Senator Arlen Specter's Asbestos Trust Fund Bill.
May 2005 - - The FAIR Act of 2005 (S. 852/H.R.1360) is a national asbestos lawsuit settlement bill co-sponsored by Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont. The bill will take asbestos victims claims out of the court system and force them into a federal trust fund. The $140 billion national settlement is being structured to end asbestos litigation. Without a national settlement, victims of asbestos exposure face dwindling legal options. Most cannot sue in their own state's courts because illness caused by asbestos exposure may not show up for decades and state laws often require a person exposed to a toxic substance to sue within a few years of exposure. Although rare, some unfamiliar with the trust fund bill may mistakenly refer to it as the Eagle Picher asbestos trust or Johns Manville asbestos trust.
The proposal includes some important improvements such as increases in award levels for victims of some disease categories of (asbestos. Workers compensation) and a bar against any liens on these funds is also addressed.
|The Committee to Protect Mesothelioma Victims (CPMV) and the AFL-CIO oppose the bill. They believe the bill has a number of serious deficiencies that must be corrected despite recent changes that came as a result of stakeholder negotiations on the bill. Proponents and opponents support the establishment of a federal asbestos trust fund to compensate asbestos victims for their injuries through a no-fault system to replace the present civil litigation system. It is the level of funding in the bill that is in dispute. The AFL-CIO believes the fund would go broke before it can be distributed to all workers. Compensation asbestos groups on both sides, however, agree that federal legislation is necessary to deal with the high volume of litigation stemming from asbestos disease across the country.
According to opponents, the bill has a number of serious deficiencies that must be corrected. These include:
In addition, there are a set of issues, such as the statute of limitations, preemption and the treatment of claims if the Fund sunsets, that will determine whether the compensation system works as intended for deserving claimants. In 1979, lawmakers tried to correct the contradiction, but courts ruled that asbestos exception only applies to workers exposed after the law passed. By 1979, most workplaces had stopped using asbestos products.
Some conservatives’ believe the $140 billion "Asbestos Trust Fund" will simply grow government, raise taxes, and line the pockets of trial lawyers under the guise that it will help victims of asbestos related illness.
|Asbestos is a fibrous mineral that has been used as insulation and a fire retardant in a wide variety of products. Because of its durable, fibrous nature, asbestos can produce dust that, when inhaled, becomes deposited in the lungs. Asbestos in the lungs can cause or contribute to the development of illnesses including asbestosis (a fibrous scarring of the lungs) and mesothelioma (a malignant form of cancer in the lining of the chest or abdominal cavities).
Because of health concerns, the United States issued an (asbestos ban) in July 1989 for all new asbestos uses. That year, the EPA published the Asbestos: Manufacture, Importation, Processing, and Distribution in Commerce Prohibitions, the effect of which was to eventually ban about 94 percent of the asbestos used in the U.S. (based on 1985 estimates). Most asbestos uses established before this date are still allowed, but are now strictly regulated by the government. (See EPA-Asbestos General Information) EPA established regulations that require school systems to inspect for damaged asbestos and to eliminate or reduce the exposure by removing the asbestos or by covering it up. EPA regulates the release of asbestos from factories and during building demolition or renovation to prevent asbestos from getting into the environment. EPA has proposed a concentration limit of 7 million fibers per liter of drinking water for long fibers (lengths greater than or equal to 5 Âµm).
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set limits of 100,000 fibers with lengths greater than or equal to 5 Âµm per cubic meter of workplace air for 8-hour shifts and 40-hour work weeks.
Asbestosis is a serious, progressive, long-term disease of the lungs. An asbestosis diagnosis is not cancer. Inhaling asbestos fibers irritates and inflame lung tissues, causing the lung tissues to scar and causes asbestosis. The scarring makes it hard to breathe and difficult for oxygen and carbon dioxide pass through the lungs. Asbestosis generally progresses slowly. The latency period for the onset of a confirmed asbestosis diagnosis is typically 10-20 years after the initial exposure. The disease can vary from asymptomatic (no symptoms) to disabling and potentially fatal.
Asbestos is one of the leading causes of the lung cancers among nonsmokers. Asbestos lung cancer is a malignant tumor that invades and obstructs the lung's air passages. Cigarette smoking greatly increases the likelihood of a person developing asbestos lung cancer as the result of asbestos exposure. Most cases of asbestos lung cancer in workers occurred 15 years or more after the person was first exposed to asbestos.
Malignant mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer in which malignant (cancerous) cells are found in the mesothelium, a protective sac that covers most of the body's internal organs. Most people who develop malignant mesothelioma have worked on jobs where they inhaled asbestos particles. Most cases of the malignant mesothelioma are diagnosed 30 years or more after the first exposure to asbestos. Malignant mesothelioma has been diagnosed in asbestos workers, family members, and residents who live close to asbestos mines.
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the EPA have determined that asbestos is a human carcinogen.
History Of Litigation
The first asbestos lawsuit was filed in 1966, in Beaumont, Texas. The defendants were eleven manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation products, including Johns Manville, Fibreboard and Owens Corning Fiberglas. The case proceeded to trial in 1969 and the verdict was returned in favor of the asbestos company defendants. The verdict was appealed and in 1973, the Fifth Circuit Court upheld the award (about $80,000 for the workers).
In 1974, a worker (Reba Rudkin) filed a civil suit against the Johns Manville asbestos manufacturer after developing asbestosis 29 years after working at the manufacturing plant in Pittsburg, California. The company would normally be protected from such a lawsuit because workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for an employee suing an employer. But the lawyers argued that Manville and its executives should not be shielded from fraud and conspiracy charges by sheltering itself behind workers compensation. Asbestos investigation revealed evidence of fraud and conspiracy. Specifically letters were discovered that disclosed that these companies conspired to suppress knowledge about the hazards of asbestos. Workers compensation was eventually protected.
By 1981, a major victory was won against Johns Manville, when the California Supreme Court ruled that workers could sue their employers when circumstances like those in Rudkin applied. This enabled other Pittsburg plant workers to proceed with their cases in civil court against their employer, Johns Manville. In February 1982, a verdict of $150,000 was granted against Johns Manville. This case marked a "threshold in asbestos litigation" because it gave rise to a number of punitive damage verdicts against Johns Manville. In August 1982, Johns Manville filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to avoid paying compensation to the growing number of victims of diseases caused by exposure to its asbestos products.
Unfortunately, several other asbestos companies - Eagle Picher, UNARCO, Amatex, H.K. Porter, Carey Canada, Celotex, and Raybestos Manhattan/Raymark - followed Johns-Manville's lead into the bankruptcy courts. Within a few years, the entire asbestos textile industry was in bankruptcy, as were several major asbestos insulation manufacturers. The bankruptcies and other changes did not halt litigation on behalf of victims of asbestos-related disease, but they did make it much more complex and diverse, and the litigation was pushed in divergent directions.
Asbestos litigation against the major asbestos manufacturers, in particular, on behalf of workers at their plants began to appear.Workers injured by exposure at sites where the asbestos-containing products were installed, such as at shipyards, refineries, railroads and power plants;
Asbestos workers and compensation seekers injured by asbestos exposure in the construction industry. They were exposed to different products - such as fireproofing sprays, drywall products, textures, and other asbestos-containing construction materials.
Thus, at the same time that the Johns Manville asbestos producer and similar manufacturers were filing for bankruptcy, new defendants were brought into the litigation. These new defendants often included contractors, distributors, and the owners of premises like refineries and power plants.
Legislation & Regulations: The U.S. Has NOT Banned Asbestos
Senator Patty Murry (D-Wash) The Ban Asbestos In America Act of 2003 (S.2641)
Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) Ban Asbestos In America Act of 2003 (H.R.2277)
Newspaper and magazine articles, Internet information, and currently available (but outdated) documents from the EPA and other federal agencies may contain incorrect statements about an EPA asbestos ban and the Eagle Picher asbestos trust or Johns Manville asbestos trust.
In 1989 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned U.S. manufacturing, importation, processing, or distribution in commerce of many asbestos-containing product categories.
In 1991 much of the original “Asbestos Ban and Phase out" rule was set aside by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The EPA has published a clarification of the Asbestos Ban and Phase Out on the EPA headquarters Asbestos web site, under Additional Asbestos Information and then Status of EPA's Asbestos Ban. Please refer to the full document for more information. Some descriptions of banned and non-banned Asbestos Containing Material products and uses from the clarification are:
Banned under the Clean Air Act:
Banned under the Toxic Substances Control Act:
Product categories that no longer have an asbestos ban under TSCA include
EPA has no existing asbestos ban on most other asbestos-containing products or uses.
EPA does NOT track the manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce of asbestos-containing products. It would be prudent for a consumer or other buyer to inquire as to the presence of asbestos in particular products. Possible sources of that information would include inquiring of the dealer/supplier or manufacturer, refer to the product's "Material Safety Data Sheet" (MSDS), or consider having the material tested by a qualified laboratory for the presence of asbestos.
For further EPA information:
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) banned asbestos use in several consumer products. The Federal Register listing banned asbestos items is available from the Code of Federal Regulations website at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html Asbestos bans are found in Title 16 Commercial Practices, Chapter II Consumer Product Safety Commission, parts 1304 (consumer patching materials), and 1305 (artificial fireplace ashes and embers).
CPSC Hotline information, at 1-800-638-2772.