Mesothelioma Asbestos Lawyer, DuBose Law Firm, PLLC

Main navigation

You are here: Home / Archives for Asbestos safety regulations

Asbestos safety regulations

Two Decades After Ban, Asbestos Still Kills 5,000 Britons Each Year

By

Not surprisingly, two decades after the ban, asbestos still kills 5,000 Britons each year. That’s because symptoms of disease often don’t show up until 20 to 40 years – or more – after exposure. This long exposure time is one of the reasons it is often not recognized as an imminent danger, yet the fibers inhaled many years in the past are poised to show up as lung cancer, asbestosis, or the deadly mesothelioma after the initial exposure is just a memory.

Asbestos still kills 5,000 Britons each year

The long exposure time is only one reason it is still killing after all these years. Though the mineral was outlawed 20 years ago in Britain, asbestos still exists in government, commercial, and residential buildings built before 1999. While not a threat when undisturbed, these buildings often are at an age when renovation, or even demolition, is required. If this work is not done by an authorized abatement company, the possibility of exposure from the dust created is high. To cut corners, renovators and do-it-yourself handymen often skip this critical step and the countdown to possible diseases in the distant future starts again.

The report from the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) verified that people today are still being exposed – often because of non-compliance with regulations. In the past year, over 130 British companies or individuals were ordered to stop work because of rule-breaking.

As Bev Bessinger, IOSH chief executive said, “It is unacceptable that 20 years on from asbestos being banned in Britain, organisations are still potentially putting at risk the lives of employees, their families, and other members of the public. Thousands die in Britain every year from cancers like mesothelioma, while many more are diagnosed with it. All this is preventable through good occupational safety and health. It is time for organisations to wake up and realise how dangerous asbestos is. There are no excuses.”

Dr. Nick Hopkinson, medical director at the British Lung Foundation, reinforced this message by confirming, “Currently the only treatments available are aimed at slowing the progression of the disease and improving quality of life. This devastating disease is preventable, and the dangers of asbestos are well known. It’s vital companies are vigilant and take the proper precautions to protect people from the life-threatening dangers of asbestos, and take urgent action if asbestos has been found.”

Asbestos still kills 15,000 Americans each year

This number of deaths is not acceptable. The United States has not taken the necessary steps to ban asbestos, even though it has been banned in 55 countries. Though some uses are no longer allowed in the US, others are – especially in commercial applications. We know homes and other buildings constructed before the 1980s have a high likelihood of asbestos in areas such as drywall, insulation, siding, roofing, tile mastic, and insulation around pipes. When will the US stop new uses of this deadly mineral?

Brakes on the Toxic Substances Control Act

This act showed promise to finally ban, or strictly control, asbestos as it was identified as one of the ten high risk chemicals set for EPA evaluation. Unfortunately, the ground rules for the EPA’s evaluation under the Trump administration has softened the likelihood of a ban and shockingly, may perhaps even allow new uses of the fiber.

A legacy of death for the future

Like those in the U.K. who work on demolition or renovation of pre-1980 era buildings, workers and their families can be exposed to asbestos if not careful to have suspicious areas checked by an abatement professional. Click here to see a comprehensive FAQ checklist of asbestos products, reporting information, and testing guidelines. Since there is no outright ban, new asbestos-containing materials can still be imported into the US. As seen in the British report, once a ban is in place, people contracting asbestos-related diseases continue for decades into the future. Until importation and new uses are stopped completely, there is no end in sight for the victims of asbestos.

Claire’s Finally Pulled Their Products Containing Asbestos

By

Claire’s finally pulled their products containing asbestos when the FDA affirmed the presence of asbestos after testing in 2017 and 2018. Though the removal was voluntary, it occurred only after the FDA issued a warning against the three contaminated products. Since the FDA does not have jurisdiction, they believed this was warranted since Claire’s initially “refused to comply with the FDA’s request, and the agency does not have authority to mandate a recall.” Claire’s steadfastly refuted the FDA’s findings, asserting “the products were “extensively tested by multiple independent accredited laboratories” and “all products were found to be compliant with all relevant cosmetic safety regulations.”

Meanwhile, Frank Pallone, Jr, Energy and Commerce Chairman, stated, “Examples like Claire’s’ refusal to voluntarily recall their asbestos-tainted products demonstrates the need to modernize the current regulatory framework for cosmetic and personal care products to ensure that the FDA can act to protect consumers when industry fails to do so.”

Claire’s finally pulled their products

Claire’s sold the affected products between October 2016 and March 2019. While they are no longer in the stores, some households possibly continue to harbor the three products pinpointed. To check your home, the products are:

• Claire’s Eyeshadows, UPC #888711847165, SKU #84716, Lot No. 08/17
• Claire’s Compact Powder, UPC #888711839153, SKU #83915, Lot No. 07/15
• Claire’s Contour Palette, UPC #888711401947, SKU #40194, Lot No. 04/17

The identifying numbers are found on the price stickers on the product. Batch numbers are found beneath the ingredient lists on the back panels.

The original products pulled from stores in December of 2017 were Ultimate Mega Make Up Set, Metallic Hot Pink Glitter 48-Piece Makeup Set, Bedazzled Rainbow Heart Makeup Set, Rainbow Bedazzled Star Make Up Set, Rainbow Glitter Heart Shaped Makeup Set, Mint Glitter Make Up Set, Rainbow Bedazzled Rectangle Make Up Set, and Pink Glitter Palette with Eyeshadow & Lip Gloss. Again, if these still remain in your home, dispose of them or return the item to the Claire’s store.

For more information

If you want more information, contact Claire’s at 800-252-4737, option 2, from 9:30 AM – 7 PM EDT.

Petition Filed by 15 Attorney Generals for EPA to Enhance Asbestos Reporting Rules

By

Attorney Generals in 14 states, plus the District of Colombia, have petitioned the EPA to enhance asbestos reporting rules. This would “address deficiencies” observed in the current chemical data reporting (CDR) asbestos rule. The petition asserts that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a mandate to perform asbestos risk evaluations and create regulations that deal with all unreasonable human or environmental risks.

Specific ways for the EPA to enhance asbestos reporting rules

• Close exemptions that exist in the CDR for naturally occurring substances and impurities.
• Extend the reporting requirements to processors of asbestos.
• Require notification of the substance’s use in articles.

Basically, this petition and an earlier one presented to the EPA in September of 2018, request all importers of asbestos and asbestos-containing products to inform the EPA of how and where they will be used. A current example of the need for these rules is a loophole that allowed Occidental Chemical Corporation–the largest asbestos importer– to import asbestos into the United States without notifying the EPA.

Supporters of the 2018 petition included the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), the American Public Health Association (APHA), Center for Environmental Health (CEH), Environmental Working Group (EWG), Environmental Health Strategies Center (EHSC), and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF). This petition was denied.

The dangers of asbestos

While asbestos is naturally occurring, that does not mean it is not a danger. It is a known carcinogen. Researchers believe approximately 40,000 Americans die annually from asbestos-related diseases. Diseases range from asbestosis, to lung cancer, and most deadly – mesothelioma. While many countries have banned its use, the US has not, though there are limitations.

2016 changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act

Loopholes were a concern when the EPA made changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act at the beginning of the Trump administration. In general, instead of all new uses coming before the EPA to assess risk, only 15 specific uses would bring about a federal assessment. These 15 uses are relatively common, so new uses could slip in without review.

Attorney General Maura Healey of Massachusetts asserted, “In recent years, tens of thousands have died from mesothelioma and other diseases caused by exposure to asbestos and other dangerous chemicals. If the Trump administration’s erosion of federal chemical safety rules continues, it will endanger our communities and the health of all Americans.”

EPA response

The EPA’s response, led by EPA’s acting administrator, Andrew Wheeler, said their plan would make it more difficult to use asbestos in products. The agency asserted that it “is aware of all ongoing uses of asbestos and already has the information that EPA would receive if EPA were to amend the CDR requirements.” Because the risk evaluations under the reformed TSCA must be completed by December, there was not time to change the rule and assemble the information in time – although there is a possible six-month extension.

Attorney generals’ response

The attorneys assert that the public has a right to know of dangers to their health and how to avoid and eliminate exposures. “Neither of these goals can be accomplished,” the attorneys said,” if EPA does not possess the necessary comprehensive data with respect to the manufacture (including import) and use of asbestos in the US on which to act – data that currently EPA is not collecting under the CDR, as EPA concedes” in its response and denial to the previous petitioners.

Going forward

The ADAO President and CEO, Linda Reinstein, expressed the thoughts of many when she said, “We are grateful and pleased that the states are showing leadership in holding the Trump EPA accountable for its reckless disregard of public health. When they denied ADAO’s petition, EPA irresponsibly refused to collect information that its own scientists need to do their jobs properly and that workers and the public need so they know whether they are being exposed to asbestos and can protect themselves from harm.”

The EPA response to this latest petition, filed on January 31, is required within 90 days.

Asbestos Contamination in NOLA Schools Strikes Again

By

Asbestos contamination in NOLA schools was revealed in at least the third incident this year. According to “The Lens” and “Louisiana Weekly”, this most recent find was at the Rosenwald school, set to open as Rosenwald Collegiate Academy in August of this year for high school students.

Though no students were present when the asbestos was detected, Senior Environmental Scientist Dwight Bradshaw told “The Lens”, “If you’re following the regulations you should not have had this contamination throughout the building. It shouldn’t have happened.” The asbestos contamination was found as contractors began evaluating damaged floor tiles.

A series of problems with asbestos contamination in NOLA schools

In 2016 and 2017, the Lafayette Academy building in Uptown New Orleans underwent remodeling that led to the disturbance of asbestos. In 2018, the building released uncontained asbestos into the air as protocols were once again not followed.

This led to Lafayette Academy students’ reassignment to the McDonogh 35 building on Kerlerec Street for the 2018-2019 school year. Parents were wary about this change as the McDonogh 35 building was older than the Lafayette building and also contained known asbestos and was undergoing remediation throughout the summer. The school opened in August, however parents were concerned that they were not allowed a walk-through before their children began classes.

The students who were to begin classes in the Rosenwald building are attending classes in a temporary location this school year while remediation continues in the Rosenwald building.

What agency is responsible?

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) would like that answer – especially since there is a management plan for asbestos in place that any contractor working on a building should follow. The Rosenwald building was controlled by the Recovery School District (RSD). That responsibility transferred to the Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB) on April 1, 2018. In addition, the OPSD gave access to Collegiate Academies, the charter network planning to open Rosenwald Academy in the building this past August. Both the OPSB and RSD had workers in the building when asbestos fibers were released. The Collegiate Academies had contractors in the building to assess the floor tiles needing replacement. This is when the air quality was tested and determined to contain asbestos requiring abatement and remediation.

Clean-up at Rosenwald will cost the OPSD $1.3 million. In addition, a contract for $700,000 was approved between the OPSD and MMG, an environmental firm, to manage asbestos problems at Rosenwald.

Why spend so much on asbestos abatement?

Asbestos, left undisturbed, is not an immediate problem. However, when it is disturbed, such as in remodeling, storm damage, or wear and tear, asbestos fibers are released into the air. When inhaled, these fibers can embed into the lungs and linger for years, or decades, before creating havoc for the victim. This can show up as asbestosis, lung cancer, or the fatal malignant mesothelioma. No one should be knowingly exposed to this deadly fiber. The environment must be made safe or a new location found.

EPA Under Trump May Allow for New Asbestos Use

By

After bipartisan passage to improve the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016, asbestos was one of several initial chemicals that would come under review again. In the face of overwhelming scientific consensus established by more than a half century of research, it was widely anticipated that the TSCA review would finally result in a ban on the use of asbestos in the United States. Two years later, and a very different result is unfolding.

EPA proposed a “significant new use rule” for asbestos

On June 1, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency under Scott Pruitt announced a proposed “Significant New Use Rule” (SNUR) for asbestos. SNURs are a tool under the TSCA that mandate EPA approval when a chemical is used in a significantly new way. To hear former Administrator Pruitt state it, he took an unprecedented stand by requiring importers to receive EPA approval before importing or using asbestos in the manufacture of products.

A look inside the SNUR

A closer look, however, establishes a twofold problem posed by the SNUR which may undercut the EPA’s conclusions at the end of its three year TSCA review of asbestos.

First, the EPA could have used the 2016 TSCA overhaul – which began under Obama and has continued under Trump – to ban any new uses of asbestos. Instead, with the SNUR, the EPA has laid the groundwork to expressly allow new uses of asbestos after evaluation based on “risk evaluation, select studies and use of the best available science.”

Secondly, the way in which the EPA will evaluate that risk is problematic. In May 2018 , the EPA published a “Problem Formulation of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos” which the EPA will use in evaluating these new uses of asbestos. Importantly, the problem formulation will not include information from existing, or “legacy” uses of asbestos – all of the ways in which millions of Americans have been, and will continue to be, exposed to asbestos from existing asbestos products and asbestos in place. This approach will ignore decades of scientific research establishing an overwhelming scientific consensus about the health risks from the legacy uses of asbestos such as exposure to drywall joint compound, plaster, floor tiles, pipe covering and many other existing, in place asbestos products.

This may serve to severely limit the types of exposures the EPA will include in formulating the potential risk of new asbestos uses.

As reported by the New York Times, such limits on the EPA’s review will necessarily create a flawed analysis of the threat posed by asbestos under the EPA TSCA re-evaluation. “It is ridiculous”, said Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, former EPA scientist, speaking to the New York Times. “You can’t determine if there is an unreasonable risk without doing a comprehensive risk evaluation.”

EPA may allow new asbestos use

While the EPA’s re-review of asbestos is still in the second year of the three year process, the limitations the current administration have already placed on the review will likely result in an outcome that does not protect human health – the core mission of the agency. Instead, by not considering the existing, wide-body of scientific evidence concerning asbestos, the ultimate EPA conclusion will likely find lower levels of risk and as a result impose fewer restrictions or prohibitions. Hopes for a U.S. ban on asbestos – one of the most widely recognized human carcinogens – are sadly diminishing.