British Asbestos Newsletter
BRITISH ASBESTOS NEWSLETTER
9 Tintagel Drive, Stanmore, Middx. HA7 4SR England
Compiled by Laurie Kazan-Allen
Jerome Consultants
Issue 37: Winter 1999/2000
Note: The Board of Directors of the White Lung Association
endorsed the international conference to ban asbestos being planned for
Brazil in September of 2000.
Brazil: Support Grows for Chrysotile Ban
The 1999 recipient of The American Public Health Associations (APHA)
prestigious International Occupational Safety and Health Award was Fernanda
Giannasi, a Brazilian labor inspector. The Awards Committee praised Ms.
Giannasis commitment to worker health and safety, her role in publicizing
'the double standards (of) the automobile industry regarding the continued
use of asbestos in Brazilian plants in a manner that has been outmoded
in Europe and North America for safety reasons,' her participation in
the setting up of ABREA, an asbestos victims group in Osasco, and her
efforts to garner international support for the International Confederation
of Free Trade Unions. The award ceremony, well-attended by members of
APHAs Occupational Safety and Health Section, took place in Chicago on
November 9. Introducing Ms. Giannasi, Barry Castleman described her working
environment as one in which it was routine for factory inspectors to be
physically threatened, remain unsupported by their government departments
and be subject to criminal lawsuits by disgruntled manufacturers. In her
speech, Ms. Giannasi accepted the award on behalf of all her Brazilian
colleagues explaining that it would reinforce 'our efforts to create a
society where workers no longer pay with their health for the right to
work.'
The income produced by Brazils asbestos cement industry was US$540 million
in 1997. Twenty-seven factories in ten states manufacture two million
tons of finished products annually. Forty per cent of production is exported
to Japan, Thailand, India and dozens of other countries. This is an industry
of great importance to the Brazilian economy and one which has been, naturally
enough, resistant to calls for a ban. Last Summer, the Brazilian Environment
Minister announced his governments intention to emulate the EUs timetable
for the interdiction of chrysotile by 2005. The United Workers Confederation
(CUT), Brazils largest trade union, declared its support for the prohibitions
on December 14, 1999. At the same time, the union launched a national
campaign to raise members awareness of the problems stemming from asbestos
use. CUT is calling for government-funded early retirement for asbestos
miners and government investment in new industries in the mining regions.
On December 17, there was an anti-asbestos demonstration in Sao Paulo.
Trade unionists joined with members of ABREA and the Ban Asbestos Network,
local politicians and social activists to call at the head office of Saint
Gobain, a company with extensive asbestos-cement interests in Brazil.
Carlos William Ferreira, Marketing Director for Brasilit, one of Saint
Gobains subsidiaries, confirmed his companys plans to adopt non-asbestos
technology. The demonstration moved on to the Canadian Consulate where
leaflets were distributed and banners were displayed denouncing Brazils
alliance with the Canadian asbestos industry.
An asbestos conference, which will be held in Osasco next Autumn, is
being organised by ABREA, the Ban Asbestos Network and The International
Ban Asbestos Secretariat (IBAS). The choice of venue is significant. For
more than fifty years, the manufacture of asbestos-containing goods (building
materials and brake systems) exposed both workers and the local populace
to high levels of contamination; predictably, the incidence of asbestos
disease in this region is very high. Fernanda Giannasi has spear-headed
the opposition to asbestos in Latin America. She is optimistic that this
conference will achieve many things: 'The congregation of asbestos victims,
victims advocates, scientists, health and safety experts, medical researchers
and academics from all over the world will demonstrate to our government
and the international asbestos industry the solidarity of the anti-asbestos
movement. Our access to the best sources of impartial advice enables us
to expose industrys concept of controlled use as a total fallacy.' For
information on this event, please contact: Fernanda Giannasi at giannasi@telnet.com.br
T&N Exposed
During the school holidays, Robert Ballantine played with his friends
on the riverbanks near his Sunderland home. There was a huge unfenced
site which the boys favored; it was an idyllic spot to explore, play games,
let off air-rifles and dig for treasure. During the dry Summer days, there
was a lot of dust but the boys overlooked this. They werent to know that
the dust contained asbestos and that this dump, larger than the Royal
Albert Hall, belonged to a subsidiary of the UKs biggest asbestos company.
Mr. Ballantine died aged 50 from malignant mesothelioma on July 13, 1998.
Although Newalls Insulation Co. Ltd. admitted liability for his environmental
exposure, the company disputed financial elements of the case, claiming
that a previous lump sum payment of £39,228 by the DETR under the
1979 Pneumoconiosis Act should be deducted from the agreed damages. On
October 14, 1999 the High Court in Newcastle upon Tyne ruled that only
£13,310 for nursing care and loss of earnings should be deducted
from civil compensation of £144,473. The defendant plans to appeal
the verdict.
Newalls Insulation (NI) was one of four specialist companies that merged
to form Turner & Newall Ltd. (T&N), an enterprise which eventually dominated
the UK asbestos industry. According to a government report: 'from the
time of its formation in 1920 T&N had steadily strengthened its position
as the leading, indeed the dominant, producer of both fibres and asbestos
products. Smaller manufacturers... certainly existed, but after 1928 none
was comparable in size or range of interests to T&N.' By the late 1930s,
ten thousand people worked in all stages of asbestos processing at T&Ns
asbestos mines, factories and subsidiaries at home and overseas. 'So prominent
had the firm become that in 1939 it was obliged to issue a report denying
that it was a monopoly, as it only had 20 per cent of the world asbestos
market!' By the late 1950s its sales had overtaken those of US asbestos
giant: Johns Manville: 'while Johns-Manville had sales of $304.1 million
in 1959, T&N had sales of $450 million the previous year.' Of course,
T&N is a well-known company; it is a frequent defendant in both US and
UK personal injury cases. Although much has been written about the company
(see Barry Castlemans authoritative: Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects),
speculation has continued over the companys state of knowledge, effect
on government health and safety legislation, levels of workmens compensation,
legal strategies and attitude towards dust control. These and other subjects
are dealt with in remorseless detail by Dr Geoffrey Tweedale in a new
book: Magic Mineral to Killer Dust: Turner & Newall and the Asbestos Hazard.
Pain-staking research and access to a vast archive of internal corporate
documentation shed light on how a substance once revered for its versatility
and indestructibility was also a ruthless occupational killer. Placing
the individual corporate behaviour within the historical context of the
twentieth century, the preface explains: 'The micro-environment of Turner
& Newall provides an understanding of the wider social and economic climate
in which the asbestos business operated... This book is not simply a muckraking
tale of corporate misconduct (though some may choose to read it that way)...
the failure by management, capital, the state, and labour to provide effective
safeguards against asbestos inevitably has a considerable contemporary
relevance for debates about every aspect of occupational health -- a subject
we neglect at our peril.'
A thorough and at times harrowing examination of medical files, company
reports, memoranda and correspondence led Tweedale to conclude: 'The companys
attitude towards matters of health over so many years may be regarded
as strikingly irresponsible. In the last decade or so, T&N has tried to
defend itself in court actions by arguing that it has always applied government
safety regulations, that it has always adequately warned workers about
the risks, that it has paid fair compensation, and that it has supported
medical research. Its archive shows such claims owe more to public relations
than to fact. Turner & Newell provided significant opposition to the government
dust control and medical schemes between the 1930s and 1960s; it neglected
to implement such schemes fully in both the UK and especially overseas;
it failed to warn customers; refused frequently to admit financial and
moral liability for the consequences of its actions; often paid only token
amounts of money for industrial injuries and deaths; tried to browbeat
doctors, coroners, and the Medical Board; sought to suppress research
linking asbestos and cancer; gave the government inaccurate data about
disease amongst its shipyard workers; and disseminated imprecise information
about the safety of asbestos.' The book (ISBN 0-19-829690-8), published
by Oxford University Press, will be available in March, 2000 at a cost
of £40.00. An order can be emailed to: book.orders@oup.co.uk
A grant received in 1996 from the Wellcome Trust, the UKs foremost independent
medical charity, made it possible for Tweedale to work on the subject
of industrial asbestos disease for three years; this generosity is acknowledged
in the books second paragraph. The backing for an alternative view of
the subject is not quite so clear cut. Dr Peter Bartrip has written 160,000
words, currently in search of a publisher, with T&Ns 'support.' When questioned
about this arrangement, Bartrip confirmed the companys financial 'support'
during a years leave of absence from teaching. The grant was not administered
by his college but was paid 'directly' to him. As I have not seen the
manuscript, it is not possible to comment on it. Nevertheless, examination
of another paper by this author is illuminating. In Too little, too late?
The Home Office and the Asbestos Industry Regulations, 1931 Bartrip portrays
the asbestos industry in a positive light, asserting that the representatives
of the asbestos firms 'expressed willingness to render every possible
assistance' during regulatory consultations with Factory Inspectors in
the early 1930s. Nowhere in the seventeen page article does Bartrip mention
any assistance, either monetary or practical, from T&N. It is only in
a rebuttal to scathing comments by Dr Morris Greenberg and Professor Nick
Wikeley that the corporate link is disclosed. A telephone enquiry to T&Ns
Manchester office on the nature and size of the companys assistance to
Dr Bartrip was referred to Kimberley Welch, Vice President of Corporate
Communications at Federal-Mogul (FM), now T&Ns parent company on January
24. No response was received from her. Neither did she choose to clarify
whether T&N had ever contributed to the British Lung Foundation (BLF),
the 'only UK charity specialising in the diagnosis, prevention and treatment
of all lung diseases.' Amongst the thirty major corporate supporters listed
in the charitys Annual Review of 1997/98 was 'T&N.' A short statement
by Darren Sanders, Publications and Communications Manager for the BLF,
confirmed that his organization had in the past 'received a relatively
small amount of money from Turner and Newall. However, we no longer seek
or receive money from this source and do not plan to do so in future.'
At the beginning of February, a spokesperson from T&Ns UK head office
corroborated the fact that donations had been made.
In many ways, T&N was a model for twenty-first century multinationals.
Even before the 1920 amalgamation, T&Ns forefathers thought internationally.
In 1907 Turner Brothers Asbestos (TBA) registered a Canadian selling agency,
the precursor to Atlas Asbestos. Ten years later, TBA directors joined
the board of Rhodesia & General Asbestos Corporation as the UK company
started buying up mines in Southern Rhodesia. In 1925, the new consortium
acquired virtually all the shares of Ferodo Ltd., the leading UK manufacturer
of brake linings and other friction materials. In 1931, Ferodo bought
several textile concerns in north-west France and began production, becoming
one of the main employers in the region. S. A. Valeo, the company which
took over Ferodos operations, was found guilty of 'faute inexcusable'
(inexcusable fault) in the case of Mr Alfonsi, a deceased Ferodo worker,
on May 27, 1999 by the Appeal Court of Caen. The ruling notes that Ferodos
highly specialised business was inextricably linked to asbestos: 'usage
was not haphazard or occasional but continual and massive.' The parent
company is mentioned by name on pages 13 and 14 of the judgement including
the comment that 'the British company Turner and Newall (was) one of the
biggest asbestos concerns...' Thousands of miles from the Normandy Court,
the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
ordered the seizure of all stock owned by T&N, Ltd. including that for
Ferodo Limited and 52 other companies in a case brought by Owens-Illinois,
Inc. On August 24, 1999 a default judgment totalling $1,630,604,268.29
was entered against the Defendants for alleged participation 'in a scheme
to defraud and a conspiracy with other asbestos fiber suppliers to create
and protect a demand for asbestos through the suppression and misrepresentation
of information concerning health risks to users of finished insulation
products containing asbestos.' At a preliminary injunction hearing on
December 20, 1999, a federal judge vacated the default judgment. T&Ns
motion to 'permanently set aside the judgment' will be heard in February,
2000. Against potential liabilities such as these, one wonders if FMs
directors are having second thoughts about their companys take- over of
T&N plc. Two years ago, the spectre of asbestos claims didnt seem to bother
the new owners. At that time, FMs General Counsel said: 'We are pleased
with T&Ns innovative efforts to manage this serious problem and intend
to build on those efforts for the future.' T&Ns 1997 accounts promised
that the take-over would 'provide the resources required to match the
provision set up in 1996 to meet past and future asbestos liabilities.'
They may well need those and more.
Will New Code of Practice Assist Asbestos Plaintiffs?
The protracted latency periods of asbestos-related diseases (on average,
fifteen to forty years for mesothelioma, fifteen to thirty-five years
for lung cancer and ten years or more for asbestosis), disadvantage potential
claimants. By the time many claims are lodged, the employer responsible
for the occupational exposure has long since disappeared. Even if the
former employer is located, vital company documents such as employers
liability insurance policies are not readily accessible. There is no central
register for insurance policies; the name of a companys insurer is not
part of the information submitted in the annual accounts to the Registrar
of Companies. It is pointless bringing a legal action if there is nobody
to pay should the case succeed. Tracking down the employers liability
insurer for the relevant time can be a formidable task. Until now, specialist
solicitors have followed a blunderbuss approach: contact everyone and
anyone including solicitors, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers
(APIL), company liquidators, former personnel, accountants, insurance
brokers, company directors, trade unions and victim support groups. This
is a time- consuming, frustrating and, more importantly in todays climate,
an expensive exercise. Two years ago, Environment Minister Alan Meale
announced that the government intended: 'to work with the insurance industry
on drawing up a Code of Practice for handling claimants queries on tracing
insurers.' On November 1, 1999 the Department of Environment, Transport
and the Regions launched The Code of Practice for Tracing Employers Liability
Insurance Policies. The voluntary scheme, designed with the assistance
of the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and the Non-Marine Association
of Lloyds (NMA), is a strange hybrid. Identical enquiry procedures, tight
time-scales, training and record-keeping requirements adopted by the ABI
and NMA could prove beneficial to asbestos plaintiffs. Cause for concern
over the degree of insurers commitment is raised by the comment on page
2 of the Code: 'The growth of the compensation culture in the UK has had
a huge impact on insurers.' Frances McCarthy, vice president of APIL,
was highly critical: 'a voluntary code without really strong sanctions
is simply not going to work, and almost certainly wont be efficient enough
to deal with the predicted future increase in asbestos-related claims.'
No sanctions can be imposed for failure to comply with any of the new
guidelines. Ian McFall, an asbestos claims specialist, believes that it
is worth giving the scheme a chance: 'Compared to the nightmare scenario
we have faced when trying to identify employers liability insurers in
the past, any improvement would be welcomed. I am prepared to reserve
judgment until I have observed first-hand the working of the scheme.'
Post-ban Developments in the UK
Although UK prohibitions on the use of chrysotile were introduced after
lengthy consultations with industry, unions, victim support groups and
other interested parties, clarification of the intricacies and applications
of the new regulations was required by a large number of friction and
roofing material manufacturers, textile producers, power companies and
Ministry of Defence (MOD) contractors. To address this need, the Health
and Safety Executive (HSE) held a one-day seminar entitled: Asbestos (Prohibitions)(Amendment)
Regulations 1999 at their Bootle offices on January 14. The subject of
most interest to delegates was that of exemptions. HSE personnel were
adamant: if a product can be made with a substitute, then, regardless
of cost, a substitute must be used. Replying to manufacturers complaints
about being left with unsaleable stock, the HSE reiterated their position:
'people knew it (the ban) was coming' and should have acted accordingly.
There is no provision in law for compensation. There was much discussion
about the one and three year derogations for compressed asbestos fiber
gaskets and sheet. Recognising the widespread use of these products and
the inconsistent evidence on available alternatives, the government accepted
that more time was required to identify practical solutions. The special
case of protective clothing for handling objects at high temperatures
was acknowledged with a five year derogation for the production of gloves,
arm guards and aprons.
The complexity and multiplicity of issues relating to asbestos and asbestos
diseases transcend subject disciplines and government departmental boundaries:
compensation for MOD personnel, benefits for industrial injuries, DSS
bureaucracy, medical and epidemiological research, palliative care, management
of asbestos in buildings, contaminated land and asbestos removal procedures
to name but a few. A new forum has been established in the House of Commons
to enable asbestos victims representatives to communicate directly with
Westminster politicians. MPs Michael Clapham and Peter Kilfoyle working
with TUC personnel and members of the Liverpool and District Asbestos
Victims Support Group and Clydeside Action on Asbestos have agreed to
set up an asbestos sub-committee of the All Party Parliamentary Group
on Occupational Safety and Health. Attendance at the inaugural meeting
of this group to be held on March 16 is by invitation only.
News Round-up
Literature:
Published in 1999, Effets sur la Sante des Fibres de Substitution
a l'Amiante (Health Effects of Asbestos Substitutes) by INSERM compliments
their 1997 publication: Effets sur la Sante des Principaux Types dExposition
a l'Amiante (Health Effects of Asbestos).
Frequency of Occupational Asbestos Exposure Among Lung Cancer Patients
in Hungary. A Preliminary Report by M Posgay, A Mandi et al concludes
'that the majority of asbestos-related malignancies remain undetected,
the incidence data are seriously underestimated in Hungary.'
According to Guidelines for Mineral Fibre Analyses in Biological
Samples: Report of the ERS Working Group by P DeVuyst, A Karjalainen
et al: 'A negative result is not proof of the absence of significant exposure,
especially when chrysotile is concerned, but the exposure history should
be evaluated carefully.'
Dust measurements, X-ray examinations, lung function tests and tissue
analyses were the basis for conclusions in Health and Exposure Surveillance
of Siberian Asbestos Miners: A Joint Finnish-American- Russian Project
by A Tossavainen, R Riala et al. Fifteen per cent of the long-term workers
were found to have radiological abnormalities (parenchymal or pleural).
Multi-parameter Observation of Environmental Asbestos Pollution at
the Institut De Physique Du Globe De Paris (Jussieu Campus, France)
by P Besson, FX Lalanne et al states: 'It is a fact that the presence
of people leads to a higher mobilization of the particles in air...The
concentration of asbestos fibers during personnel working hours is therefore
underestimated.'
In An Expert System for the Evaluation of Historical Asbestos Exposure
as Diagnostic Criterion in Asbestos-related Diseases co-authors A
Burdorf and P Swuste develop a risk matrix and stepwise decision trees
to 'speed up the process of verifying compensation claims and... (aid)
uniform decision-making process in legal procedures.'
Decades of Deception: Secrets of Lead, Asbestos, and Tobacco
by RL Motley and A McGinness Kearse discusses the 'corporate misconduct'
of three industries which 'wove a web of secrecy, deception and propaganda,
all for the sake of profits.'
Events:
January 18, 2000: A public meeting, chaired by Terry Rooney MP, launched
the Bradford Asbestos Victims Support Group to 'provide free, independent
and confidential advice and support to sufferers of asbestos-related diseases
and their families.' Coordinator Carol Duerden and her team can be reached
at: 01274 393949.
March 29, 2000: A 'Mesothelioma - Meeting the Challenge' study day will
be held in Doncaster. Personnel from Respiratory Units in Trent and Yorkshire
will be invited to hear presentations covering 'aspects of diagnosis,
surgery, treatment, palliative care, legal aspects and family support.'
Organizer Dr J Hill can be reached at the Sheffield Chest Clinic, tel:
0114 226 6432.
During the coming year, courses will be held at venues throughout the
United Kingdom by a new company: Asbestos Awareness & Abatement (AAA).
According to Company Director Carol Amery: 'The wide diversity of subjects
tackled -- from the introductory course for new removal operatives to
the BIOH certified Management of Asbestos in Buildings -- is designed
to help industry to meet the increasingly stringent training requirements
imposed by national legislation.' For more information, phone: 01277 632727;
email: carolamery@aaa-training.co.uk
|
