Small firms are risking big costs

Second-rate or inadequate surveys will increase the danger of workers being exposed to asbestos on site, says Mick Dawson

The Health and Safety Executive is trying to instil a greater awareness of regulations and best practice in companies working on smaller building sites.

The HSE has focused on raising awareness. One example is the Safety and Health Awareness Days, which involve partnership and support between the HSE and large contracting firms, ConstructionSkills and the Federation of Master Builders.

Asbestos has been a particular focus of the HSE's Disease Reduction Programme. A new document, 'Inspection pack for duty to manage asbestos in premises', outlines the risk control indicators which will be used by enforcement officers against which the performance of dutyholders will be measured.

The HSE's name-and-shame database shows that from January to September 2007, 26 out of the 120 asbestos-related enforcement notices were issued on construction sites, the majority for failing to identify asbestos-containing materials (ACM) prior to work starting.

Asbestos can't be ignored

The vast majority of these notices were immediate prohibition notices, meaning that the site was closed straight away and would not be allowed to re-open until there was evidence that each fault had been rectified.

Asbestos issues need addressing at the inception of a project and many clients, construction managers and main contractors have realised that independence and accredited asbestos expertise is the only way to solve the problem.

The most important piece of information required is a Type 3 survey report. A Type 3 survey (as defined in the HSE Guidance document, MDHS 100) is an intrusive inspection identifying ACMs that have been used as part of a building's fabric - not only during the original construction, but during subsequent refurbishments.

A common mistake is to assume that any existing asbestos information will be adequate for the project to proceed. This is unlikely to be the case.

A Type 3 survey is appropriate if it can satisfy the following criteria:

1. It has been commissioned with the intended building work taken into consideration;
2. It has been carried out while the building is unoccupied Đ to facilitate the required level of intrusion - unless the work is a minor refurbishment;
3. It has been carried out by surveyors accredited to ISO 17020 or ISO 17024 who are insured for the commensurate risk.

The CDM Coordinator is responsible for ensuring that this information is available and for checking the survey.

A Type 2 survey is not adequate - it does not have the required level of intrusion because it is a management, not a refurbishment, survey - and an asbestos management plan is not sufficient because this usually only documents procedural arrangements. If there is any doubt, a tailor-made survey should be commissioned.

The skills required to carry out a Type 3 survey mean that not only is a knowledge of asbestos products required, but also of construction techniques.

Expert surveyors essential

Only the most experienced surveyors can produce the level of information required.
And only those companies with robust quality procedures accredited to ISO 17020, or ISO 17024 for individuals, will be able to produce a document that reports the information gathered on site in a manner that is impartial and independent.

An insurance broker speaking off the record recently referred to "hundreds" of pending claims for poor Type 3 surveys.

This illustrates that there are many organisations that are not competent and are employing unqualified surveyors.

Another area of enforcement is the 2006 Control of Asbestos Regulations, which made it explicit that contractors working within buildings had to provide awareness training.

Many clients are making this a condition of approved supplier status, and some are making it a barrier to entry onto site. The HSE has already made three firms train hundreds of staff at a cost in excess of £100,000.

On 27 February 2008, the HSE will launch an asbestos campaign, called 'You're more at risk than you think'.

This is also the date of National Mesothelioma Day and serves as a reminder that in an average week six electricians and three plumbers die from asbestos-induced deaths.

Mick Dawson is commercial director for Bureau Veritas.

Source: http://www.cnplus.co.uk/doingthejob/2008/01/small_firms_are_risking_big_costs.html

Asbestos suit claims first- and second-hand exposure

1/16/2008 10:13 AM
By Steve Gonzalez

A Georgia widower filed an asbestos suit against 84 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court Jan. 11, alleging his late wife was exposed to airborne asbestos fibers from her stepfather's clothing.

Terry Jones alleges his wife Sherry was employed from 1974 to 2006 in clerical positions and her stepfather was employed in maintenance.

According to Jones, Sherry and her stepfather would on many occasions work with and around asbestos and asbestos-containing products.

"Dust created by working with and around asbestos and asbestos-containing products would permeate the person and clothing of the Decedent and her stepfather," the complaint states. "This dust contained asbestos fiber."

Jones claims Sherry's stepfather would carry the asbestos dust on his clothing home with him where it would again become airborne.

"The Decedent would be repeatedly exposed to this asbestos dust from her stepfather's person and clothing," the complaint states.

Jones claims his wife was also exposed to asbestos during non-occupational work projects including home and automotive repairs, maintenance and remodeling.

According to Jones, Sherry was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Feb. 8, 2006, and died 15 days later.

He claims the defendants knew or should have known that the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of people.

Jones also alleges that the defendants included asbestos in their products even when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working with and around asbestos.

He also claims that the defendants failed to require and advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home.

Jones also claims that he has sought, but has been unable to obtain, full disclosure of relevant documents and information from the defendants leading him to believe the defendants destroyed documents related to asbestos.

"It was foreseeable to a reasonable person/entity in the respective positions of defendants, that said documents and information constituted evidence, which was material to potential civil litigation-namely asbestos litigation," the complaint states.

He claims that as a result of each defendant breaching its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents and information he has been prejudiced and impaired in proving claims against all potential parties.

"Plaintiff has been caused to suffer damages in the form of impaired ability to recover against defendants and lost or reduced compensation from other potentially liable parties in this litigation," the complaint states.

As a result of the alleged negligence, Jones claims Sherry was exposed to fibers containing asbestos and developed a disease caused only by asbestos which disabled and disfigured her, the complaint states.

Jones claims that prior to her death Sherry suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, which hindered and prevented her from pursuing her normal course of employment, causing her to lose large sums of money.

He is seeking at least $350,000 in damages for negligence, willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence among other allegations.

"In addition to compensatory damages, an award of punitive damages is appropriate and necessary in order to punish the defendants for willful, wanton, intentional and reckless misconduct and to deter them and others from engaging in like misconduct in the future," the complaint states.

Jones is represented by Perry Browder, John Barnerd, Trent Miracle and John Foley of SimmonsCooper in East Alton.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack.

Source: http://www.stclairrecord.com/news/206329-asbestos-suit-claims-first--and-second-hand-exposure

Mesothelioma drug listed on PBS

By Jane Bunce January 01, 2008

SUFFERERS of the asbestos-linked disease mesothelioma will have access to cheap treatment from today, after a long campaign to secure federal government subsidy paid off.

The government says the chemotherapy agent Alimta - the only treatment available specifically for the killer cancer of the lung or stomach lining - will be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) from today.

Health Minister Nicola Roxon said the listing of Alimta was an important announcement that followed the "tireless campaigning" of Bernie Banton, who died, aged 61, in November from the disease.

"Bernie was a great Australian hero and it is due to his efforts that many people will understand the significance of this decision," she said.

About 600 Australians are diagnosed annually with mesothelioma, but the long lag time between exposure to asbestos and the onset of symptoms means its prevalence is tipped to rise in the future.

Medical studies have estimated 18,000 people will have become victims of the disease by 2020.
Alimta, which can increase survival time and improve a sufferer's quality of life, has been out of reach for many patients at $20,000 or more for six treatments.

From today, sufferers will pay a maximum of $31.30 for each prescription. Eligible concession-patients will pay $5 for each prescription.

The subsidy will cost the government about $26 million annually and is expected to benefit about 300 people a year.

The listing of the drug became an election issue after Mr Banton criticised then health minister Tony Abbott for failing to personally receive a 17,000-signature petition brought to his Sydney electoral office in October.

Mr Abbott was forced into an embarrassing apology after questioning whether the dying campaigner's motives for speaking out were "pure of heart".

A week later, a government-appointed board recommended the drug be added to the PBS after three times rejecting its listing since 2004.

Mr Abbott bypassed the normal process of cabinet approval by immediately announcing the drug's listing.

Until now, only about half of Australians suffering mesothelioma were getting easy access to the palliative care drug through state government subsidy and workplace compensation schemes.

Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22993459-12377,00.html

Asbestos exposure led to death of ex-decorator

By Hayley Magurie

A RETIRED decorator from Ellesmere Port died as a result of asbestos exposure, an inquest heard.

John Fordham, of Kinnerly Road, Whitby, died at the Countess of Chester Hospital on April 20 after suffering with an industrial disease.

Cheshire coroner Nicholas Rheinberg recorded that Mr Fordham, 84, died from mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure, with heart disease as a contributing factor.

Linda Anne Fordham, a retired clerical receptionist, told the Chester hearing her husband worked as a decorator with his cousin, John Davies. He worked in boiler rooms sanding down pipes lagged with asbestos."

In those days they didn't know an awful lot about asbestos," she said.

Mr Rheinberg read out a statement by Brian Cookson, of Cypress Avenue, Ellesmere Port, who worked with Mr Fordham. He said: "We came into contact with asbestos on a regular basis. Most of the buildings had boiler rooms lagged with asbestos."

Dr Jacqueline Elder, a pathologist at the Countess of Chester Hospital, carried out a post-mortem examination and recorded the cause of death as mesothelioma.

She said plural plaques were evident in the lungs and he had suffered with ischaemic heart disease.

Source: http://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/chesternews/Asbestos-exposure-led-to-death.3676390.jp