a clearance certificate for re-occupation may only be issued by a body accredited to do so. At the moment, such accreditation can only be provided by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).
© 2006 Workplace Law Group Ltd
Jury Awards $3 Million to Potter's Widow in Asbestos Case, by Jeffrey Gold, Associated Press, November 16, 2006
NEWARK, N.J. --A jury on Thursday awarded $3 million to a woman who claimed her husband, a potter, died because he contracted a fatal disease from asbestos fibers inhaled while working with a material he used for glazes.
The verdict is the first in the nation dealing with asbestos in industrial talc, said Carmen St. George, a lawyer for Bonnie L. Parker, widow of Peter Stanley Hirsch.
Over the past several decades, billions of dollars have been paid in settlements or verdicts to people sickened by exposure to asbestos, a material once widely used in construction and ship building. It has been linked to cancer and other problems.
The Middlesex County jury that awarded the compensatory damages to Parker is to return Nov. 28 to consider punitive damages against the two defendants, R.T. Vanderbilt Inc., which mined the industrial talc, and Hammill & Gillespie Inc., its distributor, St. George said.
Parker said her husband initiated the lawsuit, and tried to survive mesothelioma, an aggressive lung cancer.
"He had his life taken away prematurely," Parker, 58, of Pennington, said in a phone interview. "This verdict is where he is vindicated, where he does beat it." The couple were married for 22 years.
Hirsch had pottery studios in Skillman, Lawrenceville and Lambertville before being diagnosed in September 2002. He died April 4, 2004, at age 53, St. George said.
Messages left at R.T. Vanderbilt, based in Norwalk, Conn., after business hours Thursday were not immediately returned.
Hammill & Gillespie, of Livingston, N.J., would have no comment, said a vice president, Dorna Isaacs.
According to lawyers for Parker, R.T. Vanderbilt claimed that the talc contained fibers that "looked similar to but were not a lethal form of asbestos."
The six-person jury in New Brunswick reached its verdict following a four-week trial, according to the lawyers.
St. George said Vanderbilt mines the industrial talc in St. Lawrence County, N.Y., and the material is used in a variety of products, including plastics, rubber and ceramics. She said Vanderbilt faces lawsuits from miners and others who have died.
Industrial talc is not the same material as the talcum powder used on a "baby's bottom," she said.
Her colleague on the case, Moshe Maimon, said Vanderbilt needs to take action as a result of the verdict.
"Not only must their own workers be protected from lung disease, end users and others who come into contact with the product must be warned properly of the carcinogenic fibers lurking in this dusty powder used in so many manufacturing applications," Maimon said.
The lawyers are with New York law firm Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, which is known for its work in asbestos cases.
© Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
U.S. Asbestos Bill Dead, by Laurie Kazan-Allen, International Ban Asbestos Secretariat, November 13, 2006
http://www.ibas.btinternet.co.uk/
Veteran observers of the U.S. asbestos litigation scene have pronounced the FAIR Act dead as a result of the collapse in support for the Republican Party during the mid-term elections (November 2006). "Now that the Democrats have control of both the Senate and House of Representatives," attorney Steven Kazan said, "the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution (FAIR) Act can be given the burial it deserves. It was never an honest attempt to deal with the problems caused by hazardous asbestos exposure. It was, from the start, a ploy to protect defendant corporations and their insurers at the expense of injured claimants."
Since the beginning of 2005, President Bush and his cronies have been trying to shut down U.S. asbestos litigation by creating a national asbestos trust fund which would minimize corporate America's asbestos liabilities by imposing administrative procedures on the handling of compensation claims. Asbestos victims groups, such as the Asbestos Diseases Awareness Organization (ADAO), trade unions, NGOs, medical professionals and trial lawyers opposed measures which would have deprived thousands of claimants of their constitutional rights.1 Criticizing Senate Bill S. 3274, the ADAO said it: "inadequately addresses the most fundamental elements necessary for a just piece of legislation"; spokesman Doug Larkin accused the sponsors of the bill of putting the needs of industry and special interest groups before those of injured Americans.
Reflecting on the demise of the FAIR Act, Ms. Linda Reinstein, ADAO Executive Director said:
"Americans are grateful to have the focus on asbestos trust fund legislation shift to preventing painful, disabling and deadly asbestos diseases.Asbestos is responsible for the largest man-made public health crisis and deadly exposure continues today as recently documented by the experiences of the ten U.S. Capitol tunnel workers. Victims deserve medical treatment and financial support as they battle the fight of their life. With the bill behind us, we can focus on the future and work towards banning asbestos and funding research for a cure."