Re: Re: Ban Asbestos Bill Falls Short. Letter in Opposition to...

[Guest guest]

and Tony,

In your opinions, what should be done to protect workers in the future from situations such as Libbey, Montana and other instances in which asbestos has been scientifically determined to be a causation of life threatening illness? What type of legislation is needed so that these injured workers may receive just compensation for the devastation asbestos has caused to their lives and will cause in the future if no steps are taken?

Sharon

Dana:Not to Defend as when I read the EPA inspection bit I immediatelythought of OSHA's hazcom section of asbestos regs [in (k)] also and winced.1. However, OSHA in their "inspection" description for rebuttalreferences EPA's AHERA (as you pointed out); thus it does go back to EPA.And only EPA in AHERA and the MAP or in earlier documents (Orange, Pink,Purple Books) set the parameters for inspections.2. Regarding: "As for yout(sic) statements(sic) on EPA "BANS"Yes, asbestos hasn't really been banned in the US. I've seen transiteshingles put in brand new. But a) in the US, the biggest uses I see are brake shoes (which more recentevidence suggest they are not bad as first thought) and NAFTA entries.Canadian product has been installed in Indiana Schools in brand new buildingmaterials (Ceiling tile for instance) that was labeled "may containnaturally occurring mineral fibers". Having said that, it is still a cost-benefit issue as in which risks arebetter handled by controlling manufacture or use. Removal of Asbestos inthe O-rings for the Space Shuttle - possible cause of 1986 failure and forwhat? Gasoline isn't good to inhale either, but we have managed itreasonably well. I have to side with , Total Bans are not good riskManagement but rather poor Risk Leadership and poor Risk Communication.3. Regarding:" Current research and past research all found LOADS offibers in tissue and tumors in the orders of millions to billions of fibers.You are only paying attention to the "5%" of the asbestos research that isdone"At face value, the hard rock mining case ratios appear to support Silicosisas a confounding factor looking at the data as objectively as possible.Does it mean silicosis is the only cause - no, but don't ignore it's impactwithout really digging into the data.4. Regarding: "crayon manufacturers that had tremolite in theircrayons all went to"Where is this data? The last I saw of this was reviewed by RTI and severalother non-Defendant and non-plaintiffs places (including non-politicalcolleagues of mine I trust) indicated a) false ID of asbestos or b)determination of non-asbestiform material.5. Regarding:" "However, you cannot state with any credibility that aplumber, or an electrician, or a contractor, or any other trade for thatmatter (with the exception of some insulators) had similar exposure to aperson working in an> industry that mined, milled, or processed asbestos.You cannot prove your point by using a select sample of an overly-exposedpopulation and infer that all folks were similarly exposed. Dana, youobviously DO NOT understand dose, exposure and/or risk assessment!"Unh, yeah they (EPA) did just that with all the trace amount vermiculiteacross this nation, showing that lower exposures and "environmentalexposures" actually has an increased incidence of mesothelioma"END's point is a good one. One should not presume at face value theexposure and SMR or Meso rates are comparable between Standard IndustrialClassifications and trades.Also, it is important to draw out the amphiboles separately (as intremolite); and furthermore the potential for asbestiform v non-asbestiformtremolite from Libby [see an upcoming article by (yes) RJ Lee folks to be published in the nextmonth or so in the Microscope - B. R. Strohmeier, K. L. Bunker, K. E., R. Hoch, and R. J. Lee: Complementary TEM and FESEMCharacterization of Amphibole Particles in Mixed Mineral Dust from Libby,Montana, U.S.A.. As a reviewer, I have to say the objective data was goodand extensive (more than 3,700 individual amphibole particles were examinedby TEM followed by the complementary FESEM relocation analysis) but thepresentation and apparent spin had to be adjusted to objective determinationand they quickly and easily agreed to this aspect. I'll send you a copyonce it actually goes to print. They have a lot of data but do notunderstand the nuances of how to statistically process it. I gave themdetailed instructions on how to in the future and it will be interesting tosee what they do; I may actually request the data as it is apparentlyavailable or retrieval in Filemaker Pro, which I have.]6. Regarding: "Dr. Lemen¹s 14 cases"I haven't gotten to him yet, but will. In the mean time, a sum of 14 casesis very small to have good statistical power.Tony...................................................................... "Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PEpH2, LLC5250 E US 36, Suite 830Avon, IN 46123www.ph2llc.com off fax cell90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...anyconsultant can give you the other 10%(SM)This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may containlegally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only forthe individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are notthe addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, youare not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and anyattachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments(including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at. Delivery of this message and any attachments to any personother than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waiveconfidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only ofthe sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied ordistributed without this statement.

Messages in this topic (9) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

..

Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.

[Guest guest]

Am I appalled at the illogical hype and misguided politicizing to ban all uses of asbestos, regardless of type and form?.....sure am.

, maybe I am missing something. Can you point out where the bill says to "ban all uses of asbestos, regardless of type and form?"

SharonDelicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.

[Guest guest]

,

You wrote:

Sharon:In my opinion, existing controls, work practices, and personal protective equipment (PPE) are sufficient to protect most workers in most industries most of the time. What we need now is a lower permissible exposure limit (PEL), without exceptions, and it needs enforcement. I personally have been involved with projects where asbestos-bearing rock was blasted (yes...with explosives) for a building foundation, removed friable ACBMs dry, and demolished buildings containing ACBMs (sans abatement), AND measured less than 0.01 f/cc in the ambient, downwind, air during the effort. And many times the TEM lab results (yes...TEM) were far lower than 0.01-f/cc asbestos. I believe that current controls and workplace methods are adequate, if implemented properly, to mitigate most asbestos emissions. Couple this with PPE use, and workers need not be unnecessarily exposed. This said, with an enforced PEL that is 0.1-f/cc, which allows a worker to be exposed to an asbestos fiber concentration as high as 300,000-f/day, or higher, all the engineering controls and PPE in the world are not going to help if we do not strive for a lower level of exposure. For historical perspective, OSHA’s PEL for asbestos started-out at 10-f/cc. Now they are 0.1-f/cc, which is two orders of magnitude lower. OSHA is moving in the right direction!! I am in favor of moving the decimal to the right another one or two places, and I believe that this will be the most significant factor to increase worker protection. Many industries I work with do not feel that 0.1-f/cc is acceptable, and strive for and achieve much lower exposures. Zero exposure is not practical in some instances, but 0.001-f/cc can be achieved, even in some grueling circumstances. Albeit, 0.001f/cc can still represent a potential 3,000-f/day.Regarding your question of “just compensationâ€.......What is your carcass worth? And I don’t mean to be crass or insensitive! Every workers comp system in the U.S. has a book of formulas that determine just what each body part is worth in $$, including a life. This said, what do you feel is “just compensation?†Is it what the workers comp system determines, or is it the value that you can gain by suing everyone in civil court? What is happening in the current asbestos litigation fiasco is that the injured and their lawyers are taking claiming negligence, concealment, prior knowledge, and fraud resulting in the injured’s asbestos injury, thus they can take their claim out of, and away from, the workers comp system of fixed compensation. Granted, and I agree, there is not a workers comp system that adequately compensates for the loss of life. This said, is it then justified to sue everyone and everybody for possible contribution to an illness and/or injury? What gets my goat is that the injured are not getting commensurably compensated, albeit, their lawyers sure are. Moreover, way back when, OSHA allowed employers to expose workers up to, and including, 10-f/cc......that equates to over 30,000,000 fibers per day. That’s huge! Maybe the injured should all be suing the Federal Government! I think not. The fact is, worker protection now is not what it was. And yes, our knowledge now rests on the pile of dead bodies that exists because of asbestos (to quote Dana Brown). I agree that there should be “just compensation.†However, I do not believe that we should be bankrupting U.S. industry to achieve it, let alone grossly over-compensate the lawyers in lieu of the injured. Moreover, there are a lot of U.S. industries that are now getting ruined because of the on-going, and seemingly never-ending, asbestos litigation, and quest for “just compensation†; that had no role in it, or an ancillary one at best. Is this just?Sharon....Damn good questions! No perfect answers. My response:

Huh? Thanks for the detailed answer. Can tell you put much thought into it. But, you know how dumb I am about detailed science. Seems well written, but what you wrote doesn't help me one iota.

Let me ask this a different way: If you were a legislator and you KNEW there was a problem of asbestos severely injuring some workers, and it was causing death, and you KNEW that it was your responsibility to do something that would further the protection of these workers' safety and lives, what kind of language would you write to accomplish this goal?

SharonOn 2/18/08 9:03 AM, "snk1955aol" <snk1955aol> wrote:

and Tony, In your opinions, what should be done to protect workers in the future from situations such as Libbey, Montana and other instances in which asbestos has been scientifically determined to be a causation of life threatening illness? What type of legislation is needed so that these injured workers may receive just compensation for the devastation asbestos has caused to their lives and will cause in the future if no steps are taken? Sharon

Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.

[Guest guest]

Sharon:

In my opinion, existing controls, work practices, and personal protective equipment (PPE) are sufficient to protect most workers in most industries most of the time. What we need now is a lower permissible exposure limit (PEL), without exceptions, and it needs enforcement. I personally have been involved with projects where asbestos-bearing rock was blasted (yes...with explosives) for a building foundation, removed friable ACBMs dry, and demolished buildings containing ACBMs (sans abatement), AND measured less than 0.01 f/cc in the ambient, downwind, air during the effort. And many times the TEM lab results (yes...TEM) were far lower than 0.01-f/cc asbestos. I believe that current controls and workplace methods are adequate, if implemented properly, to mitigate most asbestos emissions. Couple this with PPE use, and workers need not be unnecessarily exposed. This said, with an enforced PEL that is 0.1-f/cc, which allows a worker to be exposed to an asbestos fiber concentration as high as 300,000-f/day, or higher, all the engineering controls and PPE in the world are not going to help if we do not strive for a lower level of exposure. For historical perspective, OSHA’s PEL for asbestos started-out at 10-f/cc. Now they are 0.1-f/cc, which is two orders of magnitude lower. OSHA is moving in the right direction!! I am in favor of moving the decimal to the right another one or two places, and I believe that this will be the most significant factor to increase worker protection. Many industries I work with do not feel that 0.1-f/cc is acceptable, and strive for and achieve much lower exposures. Zero exposure is not practical in some instances, but 0.001-f/cc can be achieved, even in some grueling circumstances. Albeit, 0.001f/cc can still represent a potential 3,000-f/day.

Regarding your question of “just compensation”.......What is your carcass worth? And I don’t mean to be crass or insensitive! Every workers comp system in the U.S. has a book of formulas that determine just what each body part is worth in $$, including a life. This said, what do you feel is “just compensation?” Is it what the workers comp system determines, or is it the value that you can gain by suing everyone in civil court? What is happening in the current asbestos litigation fiasco is that the injured and their lawyers are taking claiming negligence, concealment, prior knowledge, and fraud resulting in the injured’s asbestos injury, thus they can take their claim out of, and away from, the workers comp system of fixed compensation. Granted, and I agree, there is not a workers comp system that adequately compensates for the loss of life. This said, is it then justified to sue everyone and everybody for possible contribution to an illness and/or injury? What gets my goat is that the injured are not getting commensurably compensated, albeit, their lawyers sure are. Moreover, way back when, OSHA allowed employers to expose workers up to, and including, 10-f/cc......that equates to over 30,000,000 fibers per day. That’s huge! Maybe the injured should all be suing the Federal Government! I think not. The fact is, worker protection now is not what it was. And yes, our knowledge now rests on the pile of dead bodies that exists because of asbestos (to quote Dana Brown). I agree that there should be “just compensation.” However, I do not believe that we should be bankrupting U.S. industry to achieve it, let alone grossly over-compensate the lawyers in lieu of the injured. Moreover, there are a lot of U.S. industries that are now getting ruined because of the on-going, and seemingly never-ending, asbestos litigation, and quest for “just compensation” that had no role in it, or an ancillary one at best. Is this just?

Sharon....Damn good questions! No perfect answers.

and Tony,

In your opinions, what should be done to protect workers in the future from situations such as Libbey, Montana and other instances in which asbestos has been scientifically determined to be a causation of life threatening illness? What type of legislation is needed so that these injured workers may receive just compensation for the devastation asbestos has caused to their lives and will cause in the future if no steps are taken?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Sharon:If you feel that asbestos-related standards are lacking or inadequate, then do something about the STANDARDS.

,

I think I did do something. I relayed Dr. Harbut's concerns and his request for petition signers regarding the changes he and others felt we unacceptable to this new bill, which as I understand it - changed the standards that were originally in the bill.

Sharon Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.