October 30, 2017 | Author: Anonymous | Category: N/A
Campbell, Donna. Cantin, Linda. Cassista, Cecile. Castleman, Barry. Chan-Yeung, Moira. Charbonneau ......
Bob (left) with his brothers Ron and Paul Clarke, 1985.
Dedicated to Bob Clarke This publication is dedicated to Bob Clarke, the Holmes Foundry chairperson, who fought tirelessly to clean up the foundry and secure workers’ compensation for the Sarnia workers and families who suffered from occupational disease. Through the efforts of Bob Clarke we in the CAW have been inspired to take on the issue of asbestos, the killer dust.
Years of living among the breakage Of what was believed in as the most reliable— And therefore the fittest for renunciation. T. S. Eliot
Buzz Hargrove
Dear Brothers, Sisters and Friends: Our union is publishing Pure White: Asbestos—A Canadian Scrapbook to provide useful information about the dangers of asbestos that can be put into practice in workplaces and in communities. Asbestos is an issue that should unite our membership. Asbestos has been found where our members work in the shipyards of Atlantic Canada and the fish boats of the West Coast, in the auto plants of Southern Ontario and in the automotive dealerships of Québec, in the hotels in the Rockies and in the aerospace plants of Manitoba, as well as in health care facilities, restaurants, offices, factories, mines, smelters, rail yards and airports from coast to coast to coast. Many of us have little time to read in our busy lives so we’ve put this together as a scrapbook. You can read the stories, articles, statements and histories in small chunks, put the book down and then pick it up again when you have the time, without losing your train of thought. This publication provides an overview of a variety of Canadian struggles concerning asbestos within the last 30 years. The latency period of exposure to asbestos and the development of deadly diseases like asbestosis and cancer can take that long and sometimes even longer. Past struggles to remove asbestos from our workplaces and from products that we use have saved lives today and will save lives tomorrow. So you can see that what we do today will protect future generations.
Jim
Luc Desnoyers
O’Neil
As well, we touch on the heroic struggles of the Canadian asbestos miners, particularly those in Québec, since their militant battles taking on the U.S. asbestos corporations and the Duplessis government in 1949 led to the Quiet Revolution in Québec and the recognition of the rights of French-speaking workers and their culture within Canada. Today, we support the right of the remaining asbestos miners in Québec to a just transition program so they will receive re-training, re-location and financial assistance when the mines shut down. Readers will learn from this book some things about asbestos which has been produced and used in Canada. We hope that it will inspire you to press for the safe removal of asbestos from your workplaces, homes and communities. In 2005, 95% of Canadian asbestos was exported. What we say and do about Canadian asbestos affects not just Canadians but people around the world. We ask all Canadians to support our union’s call for an international ban on the production and use of asbestos. In solidarity Buzz Hargrove President Luc Desnoyers Québec Director Jim O’Neil Secretary-Treasurer
Thanks to the following who all contributed in some way to this publication and the fight against asbestos, some with an article, some with a photo, some with struggle, and some with their lives:
CAW Council Environment Committee CAW Council Executive CAW Council Health & Safety Committee CAW Council Workers’ Compensation Committee CAW Health & Safety Department Staff CAW Health & Safety Training Fund Staff National Executive Board and Officers National Health & Safety Coordinators TCA Québec Council Executive Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Canadian Energy and Paperworkers Union (CEP) Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Mining Watch Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers Victims of Chemical Valley Workers Health and Safety Centre Alvarez, Carlos Amyot, Ella Ash, Donald Auger, Susanne Bandor, Barbara Bandor, John Bates, David V. Bechard, Lucie Beer, Kristin Bennett, Kathy Bennie, Ian Bhakt, R.K. Bichard, Dolores Bichard, John Bidner, Jim Blaikie, Bill Boone, Dan Bostock, Dave Botic, George Brodeur, Paul Brophy, Jim Brown, Kelly Bruce, Delbert Bruce, Nora Bruce, Rebecca Bryson, Nigel Buist, Margaret Butler, Wayne Cabot, Roy Calleja, Joe Cameron, Doug Cameron, Ken Campbell, Donna Cantin, Linda
Cassista, Cecile Castleman, Barry Chan-Yeung, Moira Charbonneau, Joseph Charette, Rick Christensen, Ingrid Clarke, Arlene Cloutier, Ken Cohen, David Coleman, David Coleman, Tony Comartin, Joe Cook, Mary Couchi, Ed Crevier, Bert Crevier, Jack Crevier, Ralph Croswell, Frank Crowther, Roger Cui, Jianping Cullen, Mark Curtis, Clifton Daum, Susan Davidson, Anne De Carlo, Nick De Guire, Louise Delgado Rosas, Eva Dewbury, Reid Dorsey, Jim Drouan, Madeleine Drouin, Rosaire Dunn, Tommy Edwards, Paul Egilman, David Embree, Chuck Embree, Val Enarson, Don Endicott, Marion Endicott, Lorraine Epstein, Samuel Firth, Matthew Fitzsimmons, Frank Formby, Paul Fracalanza, Martha Francey, Ken Furuya, Sugio Garant, Rick Garg, Sunila Gendron, André Genosove, Leon Ghosh, Kali Giannasi, Fernanda
Gillick, Susan Gilroy, Margo Glasbeek, Harry Gonzales, Aimee Gorrie, Peter Grant, Gary Gray, Stan Gravel, Jacques Green, Daniel Groulx, Earl Guidotti, Tee L. Gunness, Dwayne Eddie Halikowski, Dave Hall, Clare Hall, Janet Hansen, Ken Hargrove, Lyle Havel, Guy Hayvice, Christine Henderson, George Hicks, Bill Holder, Mick Holland, Janice Holloway, Les Ison, Terence Jacques, Raymond James, Darren Jehan, Noor Jolley, Linda Jordan, Dennis Joshi, Tushar Kant Jugnundan, Pravesh Kanduth, Bob Kazan-Allen, Laurie Keith, Margaret Kerin, Noel Kiehne, Roland Kinart, Sandy Kingsbury, John Klein, Roy Konopasek, Francis Krishna, Gopal Kuyek, Joan La Count, Marie LaDou, Joe Lal, Sonia Landrigan, Philip Langman, Jimmy Langstaff, Kasia Laporte, Paul LeDoux, Burton Leon, Elisa
Lewchuk, Wayne Lewenza, Ken Lewis, Stephen Lippell, Katherine Lozanski, Laura Macintosh, Tom MacMillan, Keith Majumdar, Chittabrata Makarem, Emile Mancuso, Enzo Marberg, Jan-Olof Marek, Frank Marier, Micheline Martel, Eli Martin, Pat Martin, Sylvain May, Elizabeth Mayville, Kathy McCann, Jack McClyment, John McCready, Joyce McCulloch, Jock McKeachnie, William Mckenzie, James McLean, Stuart McQuaig, Linda Merscereau, Alexandra Millet, Barb Mittelstaedt, Martin Moisenko, Ron Morris, Wayne Morrison, Brent Moses, Stephen Muir, David C.F. Nicholson, William Nickerson, Bob Nield, Steve O’Neill, Rory Pacheco, Gilda Pandhe, M.K. Pare, Jim Parent, Madeleine Parent, Mark Parsons, Brenda Pawley, Howard Peters, James Petrie, Susan Piekarz, Leslie Pinchin, Don Pistor, John Pizzino, Anthony Prest, Bill Qasrawi, Jawad Rankin Bohme, Susanna Ravenesi, Bill Reddy, K. Lakshma Reinhartz, Abe Rennie, Rick Renaud, Mike Robson, Barbara
Rogers, Edith Rongits, Henry Rook, Cheryl Rosendahl, Eric Rosner, Abe Rousseau, Hervé Santsche, Roger Sass, Robert Schieman, Jenny Schiller, Bill Schrigley, Cindy Sentes, Kyla Sentes, Rachel Shiaro, Bud Sharma, Vinay Sharpe, Steve Shore, Harold Simmons, Ellen Smith, Doug Smith, Pete Stendardo, Vince Storey, Robert Stout, Susan Succamore, Jess Tataryn, Lloyd Taylor, Pam Teel, Warren Teixeira, John Thébaud-Mony, Annie Thomas, Rob Thundersky, Raven Todd, Derek Tozzoli, Guy F. Tremblay, France Turk, Jim Varey, Kim Verhalen, James Wallace, Scott Ward, Don Waterman, Yvonne Weiko, Steve Wentzell, Marlene Weston, Sue White, Bob Willsey, Karen Wilson, Evan Wilson, Jim Wong, Roland Woods, Jim Wright, Jamie Wright, Joan Deceased: Auger, Bob Beauvais, Andrew Bednar, Matthew Bednarick, Henry Bennett, Wallace Betts, George Blunt, Pottinger
Bostock, Dave Brandon, James Ross Breeze, Russell Brooks, John T. Brouwers, Cornelis Bunda, Thomas Buist, Harry Bunn, Ron Burdett, Robert E. Burley, Garnet Judson Capes, Walter Chamberlain, Alicide Chapman, Walter Charles Ciupak, Antoni Clarke, Bob Cole, Doug Crevier, Bev Dalton, Alan Dunn, Tommy Desena, Ennio Desena, Olindo Domenichini, Tony Dottori, Gino Doucet, Ken Durance, William Eves, Bruce Alvin Farina, Antonio Fell, John Ferrera, Silvio Fitzsimmons, Donald Fracalanza, Armando Fracalanza, Frank Frayne, Roy Fuentes, Carlos Gasco, Raymond Grant, Clifton Gryzybowski, Stefan Gray, Goldie Guillemette, M. Harris, Jim Herron, George Hill, Carl J. Huggett, Donald Huggett, Francis Huggett, John Jr. Huggett, John Sr. Irwin, Wilfred Jarosz, Michael Joseph, Leo Kimmerly, Earl Kinart, Blayne Koehler, Roger Law, Lloyd Lanteigne, Charles Lanthier, Roch Long, James Mackie, Keith A. Massse, Nelson Matthiasson, John McCormick, G. Ross
McCormick, William J. McDonald, Richard MacKenzie, William Duncan McLaughlin, Erwin McLaughlin, Ivan McQueen, Steve Melton, Arthur Mitchell, Mardina Mitchell, Melvina Morgan, William Morrison, Robert Moynahan, John Nesbitt, Dale A. Oliver, Donald Paquette, Palma (Pete) Patterson, Walter Patterson, J. Willard Pleson, Stephen Pratt, David C. Ptak, Peter Ravenesi, Anthony Remes, Oldrich Rogers, Edward Rowley, Kent Selikoff, Irving Seabrook, Henry 'Lorne' Sentes, Ray Sharpe, John L. Shephard, Gordon Shuman, Richard Jr Shuman, William Simpson, George (Bud) Smeltzer, John R. Snelgrove, Melvin Santsche, Roger Steenstra, Valentine Stegeman, Jan Stevenson, John Clarence Toenders, H Tracey, Herbert T. Trocki, Joseph Jon Tuckwell, Alfred Turner, William Tyrie, Archie Vetturetti, Frank Wagner, Herbert Walker, James 'Les' Weiko, Stan Wilson, William Wonderham, Simon
T able
of
C ontents
Introduction Asbestos: CAW Health and Safety Fact Sheet Asbestos Definition Current Canadian Production
Exposing The White Death Just Say No To Asbestos Why Asbestos? Day Of Mourning, April 28, 2004—20th Anniversary Australian Union Leader The CAW Prevent Cancer Campaign CAW Asbestos Resolution Calling for an Asbestos Ban Letter to Argentina Swedish Working Environment Magazine Master Agreement: CAW and DaimlerChrysler, 2002 to 2005
Politics of The White Death Fresh Strawberries and Cream Outrageous Misconduct: The Asbestos Industry on Trial Canada Appeals French Asbestos Ban to WTO Asbestos (Chrysotile) Institute Canada and Asbestos: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly Asbestos Paper GMB Union Challenges Canada Transport & General Workers Challenge Canadian Government A Deadly Export Canadian Schizophrenia Canadian Asbestos: A Global Concern Ban Asbestos Canada Asbestos Victims Association of Québec (AVAQ) Rotterdam Convention Canada Can’t Keep Hiding a Deadly Export
The White Death In Our Lives Dying For A Living: Blayne Kinart Work Towards A Better Workplace Environment Holmes Foundry, Holmes Insulation and Caposite
9 10 16 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 28
29 30 31 33 36 38 41 42 42 44 45 46 49 49 50 51
53 54 55 56
Bendix Automotive Occupational Death General Electric, Peterborough, Ontario Ventra Plastics ArvinMeritor Brake Plant Working with Asbestos-based Brakes in Quebec General Motors’ Asbestos Management Program Letter from GM of Canada Limited GM Worker with Mesothelioma Airports and Asbestos McDonnell Douglas Aerospace vs. CAW Local 1967 Deaths in the Shipyards, Atlantic Canada Asbestos in Health Care Facilities Telecommunications Worker Asbestos in Manitoba University of Manitoba—A Nightmare Waiting to Happen? Zeller’s Warehouse Bus Mechanics Protect Themselves and the Public Freightliner—Asbestos Insulation Work Refusal at Arrow Transport Cancer at Alcan Smelter, Kitimat, B.C. Alcan Vaudreuil, Jonquière, Québec Canadian Pacific Railway Carperson—Sudbury, Ontario Rail Workers Refuse in the Ogden Yards, Calgary, Alberta VIA Rail Building Vancouver Planetarium Asbestos Removal 24 Workers Dead from Asbestos in Alberta Asbestos in the Home Asbestos in Home Insulation Clifton Grant Art Teacher dies of Mesothelioma
Mining Asbestos in Canada The Quiet Revolution Baie Verte, Newfoundland Cassiar Asbestos Mines, British Columbia and Yukon
Royal Commission on Asbestos Royal Commission on Asbestos Wear Goggles
Canadian Laws and Enforcement CAW Submission on Regulation 838 Québec Government Lobbied Against Stringent British Columbia Controls Asbestos Must Be Substituted Firm Fined $125,000 for Asbestos Exposure Saskatchewan Enforces Requirements, not Limits Canada’s Hazardous Products Act Bans some Asbestos Products Supreme Court Victory
68 71 73 75 75 77 78 79 80 81 85 86 88 89 89 89 92 93 93 95 96 96 98 100 101 101 102 104 105 106 106
107 108 111 112
115 116 118
119 120 124 125 125 125 126 126
The White Death in the World Canadian Exports ILO Convention 162 on Safety in the Use of Asbestos World Chrysotile Asbestos Production (year 2002) National Asbestos Bans (as of January 4, 2005) ICTFU calls for Asbetos Ban Asbestos Banned in Europe, January 1, 2005 Asbestos Epidemic in Europe Sweden first to ban Asbestos Brakes Sweden Pleural Plaques Compensable Alan Dalton, Working Class Hero Johns Manville Asbestos Lawsuits in the US The World Trade Centre Towers W. R. Grace and Executives Steve McQueen died of Mesothelioma Why is Canadian Asbestos Exported to Developing Countries? Chileans Protest Chilean Unionists Protest Promoting Asbestos not Chétien’s role Using Power Saws on Asbestos Cement Sheets Coconut Fibres replace Asbestos Asbestos Exposure in India Nicaragua
Science and Scientists Call for an International Ban on Asbestos Cancers Dr. Irving Selikoff Dr. David Bates Doctors in the Asbestos Industry Asbestos-related Diseases in Québec Information of the Right Type Trembling from Tremolite Exposing the Myth of ABC The Asbestos War Canadian Medical Association Journal Incidence of Asbestos-Related Diseases World Health Organization Convenes Experts Mesothelioma: a painful way to die Living close to death
Bibliography Resources Asbestos—The End?
127 128 128 129 129 130 130 131 131 131 131 132 133 134 135 136 139 139 140 141 142 142 144 144 154
155 156 156 157 158 159 159 161 161 162 163 163 165 166 166 166
167 168 Inside Back Cover
I N T R O D UC T I O N
Asbestos: CAW Health and Safety Fact Sheet What is Asbestos? Asbestos is a natural, fibrous mineral which is mined and processed. There are several types of asbestos. The main type is chrysotile (white asbestos) which accounts for 99% of pre sent world production. It is the type mined in Canada, Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Brazil and Zimbabwe. The other types are crocidolite (blue asbestos), amosite (brown asbestos), tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite. The vast majority of asbestos used in the world has been chrysotile. To the naked eye, chrysotile asbestos looks curly, so it is classed as a serpentine (like a snake) asbestos, while the other types are amphiboles, characterized by straighter looking fibres. Uses of Asbestos: The word “asbestos” comes from the Greek term for “inextinguishable” and refers to the use in temple lamps of asbestos wicks that would not be consumed by the flame. Asbestos has unique physical properties which made it valuable in a wide range of industrial applications. In addition to being incombustible, it is virtually immune to the forces of corrosion and decay under almost every condition of temperature and moisture and is also immune to almost all chemical reactions. Consequently, it had various uses. Its was woven into protective clothing for workers who were exposed to heat and hot metal. It was used in brake linings and clutches. Charlemagne used asbestos napkins in 900 AD. When he threw them into the fire, they came out clean. Asbestos has been used in cement to make water pipes and roofing materials. It was used as a spray-on insulation material for ceilings and beams and put on pipe lagging and around boilers. It is still found in many buildings as insulation and in vinyl floor tiles and in ceiling tiles. There used to be some 3,000 products manufactured in North America from asbestos. Today there are almost no products of any sort manufactured here from asbestos, though in North America it is still legal to use asbestos in products like vinyl floor tiles and asbestos cement. Asbestos use has been banned in the European Community since January 1, 2005. The reason asbestos has been banned is because the very properties that made it useful in so many different ways—its indestructibility—made it a health hazard for workers. Asbestos fibres lodge in the body and stay there forever, causing a variety of diseases. Asbestos was first mined in Canada in 1879 and is still being mined here. Today 95% of Canadian asbestos is exported to countries in the developing world where it is mostly used to make asbestos cement pipes and roofing tiles. Workers in these developing countries have little or no protection and they will die of asbestos related diseases in enormous numbers over the coming decades.
|
10
|
Asbestos fibres in lung tissue.
Asbestos and Health: Asbestos and the Body Asbestos enters your body through breathing in the tiny asbestos fibres. As well, you can ingest (eat) them by breathing through your mouth and by taking them in with food or drinks. Asbestosis—The ancient Romans had noted that slaves who corded and wove asbestos fibres into cloth suffered from a sickness in their breathing. This knowledge of what we now know as asbestosis lay dormant until 1900, when an autopsy on the body of a 33 year old man who had worked for 14 years in one of the earliest asbestos-textile factories, established the cause of death as scarring and thickening (fibrosis) of the lung tissues, in which asbestos fibres were imbedded. This man was the last survivor of a group of ten who were employed at the small factory in 1886. All the rest died before their thirtieth birthdays. Each asbestos fibre, which can be seen by the naked eye or under a microscope, consists of thousands of smaller fibres so tiny that there are a million of them in three centimetres. When such extremely fine fibres get into the air they are almost weightless and, instead of s e ttling like ordinary dust particles, they float indefinitely and invisibly. When breathed in, they are not trapped by the hairs or mucous of the air passages, but are inhaled deep into the tissues of the lungs and into the air sacs through which oxygen is transferred to the bloodstream. The body cannot destroy these asbestos fibres, so over a period of time it forms scar tissue a round them. The lungs become tough and inelastic. Breathing becomes difficult, i n s u fficient oxygen reaches the blood and the heart becomes enlarged and weakened. Death will result if the condition is allowed to continue unchecked. In 1931 the British Parliament passed legislation which recognized asbestosis as a c o mpensable occupational disease, required improved exhaust ventilation and dust-suppression in asbestos-textile plants and provided for periodic medical examination of workers exposed to especially high asbestos dust concentrations. The latency period for asbestosis is usually at least ten years and the higher the exposure the greater the chance of developing the disease. Asbestosis tends to be linked to heavy occupational exposure, although cases of asbestosis among those not occupationally exposed have been known. Lower dust levels in industry and the removal of workers from industry before their lungs were so scarred as to render them completely disabled reduced the incidence of asbestosis.
|
11
|
Cancer: By the 1950s a few doctors were beginning to suggest that asbestos workers, instead of dying young with asbestosis, were living long enough to develop asbestos-induced cancer. Cancers may not develop for decades from the time workers were exposed to asbestos. There are several types of cancer caused by asbestos: ● Lung (80% fatal within 5 years), trachea, and laryngeal cancer ● Gastro-intestinal cancer (including oesophagus, stomach, colon and rectum) ● Mesothelioma (A rare cancer always associated with asbestos, always fatal, usually within 18 months to two years; it is cancer of the lining of the lung, or, in cases of very high asbestos exposure, of the lining of the abdomen.) Studies have found that excess cancer rates can occur among workers exposed to re l atively low levels of asbestos (that is, within present allowable limits according to government regulations) for long periods of time or exposed to high levels for relatively brief periods of time (even a few weeks of high exposure is enough). Lung Cancer Asbestos-related lung cancer can occur from occupational or environmental exposure; it is virtually incurable. The chances of recovery for those whose lung cancer is caused by asbestos are worse because the lungs may already be damaged by the dust. One type of lung cancer asbestos causes, undiff e rentiated, small-cell type, is the one with the least hope of tre a tment. The latency period for lung cancer associated with asbestos exposure is usually between 15 and 35 years. Lung cancer is found among asbestos workers in even greater numbers than the incidence of mesothelioma. Lung cancer may result from relatively low-dose exposure and a review of eight studies showed that there is no evidence of a threshold below which excess incidence of disease does not appear. Less than one month of work in one factory was sufficient to significantly increase the risk of death 15 to 20 years later. Mesothelioma Mesothelioma is a formerly rare, but increasingly common cancer of the lining around the lung which is always caused by asbestos. This type of mesothelioma is called pleural mesothelioma. In the past, high exposures to asbestos led to peritoneal mesothelioma which is found in the lining around the abdominal cavity. Malignant mesothelioma can be contracted from very low exposures to asbestos and accounts for the majority of victims who contract an asbestos-related disease through environmental exposure in the community or in the home from being exposed to a family member’s clothing. The latency period for mesothelioma is generally between 30 to 50 years but it can be less. On average, mesothelioma patients survive for eighteen months to two years following diagnosis, although some people survive considerably longer. Currently, there is no known cure.
|
12
|
Today, most victims have only secondary links with asbestos, often as construction workers, carpenters, plumbers or electricians. The mesothelioma rate per million people for Canada is one or two cases per year but for Québec, where asbestos has been mined since 1879, it is 14.9 per million for men and 3.2 per million for women (1982-86). Of the 180 Québecers who die each year as a result of their work, about 60 of them (one-third) die because exposure to asbestos gave them mesothelioma, lung cancer or asbestosis. Other Diseases Chronic obstructive lung disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema), cor pulmonale and other heart disease (caused by the stress on the heart from difficulty breathing) are additional effects of asbestos exposure. Pleural plaques are areas of scarring on the lining of the lung which can be seen on an X-ray or CT scan but usually there are no symptoms such as s h o rt n e s s of breath at this stage. Asbestos warts are skin growths that occur when fibres penetrate the skin but usually disappear after exposure ceases. Bystanders The families of asbestos workers can be harmed, including suffering from cancer, from the relatively low exposure from the clothes workers wear home. One of our members’ sons died at 16 from mesothelioma. His father had brought asbestos home on his clothes. Even ordinary urban dwellers are exposed to certain levels of risk from dust from asbestos insulation that can be circulated through heating or air conditioning systems, thrown off by worn brake drums (used in cars well into the 1980s), or released when old buildings are torn down. What about Smoking? The risk of lung cancer from smoking is 10 times that of the general population. The risk of lung cancer from asbestos exposure is 9 times that of the general population. But the risk of lung cancer to those who both smoked and were exposed to asbestos as insulation workers was 92 times that of the general population, according to an article that appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Support the International Ban on Asbestos Asbestos kills people. It should be banned and safer substitutes used. Asbestos mines must be shut down and the miners provided with income continuity and re-training and relocation assistance. Asbestos must not be exported from Canada to other countries where people often have few resources to protect themselves.
|
13
|
Prevention in the Workplace: 1. Ban asbestos and substitute less hazardous, asbestos-free products. 2. Inventory and map where asbestos is found. 3. Inspect asbestos areas regularly for damage or deterioration. 4. Ensure no work is done in any area where asbestos is found to be damaged or friable (crumbly to hand pressure). 5. Insist all damaged or friable asbestos is first removed by competent asbestos removal experts. 6. Segregate the area in which asbestos is being removed and ensure that there is a proper plastic covering with negative pressure so fibres cannot escape. 7. Provide Personal Protective Equipment for all workers who may be exposed to dust in emergency situations. This includes approved respirators which have been fit-tested. 8. Educate and train everyone who may come into contact with asbestos. Asbestos is found in or on the following areas in our workplace: Ceilings Walls Cladding Pipes Boilers Floor tiles Cement
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No No No No No No No
Where: Where: Where: Where: Where: Where: Where:
Action: Action: Action: Action: Action: Action: Action:
Asbestos Substitutes Asbestos fibres are being replaced by various substitute fibres—both natural and man made. Although there is a lack of full health and toxicological data for substitute fibres, based on basic principles of fibre toxicology (based on size, diameter and propensity of a material to release fibres into the air), countries world-wide are replacing asbestos in the following pro d u c t s : ● Asbestos cement products (profiled sheet, flat sheet, building boards, slates, pressure pipes and moulded goods): with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), cellulose, polyacrylonitrile (PAN), glass fibre, unplasticised polyvinyl chloride (for pressure pipes). ● Friction material (brake linings, brake pads and clutch facings): with aramid fibres, PAN, some metal and semi-metallic materials are also used in combination. ● Gaskets and sealing materials: with aramid fibres in conjunction with cellulose
|
14
|
pulp or glass fibres with various mineral fillers. For sealing material, glass yarn and mineral wools are used. ● Composites: with aramid fibre, glass fibre, carbon fibre, cotton, organic fibre, man-made mineral fibres and particulate mineral fillers. ● Heat-resistant textiles: with blends of organic, glass, metal and synthetic fibres. Refractory fibres are used at higher temperatures and synthetic organic fibres at lower temperatures. Occupational Exposure Limits Most provinces have 0.1 f/cc (fibres per cubic centimetre) as the legal limit for asbestos. The federal and Québec limits, however, are ten times less stringent at 1 f/cc for chrysotile asbestos, the type mined in Québec. Why should workers in Québec and in the federal jurisdiction not be protected with the same legal limit as other workers in Canada? After all, the strictest occupational exposure limits for chrysotile asbestos (0.1 f/cc) are estimated to be associated with lifetime risks of 5/1,000 for lung cancer and 2/1,000 for asbestosis. The ACGIH TLV (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Threshold Limit Value), upon which many Canadian levels are based, for all types of asbestos is 0.1 f/cc.
Useful Information on Asbestos We consult the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat. Their home page is: www.ibas.btinternet.co.uk
|
15
|
Asbestos Definition Taken from the Québec Regulation Respecting the Quality of the Work Environment, Section 1, Definitions: “asbestos”: the fibrous form of mineral silicates belonging to ro c k - f o rming minerals of the serpentine group, that is, chrysotile, and the amphibole group, that is actinolite, amosite, anthophyllite, crocidolite, tremolite or any mixture containing one or more of those minerals.
Current Canadian Production of Chrysotile (White) Asbestos Canadian production comes from three mines: the Black Lake open pit and Bell underground mines operated by LAB Chrysotile, Inc. near Thetford Mines and the Jeffrey Mine operated by Jeffrey Mine Inc. located on the outskirts of the town of Asbestos, Québec.
|
16
|
Exposing
the
w hite D eath
Just Say No To Asbestos By Buzz Hargrove, The Globe and Mail, Wednesday, July 18, 2001. Propaganda should never masquerade as science. Yet that is precisely what The Globe and Mail does when it recklessly promotes the use of asbestos in supporting Jean Chrétien's advocacy of its use in the Third World. Nearly all developed countries, including Canada, have almost entirely abandoned the use of all types of asbestos. Many European countries, including the United Kingdom and France, have completely banned the use of every type of asbestos. They have done so for a re ason: Asbestos kills and maims those who work with it, and members of the public who are often exposed to it. First, asbestos causes a number of deadly cancers, including lung cancer, mesothelioma and gastrointestinal cancers. It also causes asbestosis and chronic obstructive lung disease. Second, it is not true as some argue that workers exposed to chrysotile asbestos at high levels over long periods showed no abnormal incidence of asbestos-related cancers. According to the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, “the preponderance of scientific evidence to date demonstrates that chrysotile, too, causes cancer, including lung cancer and mesothelioma.” That's why its editors are calling for a worldwide ban on asbestos. Third, you cannot ignore the extensive loss of life and sickness caused in Canada by asbestos. We need only look, say, at the Holmes Foundry, Insulation and Caposite plants in Sarnia, Ont., where workers were exposed to high levels of asbestos. More than 130 claims have been accepted by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for workplace exposures at the Holmes plants for diseases such as mesothelioma, lung cancer, gastrointestinal cancers and chronic obstructive lung disease. Dozens of these workers have already died. There are also cases of workers' family members who have contracted asbestos-related cancers from asbestos carried home on workers' clothes. The most disturbing example was a
|
18
|
14-year-old boy whose father worked at a Holmes plant; this boy died from mesothelioma. There is no known safe level for exposure to asbestos, chrysotile or otherwise. Once asbestos is used in products, there is no practical way to maintain an inventory of these pro ducts, not to mention strict control over how they are used. Workers and homeowners will drill, cut and otherwise disturb these products in the daily course of maintenance. Once that happens, deadly fibres are released. Needless to say, I recognize the significance of the jobs at stake in the Québec asbestos mines. But this cannot be the basis for promoting a deadly product that will result in loss of life in countries around the world. The Prime Minister can show genuine concern for workers in the asbestos industry by establishing a federally financed “just transition” strategy, so that these workers will be looked after through retraining, relocation and pensions. If all the money invested by the federal and provincial government in propping up the asbestos industry had been given to Québec's asbestos workers instead, they could have been pensioned off 20 years ago when Canada's m a rkets declined significantly as a result of Canadian deaths and the phase-out of asbestos use in Canada. Mr. Chrétien has no authority, moral or otherwise, to promote the use of a deadly material in the name of Canada. Asbestos is particularly deadly in underdeveloped countries, w h e re workers who use asbestos in factories are not protected, where ventilation and re s p i r ators are absent. Surely, we as Canadians have a responsibility to stop exporting this deadly substance to those who cannot protect themselves.
Why Asbestos? “Sometimes people ask me why we want asbestos banned. Aren’t there other equally harmful substances that kill people? Aren’t there more and more being created all the time? “My answer to these people is, yes, there are. But we must act on those we know to the best of our ability. In eradicating infectious diseases, we don’t stop trying to ensure that smallpox and TB are stamped out in the world just because new diseases like SARS and AIDS have fallen upon us.” George Botic, CAW National Representative, Health and Safety Department.
|
19
|
Day of Mourning, April 28, 2004—20th Anniversary Buzz Hargrove, National Post, Counterpoint excerpt: It’s not enough to mourn for workers who have died as a result of their work. We must organize to fight for the living. Protecting workers’ health and safety is an activity that must Day of Mourning, Sarnia, April 28, 2004. continue throughout the year. And nowhere is this more true than in the case of asbestos. This April 28th, the CAW will be focusing on the asbestos issue which has killed so many of our members. We are asking workers throughout the country to examine their workplaces to find out where asbestos may be found (often in ceilings and walls, around pipes and boilers, and in building cladding, cement, ceiling tiles, and roof tiles), make sure it is identified clearly, wrapped up safely, and removed by experienced, qualified personnel. When asbestos becomes friable (crumbly) it can get into the workplace air and breathed in by workers. When they breathe it in, it can cause cancer and lung diseases. Our Federal government is promoting Canadian asbestos, chrysotile asbestos, as a “safer” form of asbestos than other types. This is not true. Our members and many others have died from exposure to chrysotile asbestos, the most common form of asbestos. When Canadian asbestos is exported to developing countries such as Peru, which imports about half its asbestos from Canada, workers without protection pick it up by hand and throw it onto conveyors and into mixing hoppers. The asbestos is made into asbestos cement water pipes and roofing tiles where it becomes crumbly and falls into people’s homes. It is wrong for Canada to export death to people in the Third World. This should not be seen as an attack on Québec asbestos miners. Their past heroic struggles have cleaned up the mines enormously. These miners and their families need to be retrained and relocated to safe workplaces and communities. There are less than 1,000 miners
|
20
|
left in the Québec asbestos industry. If the Canadian and Québec governments had spent the $54 million used to prop up the Québec asbestos industry through the Asbestos Institute (now re-named the Chrysotile Institute) on retraining, relocation, wages, retirement incentives, and pensions for the miners, the miners and their families would have hope for the future. This April 28th, pause for a minute of silence at 11 am. Remember that 2 million workers are killed by work each year throughout the world. And remember this comment from Jukka Takala, Director of Safe Work at the United Nations International Labour Organization, “If terrorism took such a toll, just imagine what would be said and done.”
Australian Union Leader Commends CAW for our Stand “We want your solidarity; we want your comradeship. But we don’t want your bloody asbestos,” said Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union General Secretary Doug Cameron, who addressed our August, 2001, CAW Convention in Québec City. Brother Cameron said, “I congratulate the CAW for taking the same stand as my union on getting rid of this terrible substance.”
|
Doug Cameron playing a didgeridoo.
21
|
The CAW Prevent Cancer Campaign Endorsed by CAW Council, this campaign was launched at the CAW Council meeting in December 1997. It consists of the following: CAW Local Union activists will: 1. Identify carcinogens in their workplaces—this is principally the responsibility of the health and safety activists. 2. Insist that they be removed and substituted with less hazardous substances (or at an absolute minimum that the process be enclosed)—once again, it is principally the job of the health and safety activists. Priorities need to be established. 3. Put in WCB claims for all workers who are found to have cancer that might be related to work—this is the activity of the workers’ compensation activists. 4. Ensure community support is there by ensuring that the public knows about air emissions and hazardous waste from workplaces which may cause cancer—this is the activity of the environmental activists. The prevent cancer campaign must have the support and encouragement of the plant committees and the local union leadership.
|
22
|
CAW Asbestos Resolution Passed Unanimously by the Delegates to CAW Council, Toronto, December 13, 2003 (CAW Council is composed of the leadership of CAW Local Unions from across Canada. There are approximately 800 delegates.) Asbestos Ban WHEREAS: The International Labour Organization estimates that 100,000 workers die per year from cancer caused by asbestos and unknown tens of thousands of other workers are dying from asbestosis and other asbestos related diseases, and WHEREAS: Canada is the world’s second biggest exporter of chrysotile asbestos, and WHEREAS: Canada exports to the developing world where there are poor, if any, safeguards for the use of asbestos, and WHEREAS: The Canadian government promotes the sale of asbestos to these countries by financing the Asbestos (Chrysotile) Institute, a Canadian based organization which has been lobbying for increased asbestos use around the world since the mid-1980s. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the CAW call on the Canadian government to ban the export of asbestos; withdraw its financial and political support from the Asbestos Institute; work with the unions and communities involved to ensure a just transition for workers in the asbestos mines and surrounding communities and lobby for a world wide ban on the use of asbestos, and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED: That the CAW works to ensure all asbestos in CAW workplaces be removed and replaced with safe substitutes.
Ken Lewenza, CAW Council President.
|
23
|
At the CAW Council meeting, delegates lined the microphones to speak in favour. CAW NEB Member Demands Assistance for Québec Miners On the floor of the CAW Council meeting in December 2003, National Executive Board member, Jim Woods, supported the CAW Council resolution calling for a ban on asbestos to ensure people in developing countries are not exposed to this hazard. Brother Woods expressed his concern for the workers in Québec that have staked their livelihood on asbestos. He called on the federal government to “take the money that they would normally give to the asbestos companies to promote death in all these countries” and demanded that “ t h e federal government give that to the asbestos workers in Québec for adjustment and training. What a tremendous resolution. We’re not only looking globally, but we’re looking out for the workers—we’re looking out for the community.” Ford Member Outraged Brother Ken Cloutier from CAW Local 200 (Ford, Windsor) was one of the delegates to the September 2003 International Conference on Asbestos held at the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa. Speaking on the floor of CAW Council in To ronto on December 13, 2003, in support of the ban asbestos resolution, Brother Cloutier expressed his outrage at what he had heard at the Ottawa conference. He said he was amazed at the way asbestos is used in Third World countries such as asbestos being shipped from Canada to developing countries with no warning markings at all. He said he was shocked to learn about the way child labour has been used to remove asbestos in the decommissioning of ships in India. Brother Cloutier reported on housing in Third World countries made out of asbestos cement which deteriorates and forms dust. “So the entire house is full of asbestos dust, and that’s what the family and the children sleep on, and it’s Canadian asbestos.” He emphasized that people are fighting back in countries like Lebanon where people occupied the trench where asbestos water pipes were going to be laid and successfully blocked the project. And he expressed concern about countries like Brazil, still using asbestos in brake linings which could possibly in turn be imported to Canada. Holmes Workers’ Representative Karen Willsey explained that she was the President of CAW Local 2168 in St. Thomas, Ontario, and that she had been working on the Holmes project representing workers and their families who were exposed to asbestos at the Sarnia complex. Sister Willsey said she had “directly seen the results of what asbestos can do. We have workers’ families that have been absolutely devastated by the asbestos exposure. It has taken the lives of the workers who worked with it, and left families disjointed, left widows and children who also carried the markers of asbestos exposure because the workers brought it home with them. So, I am very much in support of this asbestos ban, because no one should have to work with it today, because 40
|
24
|
years later, we’re still going to be paying for it.” Vinay Sharma, CAW Local 112 Brother Vinay Sharma rose in support of the resolution and charged that the export of Canadian asbestos to developing countries “amounts almost to environmental racism”. Brother Sharma expressed outrage that, "Our money, our taxpayers’ money, is going to an institute called the Asbestos Institute of Canada. What this institute does is promote the sale of asbestos all around the world, especially in developing countries." He reported that the Asbestos Institute was going to promote using asbestos in Canada because of the opposition they are getting throughout the world where people are saying, “Well, if it’s so good, how come you’re not selling it in Canada?” Brother Sharma said, “We’ve got to watch our own backyards and also others.” He reported that so far 40 percent of the asbestos has been removed at his workplace, Woodbridge Foam, and they are working on getting rid of the rest of it. Brother Sharma said that at the International Conference on Asbestos in Ottawa, a delegate from Holland reported on studies done there. Asbestos had been used as flooring. Housewives on farms swept the floor every day and contracted mesothelioma, completely ignorant of the risk. Mail delivery workers in the area who drove on roads where asbestos cement filled the potholes, died from mesothelioma as well. CAW Council Health & Safety Committee Jamie Wright, from CAMI (CAW Local 88) and Pam Taylor (CAW Local 2002), both members of the CAW Council Health & Safety Committee also spoke in strong support of the resolution. Sister Taylor said, “We have to lobby to get regulations to reflect that the only safe workplace is an asbestos free workplace.” Brother Wright alerted the delegates to the possibility that asbestos-containing products such as gaskets or machinery parts may still be finding their way back to Canada as imports made from asbestos shipped from here. Brother Wright told the delegates he was from London, Ontario and that about three years before, a decision was made to build a new train station. “So, they thought they would blow the old train station up. They had families. They made a day out of it. They came and watched this particular event happen. It was on TV. It was very spectacular watching it blow up. The next day, the building trades came on site and found out the building was full of asbestos. They refused to work, refused to go on site until the asbestos was properly cleaned up. Well, one now wonders what about those families that gathered there for that day? Will we find out the effects of that day in 20 years?”
|
25
|
Calling For An Asbestos Ban International Conference—Brazil CAW delegates Bill Hicks, President of Local 456, Karen Willsey, President of Local 2168, and National Representative, H&S, Nick De Carlo told the tragic story of Holmes foundry workers who have died or are dying as a result of their exposure to asbestos to a global asbestos conference in Sao Paolo, Brazil, in September 2000. Over 200 delegates from around the world attended the conference to exchange information, develop co-operation and discuss strategies to strengthen the movement for a world-wide ban on asbestos. Delegates from China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, South Africa, the Americas and Europe told the stories of asbestos exposures and diseases in their countries. Throughout Latin America, countries are waking up to the dangers of this killer dust, much of which is imported from Canada. Nick, Bill and Karen urged conference participants to support a ban on asbestos so that needless deaths similar to those experienced by our Holmes members can be avoided. Subsequent to the conference, Chile announced it would ban asbestos. The conference took place at the same time that the World Trade Organization ruled against Canada’s complaint that a French ban on asbestos constituted an unfair restriction to trade. The Canadian government appealed the ruling, fortunately unsuccessfully. Canada c o ntinues to promote the sale of asbestos to developing countries, despite the fact that it is a known killer responsible for thousands of deaths each year. Trade union delegates developed a statement calling on unions around the world to work for a world-wide ban on asbestos, protection for workers working with asbestos already in place in buildings throughout the world, the development of alternatives, alternate jobs for asbestos workers and full compensation and appropriate medical treatment for victims of asbestos.
Francis Huggett and Karen Willsey.
|
26
|
Letter to Argentina September 17, 2001, Dr. Hector Lombardo, Minister of Health Dear Dr. Lombardo: Re: Argentina’s Ban on Asbestos I am writing to congratulate you and your government for adopting Resolution 823/01 banning the use of asbestos materials and the use of asbestos in construction materials. Your action is an important milestone in the world wide efforts to ban asbestos and to bring an end to the devastating effects that it has had on people throughout the world. As you know the Canadian government is promoting the use of asbestos in countries around the world. In addition to protecting workers and all citizens of your country, your action will add pressure and help bring an end to this deplorable policy of the Canadian government. I applaud you for your stand and on behalf of our 250,000 members in Canada I urge you to resist any pressure that might come from the Canadian government or the Asbestos Institute to reverse your policy. Yours truly Buzz Hargrove President Cc: Jean Chrétien, Ken Georgetti, Jim O’Neil, Hemi Mitic, Cathy Walker
|
27
|
Swedish Working Environment (Arbetsmilö) Magazine—87 Dear Sir: Congratulations on the tenth anniversary of the English edition of Arbetsmilö. Of all the health and safety periodicals I receive from throughout the world I find Working Environment the most interesting. Your 1986 issue asked for your readers’ opinions of what they saw as the most important occupational environment issue of their countries. As a Canadian, I can only reply that the issue is asbestos. And as a citizen and as a trade unionist I can only express outrage at the actions of the Canadian Government which in the opinion of my organization is irresponsible in downplaying the hazards of asbestos. Canada is one of the major producers of asbestos. It is the rankest kind of opportunism to continue to try to promote as safe this known carcinogen both within Canada and to other countries. The Canadian Government is worse than an apologist for the asbestos industry; it is a pusher of this hazardous substance to countries of the Third World. These countries are no more able to defend themselves from this hazard or to make choices for alternatives than a child in a schoolyard accosted by a drug pusher. We believe that a responsible Canadian Government would fund re s e a rch into altern atives so that Third World re s idents would not be using asbestos cement sheets for roofing and asbestos cement tubes for water systems. Cathy Walker Vice-President British Columbia Council of the Confederation of Canadian Unions
Master Agreement: CAW and DaimlerChrysler, 2002 to 2005
As a result of this letter, Working Environment devoted its centrefold to the asbestos problem. (Most of the affiliates of the Confederation of Canadian Unions have merged with the CAW.)
|
Health and Safety. 15.21 Occupational Hygiene Carcinogens in the Workplace Presently, the following materials are prohibited in all products that are supplied to DaimlerChrysler Canada: asbestos (and a number of other carcinogens).
28
|
Po l it ics
of the
W hite D eath
Fresh Strawberries and Cream “Monsieur, your car is waiting.” The startled visitor stepped into a black limousine and glided from Dorval airport to downtown Montréal. So began a four-day festival that included French wines, filet mignons, fresh strawberries and cream, endless cocktails in government hospitality rooms and a private concert by the Montréal Symphony. The lucky recipients of this bonanza were the over 600 guests selected to attend a World Symposium on Asbestos. The symposium was designed to bolster the sagging image of one of the world’s most deadly cancer causing agents—asbestos. The 1982 conference was funded by approximately half a million dollars of Canadian taxpayers’ money, explained Ray Sentes. “Nobody mentioned that Québec’s private and public asbestos employers had just launched another action to try to stop compensation payments to workers disabled with asbestosis. Nobody mentioned the suppression of scientific papers by the asbestos industry. No one mentioned how the industry obtained a court injunction in West Germany forbidding a manufacturer of substitutes from suggesting in its advertising that asbestos may be dangerous to human health. Neither was it mentioned that before Québec had nationalized the Asbestos Corporation, the federal government’s position was to reduce or eliminate all unnecessary exposure to the substance….Finally, there was little coughing or gasping on the conference floor because the victims of asbestos-related disease were absent.” Ray Sentes was a pioneer in exposing the misinformation peddled by the Canadian asbestos industry and government. A journeyman asbestos sprayer in the 1960s, Brother Sentes suffered from asbestosis in Saskatchewan and due to ill health, went to university to train for other work. He did his doctoral thesis at the University of Regina on the Canadian asbestos industry. On April 14, 2000, Brother Sentes passed away from asbestosis at the age of 56. He is survived by his wife and children. His daughter, Kyla Sentes, PhD candidate at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, is an activist carrying on the fight to ban asbestos.
Ray Sentes and his daughter, Kyla.
|
30
|
Outrageous Misconduct: The Asbestos Industry on Trial
|
31
In 1982, the US Manville Corporation, the world’s biggest asbestos compan y—declared bankruptcy. The mammoth firm, with assets of nearly $2 billion, had not gone broke. It was simply taking advantage of US bankruptcy laws to fend off thousands of lawsuits filed on behalf of workers disabled or killed by its products. The 24 year story of painstaking work by US lawyers to secure justice for these workers was told in this fascinating book, Outrageous Misconduct: The Asbestos Industry on Trial, by Paul Brodeur. Now, twenty years after the book was published in 1986, the asbestos companies continue to try to avoid their responsibilities to the victims. The Centre for Investigative Journalism held a panel discussion on asbestos in Vancouver where Paul Brodeur had this to say: “I had thought that we were living in an age of enlightenment until I listened
|
to Canadian government officials extolling asbestos and telling everyone what a boon it is for the Canadian economy. “At that point, I realized that alchemy is alive and well in Canada. “Asbestos is a fibre of stone which was known to cause disease in the lungs of slaves who used it at the time of Christ; it is a mineral that has inflicted incurable lung disease upon hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting workers around the world; it is a deadly dust that is indestructible in lung tissue and will cause a quarter of a million deaths from lung cancer in the United States over the next twenty years; it is an insidious agent that has brought about the greatest toxic tort litigation in the history of world jurisprudence. “Yet, here in Canada, one witnesses the spectacle of government officials extending the presumption of innocence to this substance, which has been indicted as a potent carcinogen by virtually every reputable scientific and medical body in the world. One even hears Canadian government officials referring to asbestos – a base mineral if ever there was one—as ‘white gold’. “Do you wonder that I call it alchemy?” In a Globe and Mail a rticle by Barbara Robson, Paul Brodeur had this to say: “In addition to standing idly by while asbestos disease was inflicted on Canadian asbestos workers—i n c l u ding those at the infamous Manville plant in Scarborough Ontario—the Canadian Government would now have asbestos disease inflicted on workers in other countries. This is hardly ethical conduct.”
|
32
|
Canada Appeals French Asbestos Ban to the WTO The World Trade Organization (WTO) became front page news in 1999 when a coalition of political groups, NGO’s, trade unions, environmentalists and individuals gathered to oppose the secrecy and injustice of one of the world’s most powerful institutions. Few of the protesters were aware that as the tear gas was exploding in the streets of Seattle, the WTO was already deliberating on whether or not a national government should be allowed to protect its citizens from exposure to an acknowledged carcinogen. The case stemmed from efforts by the international asbestos lobby to reverse a 1997 French law prohibiting the import and use of chrysotile (white asbestos). Although France was the eighth European Union (EU) country to unilaterally ban chrysotile, having been preceded by Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden, the French ban became a rallying point for the Canadian asbestos industry because of the relationship between France and Québec, the province where asbestos is mined in Canada. Canada’s international trade minister Sergio Marchi said the French asbestos ban “ o b v iously impacts sales worldwide”. In discussions with the British publication Hazards in 1998, a spokesperson for Marchi admitted the asbestos industry was less concerned with bans in Europe than “with a domino effect” in the developing world, where asbestos imports were increasing by seven per cent per year. On May 28, 1998, the Government of Canada lodged a request with the WTO for consultation with the European Communities “concerning certain measures taken by France for the prohibition of asbestos and products containing asbestos.” On November 25, 1998, Canada confirmed its request that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body set up a panel to examine the complaint. The three man dispute tribunal convened on March 29, 1999. The ruling originally expected in December 1999 was initially delayed until March 2000 and further delayed until June 2000 while Canada’s international support began to slip away, particularly from Brazil, another asbestos-producing country having serious second thoughts. On September 18, 2000, the World Trade Organization (WTO) published the Report of the Panel in the case: Canada vs. European Communities—Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-
|
33
|
Containing Products. The French ban was upheld but the WTO determined France had violated multilateral trade agreements. Undaunted, the Canadian government appealed. In an open letter to the Minister of International Trade on September 21, 2000, NDP Trade Critic Bill Blaikie said, “By trying to use the WTO to undermine France’s right to pass laws in its public interest, you are undermining Canada’s moral authority in defending its own right to pass laws in the Canadian public interest.” Commenting on the situation, Mr. Blaikie said, “Surely the Trade Minister must see the hypocrisy in working to undermine France’s right to set its own health and safety standards, while at the same time trying to defend Canada’s right to regulate drug prices from similar WTO challenges.” Mr. Blaikie argued that similar hypocrisy on the part of all WTO signatories was undermining democracy across the globe: “Often, while a given nation is fighting a WTO ruling against a national policy of its own, it is simultaneously trying to use the WTO to strike down a national policy of another government which is harmful to the interests of its exporters. In these various challenges, each nation may win occasional victories for its exporters, but it loses many more cases on behalf of its broader citizenry. The outcome is a radically diminished scope for democracy in all nations.” The Canadian government got more than they bargained for in their appeal. The Canadian asbestos lobby lost the appeal and the WTO Appeal Body improved the decision from the first one. On March 12, 2001, the landmark appeal verdict by the World Trade Organization (WTO) validated the rights of Member States to prohibit the import and use of goods which contain carcinogenic substances such as chrysotile white asbestos. The WTO’s Appellate Body (AB) issued its ruling in the case of Canada vs. the European Communities—Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products (AB-2000-11). The AB members upheld and strengthened aspects of the Report of the Panel (September 18, 2000). AB Judges confirmed: chrysotile is an established carcinogen, there is no safe threshold and “controlled use” is not an effective alternative to a national ban. Pascal Lamy, European Union Trade Commissioner, said: “This ruling shows that the WTO is responsive to our citizens’ concerns. Legitimate health issues can be put above pure trade concerns. The ruling confirms that regulators can set the desired level of protection of health.” Aimee Gonzales, a spokesperson for WWF (Worldwide Fund for Nature) International commented: “In this case, the scientific evidence supporting the French ban on asbestos was overwhelming, however the Appellate Body’s guidance on the relevance of scientific opinion confirms that all Member governments may be entitled to opt for maximum protection of humans, animals and plants even where scientists disagree as to the risks justifying pro t e ction.” Barry Castleman, a consultant to the EC legal defense team, was happy with the victory but worried about the future: “I fear that talk of the WTO understanding the need for the p recautionary principle and allowing the maximum protection of humans from toxic substances in the face of scientific dispute is wildly optimistic. Look at the politics and the economics. This case was won because the WTO desperately wanted to look like they care about something
|
34
|
more than free trade after the protests in Seattle. Canada was virtually alone in their defence of chrysotile, lacking any powerful multinational corporations for allies and facing the USA and the EU as opponents. We may not be so lucky next time.” Canadian Comments on the Canadian WTO Appeal “So why, then, would Canada spend the time and money to argue its case before the WTO? Because Canada fears that should France's ban be upheld, it will trigger a massive backlash against asbestos use in Third World countries. It is to these countries that Canada sells most of its asbestos. In fact, of the 10 countries to which Canada sells most of its asbestos, seven are developing countries. Canada's Third World clientele includes Thailand, India, Korea, Morocco and Algeria. It is these markets Canada is trying desperately to protect. If the French ban is upheld, these markets could die. If these markets die, then so could the jobs of 1,600 asbestos workers in Québec. If the price of saving these jobs is any indication, however, then they must be valuable jobs indeed. They could end up costing thousands, even millions, of people their lives. But then again they aren't Canadian lives, and they don't vote in Canadian elections. It's no wonder the Canadian government doesn't care.” By Vince Stendardo, CCH Canadian Employment Safety and Health Guide Newsletter, Number 227, 1999. “Every now and then a trade battle comes along that Canada would be wise to back away from. Asbestos is one. “Even if we won an appeal (at the WTO), which is unlikely, victory could do incalculable damage to our image abroad and to the world trade system itself. “It would be better for the federal government to give all 2,500 workers in the asbestos industry large severance packages to retrain or retire than to continue this losing battle. “But there is a larger issue at stake here—the fate of the world trading system. It can’t have escaped the federal government’s notice that some of the demonstrators in Seattle and Washington were protesting because they felt trade was taking place at the expense of environmental and social issues. “Trying to browbeat other countries into buying a proven carcinogen will only confirm demonstrators’ suspicions that trade rules are written to protect companies, not people. “And do we want to draw attention to the fact that with the doors of major countries being slammed on Canadian asbestos, we are busy marketing it to developing countries in Asia and Latin America? That’s shameful enough without advertising it to the world.” By Madeleine Drouan, excerpts from Canada Should Relent in Asbestos Battle, The Globe & Mail, June 17, 2000.
|
35
|
Asbestos (Chrysotile) Institute In a March 2, 2004, letter from Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to CAW President, Buzz Hargrove, Mr. Chrétien says: “Thank you for your letter of December 18, 2003, in which you asked the Government of Canada to act to ban asbestos in Canada and worldwide and undertake related activities. “As you are no doubt aware, the Government of Canada’s existing policy is to promote the safe use of asbestos. This is undertaken through mechanisms such as the Asbestos Institute, a tripartite organization involved in providing health and safety training for predominately developing country importers of the product. In addition, the March 1997 Memorandum of Understanding between the Canadian asbestos industry and the Government of Canada is designed to help the industry implement a responsible use policy based on internationally accepted conventions.” In 2003 Ottawa and Québec each contributed $250,000 to the Asbestos Institute (now called the Chrysotile Institute) which has received $54 million in government and industry s u pport since it was created in 1984. The two governments also sponsor trade missions to bring businesspeople, journalists and others to Canada on “fact-finding” trips. They recently decided to allow asbestos cement to be used in their buildings. Québec has funded pro-asbestos health studies, and introduced an industry-support plan that includes research into new products for the Canadian market. The most “promising” so far include adding asbestos to asphalt in highway construction; mixing it with cement to make hollow utility poles that let wires be repaired at ground level; and creating indestructible paper for passports and archives.
|
36
|
The Asbestos Institute will stop at nothing to further its aims, even lobbying to get factories inspectors fired. On April 23, 2001, Asbestos Institute Director Denis Hamel wrote to Francisco Dornelles, Brazil’s Minister of Labor, in a transparent attempt to get Engineer Fernanda Giannasi, the most prominent anti-asbestos campaigner in Latin America, fired. Mr. Hamel commented: “It has come to our attention that one of your inspectors, Mrs. Fernanda Giannasi…is using her position in your ministry to promote her views, which are contrary to the stated policy of your country…We wonder if this person is officially mandated by your Ministry as a spokesperson on asbestos related matters, taking a position contrary to the official Brazilian policy. Is it part of her duties to invite foreign countries, buying Brazilian chrysotile fibres, to follow the European example and prohibit the use of this mineral? If this is not the case, we respectfully request that your ministry take the necessary measures so that Ms. Giannasi no longer abuses her professional responsibilities to promote her personal activities.” Scores of letters, faxes, emails and petitions flooded in to the Minister’s office in support of Ms. Giannasi by people around the world, including Canada, who supported her courage in attempting to have this deadly substance banned. Today, she is still employed as a factory inspector in Brazil. Panicked by more and more Canadians and citizens around the world becoming alerted to the hazards of asbestos, the Asbestos Institute (now re-named the Chrysotile Institute) declared a state of war against the anti-asbestos forces in an email message on February 8, 2002, headed “WAR Report”. This was followed up by lobbyists bombarding government o ff icials and journalists in the developing world with offers of “technical assistance” and free trips to Canada in an effort to replace lost markets in Europe with new ones in developing countries. The Institute claims that its function is to “promote the safe use of chrysotile asbestos world wide through research, education and information”. In reality, the Institute’s primary objective is, according to the federal government, to “see stability return to the industry and ensure its survival” and especially “to re s t o rethe demand for Canadian asbestos by implementing an effective global marketing strategy.”
|
37
|
Canada and Asbestos: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Canada has a justified reputation for compassion, for its willingness to make sacrifices to help people in war-torn countries, for its commitment to health care for all. Yet, it is on the brink of staining its pride of place amongst nation states by its stubborn support of the insupportable. It is insisting that some of the most vulnerable people on this planet should not be t reated compassionately, should not be the beneficiaries of sacrifices by a relatively small number of Canadians, should not be entitled to decent health. Canada wants to expose millions of illinformed and ill-protected people to asbestos. The good aspect of asbestos is that it is a fibrous mineral with wondrous properties. The delicate fibres can withstand the fiercest of heats and are so flexible that they can be spun and woven in much the same way as cotton or flax. The fibres also possess acoustic insulation capacity. Asbestos is deployed in construction, heating and ventilating systems, boilers, brake linings, and the like. It is found in about 3,000 manufactured products. It is profitable to mine and process asbestos. As luck would have it, Canada is blessed by having mountains of asbestos, particularly in Québec and Newfoundland. The bad feature of asbestos is that it kills. In epidemic proportions, painfully. The tiny fibres get into the lungs, leading to asbestosis, a progressive fibrotic disease of the lungs. They also are scientifically linked to lung cancer and an unusual cancer known as mesothelioma. The ILO has calculated that, world-wide, 100,000 to 140,000 people will die premature deaths from asbestos-related cancers every year. As the number of people who already have been exposed to asbestos cannot be known with exactitude, the estimate of adversely affected people has to be somewhat imprecise, but it is sobering that respected scientists contend that, if exposure to asbestos were to stop soon, somewhere between 5 and 10 million people still would die from asbestos-related diseases. If the use of asbestos is not ended any time soon, the consequences are too horrendous to contemplate. Maybe Canada is not so blessed by having so much asbestos; maybe its potentially p ro fitable ownership comes with an awesome responsibility. This has brought us to the ugly. Precisely because it is such a useful substance, because so much money can be made by mining and processing it, an enormous amount of effort went into hiding the “ugly”, the killing properties of this marvellous mineral. The industrialists did not only not let the policy-makers and the public in on the evidence of toxicity of asbestos they were acquiring but, whenever independent scientists came forward with damning information, concerted efforts were made to discredit and dispute the science. This web of secrecy and spin came undone. Afflicted people and their surviving dependents were able to convince courts and legislators that asbestos industry operators should pay them some compensation for lost and blighted lives. In our part of the world, many of the multinational asbestos corporations sought protection from the claims of the (literally) millions of people they hurt and killed in their
|
38
|
heedless chase for profits by sheltering behind very forgiving insolvency laws. Effectively, they got out of the asbestos business. Now national companies and governments are the major asbestos peddlers. Canada is one of the largest exporters of asbestos in the world. It can only be sold and exported to countries that have not banned asbestos. Canada, therefore, fights strenuously to ensure that asbestos not be proscribed by other nation states. When Europe sought to ban the import of Canada's toxic export, our government complained to the World Trade Organization (WTO) that this violated the principles of free trade. When met with the argument that the safeguarding of public health allowed governments to interfere with free trade, our government, aided by the Asbestos Institute, (an industry lobby group that it funds very generously), like the private profiteers that went before it, argued that there was not sufficient scientific proof of the deleterious impacts of asbestos. But, so well-established is the case against asbestos, that the WTO—for the first and only time thus far—ruled that the public health argument should prevail and Canada's exports to Europe should cease. Undaunted, we Canadians persist in our efforts to hustle countries into purchasing our white fibrous poison. The international community understands that, if it is left to each country to impose barriers to asbestos importation and use, callous sellers, such as Canada, will continue to look for new, and still unfettered, markets. To these nations, it is useful to keep people ignorant. It is t roubling, there f o re, that Le Monde Diplomatique re p o rted (July 2000) that Canada had
|
39
|
persuaded the South Korean government to remove labels meant to warn workers about the dangers when handling the boxes of asbestos. To counter these problems, an international convention, the Rotterdam Convention, came into force on 24 February, 2004. It requires signatories who want to sell dangerous substances, such as asbestos, to inform prospective purchasers about the dangers. Not much to ask, surely. But, it appears to be too much for the Canadian government. While Canada appears to acknowledge that some forms of asbestos are poisonous, it argues that it has not been fully proven that chrysotile asbestos is all that harmful. Canada says that it will not sign on unless sale of the chrysotile form of asbestos—of which we are the largest exporters—remains excluded from the Rotterdam Convention's list of substances requiring the issue of cautions. Yet, there is so much solid evidence of chrysotile's harmful p ropensities that over 100 countries want to include chrysotile on the Convention's list of dangerous substances. As most of the richer countries have banned all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, it is the poor of the world who are to bear the risk of Canada's self-serving stance. Canada's interest in holding out against the Rotterdam Convention is not just an exercise in support of an academic purity that demands that science be totally conclusive where action be taken. No, we have those mountains and they do offer 1,500 people jobs, many of them in Québec. This is a valid consideration for any responsible government. But, at the end of the day, the cost of the mandated need to compensate workers who will lose their jobs plus the lost p rofits from the sale of asbestos must be measured against the human costs of unfettered selling. To continue to do what we have been doing means that we are privileging local political considerations and our desire for dollars over the health of the Canadian workers we pretend to care about, over the welfare of Canadians who live in the neighbourhoods of the asbestos mines and who will live for a long time with the cancer-causing tailings, and over the welfare of the vulnerable people in those economically needy and unregulated nations that are most easily persuaded to buy our toxic mineral. India is such a country. A truly responsible Canadian government would pay respect to the Supreme Court of India that awarded compensation to asbestos-exposed workers because “compelling economic necessity to work in an industry exposed to health hazards...should not be at the cost of health...The State, be it Union or State government or an industry, public or private, is enjoined to take all such action that will promote health...” Canada purports to live by those principles. Let us make our government abide by them. Canada must sign the Rotterdam Convention; then it must stop the mining, processing and selling of asbestos, after setting up a mechanism to preserve the security and dignity of its asbestos workers. Harry Glasbeek, Professor Emeritus, Osgoode Hall Law School
Howard Pawley, Former Premier of Manitoba
|
40
|
This article was reprinted with the permission of the authors. Harry Glasbeek has taught and written on labour relations law, corporate social responsibility and corporate criminality for the past thirty years. Known for his dynamic talks, he has addressed CAW Health and Safety and WCB Conferences. Howard Pawley, former Premier of Manitoba (1981-1988), was the President of the University of Windsor Faculty Association. He taught law and political science at the University of Windsor and has held the Paul Martin Chair at the University from 1993 to 1998. Mr. Pawley has been involved in public policy from the university to provincial and national levels for the greater part of his life.
Asbestos Paper Excerpt from Asbestos makeover reignites old battle by Peter Gorrie, Toronto Star, November 22, 2003 The jolt of fright came at the bottom of an information sheet sent to reporters: “This press release is printed on chrysotile paper.” Why should that simple statement lead to nervous tremors? Because chrysotile is not just any old ingredient in paper. It’s a form of asbestos. And asbestos is a convicted mass-killer, one of the most feared substances on earth. Over the past century, it has caused millions of deaths, and the annual toll is still at least 100,000. Asbestos is so lethal that most uses have been abandoned, and it is banned outright in more than 20 countries. It isn’t outlawed here. But it has been so effectively cast into utter darkness that most Canadians could be excused for complacently believing it’s an issue of the past. Not the sort of stuff you’d want dropped on to your lap. Yet, here it was—two glossy, light beige sheets—sent through the mail. The press release, from a Montréal-based lobby group called the Asbestos Institute, is part of an effort by the industry and the federal and Québec governments to rehabilitate asbestos by demonstrating it can be safely used. At the same time, opponents are stepping up their campaign for a global ban on all forms of asbestos. In January, 2004 a sample of this paper was analyzed by an accredited laboratory in England. It was found to contain up to 80% raw chrysotile asbestos fibre and 20% organic fibre. The asbestos was not bound by any substance into a matrix and would, upon tearing or rough handling, be almost certain to liberate fibres into the atmosphere.
|
41
|
GMB Union Challenges Canada The GMB Union in the United Kingdom challenged the Canadian government’s lobby against the British proposed ban on asbestos which happened in 1999. GMB health and safety director Nigel Bryson had this to say, “If the Prime Minister (Tony Blair) wants to be at the centre of European affairs, he should ban asbestos now and assist the European Union in their fight against Canada in the World Trade Organization. The health of the citizens of the United Kingdom must take priority over Canadian asbestos mine owners’ profits.”
Transport & General Workers Challenge Canadian Government To: The Canadian High Commissioner London, England For Canada Day, July 1, 1998 Dear Sir: Re: Canadian asbestos: a “dust of death”
During the last five years, in attempts to defend the Québec asbestos mining industry, your country has lobbied the world to stop, or delay, many countries (eg America, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Holland and the European Union) banning the use and import of white asbestos. Most recently, on the 28th May 1998, you announced that you were taking the French government—who banned asbestos on the 1st January 1997—to the World Trade Organization (WTO), in an attempt to overturn their ban. The new Labour government, in June 1997, announced that it was considering an asbestos ban. Your Prime Minister Chrétien has met with the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair twice, and your government officials with other UK ministers and civil servants. Canada has been the major world-wide producer of white asbestos since the 1870s, until recently (when Russia took over). In the UK alone, over 3,500 people currently die each year from an asbestos-related disease, mainly cancer. This will rise to 5,000 to 10,000 by 2025. This represents hundreds of thousands of painful, and preventable, UK deaths in the past 100 years—since asbestos was first described as an “evil” dust in the 1898 Annual Report of HM Factory Inspectorate to parliament. Many of the past and future asbestos-related deaths will have been, or are, members of this trade union; especially construction workers. World-wide the number of asbestos deaths, past and present, must run into millions.
|
42
|
Many of these deaths will be due to Canadian asbestos. Canada is not immune to asbestos deaths. In May 1998, the Canadian Occupational Health and Safety magazine reported that for the province of Alberta alone, during only 1997, of 34 Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) occupational disease deaths officially recognized, an amazing—and frightening—24 (two out of three) were related to asbestos exposure (mainly from cancer). Take the responsible road. Make ‘Canada Day’, 1st July 1998, a day to remember. Ban the production of Canadian asbestos, and make the world a safer place for everyone, Canadians included. Yours sincerely, George Henderson, OBE National Secretary, Construction Cc: Prime Minister Chrétien, Canada; Prime Minister Tony Blair and the UK Minister responsible for health and safety, Angela Eagle MP. ————— The British government began to move on the ban and later that year the British Trades Union Congress (TUC) General Secretary John Monks said: “Asbestos kills more people in Europe than any other workplace hazard. It is immoral for employers to expose their workers to this fatal fibre, and we welcome the news that a ban can now be implemented.”
|
43
|
T&G demonstration, Canada Day, July 1, 1998.
A Deadly Export Excerpts from Toronto Star Editorial, March 23, 1999 The asbestos industry, with the enthusiastic help of the Canadian government, is marketing its product in developing countries where no effective safeguards exist. As Star reporter revealed in a weekend series, Canada is knowingly exporting a product that kills. Industry officials admit that asbestos is deadly. It causes cancer of the lungs, lung lining and abdomen. But they insist that, handled properly, it can be used without undue risk. Medical experts debate this. But even if the sales pitch were true, it would be largely irrelevant because most workers who handle Canadian asbestos in the Third World take no precautions. Industry executives are quite aware of this. They know that the guidelines they send with their asbestos shipments are not followed and the ventilation equipment they provide is not used. The industry’s willingness to put hundreds of thousands of lives at risk in impoverished countries is troubling enough. But what is even more disturbing is Ottawa’s participation in boosting a demonstrably dangerous product. Canadian diplomats in foreign posts approach journalists with offers of all-expenses-paid trips to Canada to learn about asbestos. Federal bureaucrats in Ottawa and Montréal organize and lead these tours. When the journalists return home, their articles are monitored by the Canadian embassy. Favourable publicity is forwarded to the Asbestos Institute… All this might seem like proper government activity to the 1,600 Québec miners who depend on asbestos for their livelihood. And it may seem like good politics to Québec’s elected representatives. But saving jobs is not worth jeopardizing lives. It is not worth compromising Canada’s well-regarded foreign service. And it is not worth squandering Canada’s reputation as a friend of the developing world. The Foreign Affairs Minister should order Canadian diplomats to stop shilling for the asbestos industry immediately and the Industry Minister should cut off all subsidies and export assistance to the asbestos industry. The Québec government should set up an adjustment and retraining program for asbestos miners. Asbestos sales are plummeting worldwide. Most of Europe has banned the product. This is a dying industry. It should be allowed to die.
|
44
|
Canadian Schizophrenia By Laurie Kazan-Allen, Coordinator International Ban Asbestos Secretariat If more evidence were needed of Canada’s schizophrenic attitude to asbestos, examine the following contradictory developments: Members of Parliament are not permitted to change light bulbs or hang pictures up in their offices in the West Block of the Ottawa Capital building because of the presence of c ru mbling asbestos-containing material; The federal government continues to fund and endorse the work of pro-asbestos lobbyists; added to a $775,000 Ottawa donation made in 2003 is $600,000 given in October 2004 by the Government of Québec to enable the Chrysotile Institute to “defend the principle of controlled use.” It is ironic that even as MPs clamor for comprehensive and urgent action to decontaminate the neo-Gothic heritage building on Parliament Hill, representatives of the newly renamed Chrysotile Institute travel the world seeking new c u stomers; amongst the latest to Laurie Kazan-Allen (left) and sign up are: Angola, Senegal, Nafisa Elsbagh (right), London, 2004. Swaziland and the United Arab Emirates which are making in excess of $3 million worth of purchases of Canadian asbestos a year.1 Separate reports by the body supervising Public Works in the Parliamentary precinct and a House of Commons Committee on the state of the West Block agree that the asbestos problems are serious. According to Bruce Lorimer, Public Works’ director general of the Parliamentary Precinct: “The situation in the West Block is unique… The 1960s renovation (of the West Block) used asbestos for fire-proofing. It was permitted in the building code at that time. And from what we can see there was what’s called an over spray of asbestos. They probably thought they were doing a good thing. And since that time the over spray has crumbled and it lies on the ceilings and duct work and other surfaces above the ceiling. In any other building the asbestos is contained but in this case it is more easily made airborne.”2 A distinct lack of urgency has been evinced by the powers-that-be who have announced that it will be several months before a new action plan is created. Even then, who knows if the
|
45
|
funds required for the decontamination work will be made available; Prime Minister Paul Martin has imposed a freeze on major capital projects. Asbestos in Parliament constitutes a health risk to federal politicians, their staff and the people who use the building; Canadian asbestos exported to developing countries exposes foreign workers and the public to avoidable hazards. It is immoral for Canada to deal with one pro blem and ignore the other. 1. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade website: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/ 2. Francoli P. Rookie MP leaves West Block, suggests asbestos a problem. The Hill Times. November 1, 2004. http://www.hilltimes.com/
Canadian Asbestos: A Global Concern Synopsis of a report by Laurie Kazan-Allen, International Ban Asbestos Secretariat, International Conference, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, September, 2003 Since the late 19th century, the lucrative exploitation of Canadian chrysotile (white asbestos) has made this mineral a much-valued natural resource, earning it the nickname: white gold. The gulf between French and English-speaking Canada enabled Québec-based asbestos interests to take advantage of the political vulnerability of the country to secure high levels of support from Governments in Ottawa and Québec and some trade unions; the health of asbestos workers and the pollution of the Canadian environment were ignored in the rush to turn white gold into hard cash. As international opposition to the continued use of chrysotile increased, industry developed strategies to counter negative publicity including: “direct suppression of data from industry - s p o n s o red re s e a rch, selective publication of research findings, and the systematic use of scientific knowledge to create uncertainty. The industry was successful because all too many scientists, including editors of journals, were more than willing to ally themselves with industry and to use their professional status as scientific experts to support industry policies.”1 Canadian diplomats and embassy staff acted as unpaid industry salesmen, lobbying foreign governments and preparing confidential reports on asbestos developments which were sent back to the “home office” in Québec. Asbestos producers worldwide benefited from the successful propaganda campaign spear-headed by Team Canada, finding protection and communion under the “controlled use” umbrella. Canadian asbestos stakeholders, used to ruling the roost, were incensed by news that a three-day conference Canadian Asbestos: A Global Concern was being planned by a coalition of
|
46
|
Canadian and international groups to explore the repercussions of Canadian asbestos pro d u ction and use in a public forum. Attempting to derail this event, they falsely claimed it was organized by the producers of asbestos alternative materials who had a vested interest in attacking their “innocent” fibre. Due to the commitment of the conference officers and organizing committee, the industry’s intimidation failed and the conference proceeded unhindered. Plenary sessions on September 12 and 13, 2003, were co-chaired by Windsor Member of Parliament, Joe Comartin, and CUPE Health and Safety Dire c t o r, Anthony Pizzino. The plenaries were followed by a strategy session on September 14 for activists. An outstanding panel of international and Canadian scientists, academics, medical personnel, epidemiologists and campaigners exposed the nefarious ways in which industry has acted to defend its product; these include pers o n a l attacks by Asbestos Institute personnel on public health campaigners, pressure on international organizations such as the World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization by asbestos-industry linked “experts” and legal threats by industry representatives such as the Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’ Association (India). Joe Comartin, from the New Democratic Party, Elizabeth May and Daniel Green from the Sierra Club of Canada, Anthony Pizzino from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Mary Cook, Jim Brophy and Margaret Keith from the OHCOW Clinics, Joan Kuyek from Mining Watch, Canada, Dr. Louise De Guire from the National Institute of Public Health in Québec, and Nick De Carlo, Karen Willsey and Bill Hicks from the CAW addressed the participants. As well, several individuals whose lives have been devastated by asbestos-related deaths of husbands, fathers or children presented graphic and conclusive evidence of the damage done by occupational and environmental exposure to chrysotile in Canada made presentations. Representatives from India, Japan, Lebanon and Peru described the appalling human tragedy caused by the use of Canadian chrysotile in their countries. The Ottawa conference marked a watershed in the history of the global movement to ban asbestos. For the first time, a cross-section of Canadians, including trade unionists (13 of whom were from the CAW), publicly disavowed the Canadian Government’s pro-chrysotile position. The formation of Ban Asbestos Canada as a direct result of the conference brings a new voice to the national debate on asbestos. As the flow of independent information increases and channels of communication develop through which victims can tell their stories, industry’s control of the Canadian asbestos agenda will end. Shackled by increasing opposition at home, Canadian coord inators of the pro - c h rysotile lobby will become less able to operate in the global a rena; this will expose remaining exporters to the growing hostility of consumers and governments opposed to the use of asbestos. More than two thousand years ago, a Chinese philosopher said: “A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.” The developments described in the conference report are evidence of the giant strides being made toward our common goal: a universal ban on asbestos. 1. Braun L, Greene A, Manseau M et al., Scientific Controversy and Asbestos—Making Disease Invisible, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2003; 9:194-205.
|
47
|
The full report on the conference, including pictures, is available at: http://www.ibas.btinternet.co.uk/Frames/f_lka_ottawa_conf_rep_03_plus.htm Thetford Mines, Québec The Family Panel at the conference heard a number of moving presentations. This is Herve Rousseau’s story. Herve Rousseau and his family live on a farm in the asbestos mining region of Thetford Mines. In 1958, five years after he moved to this property, the Flintkote company started asbestos mining operations which continued for twelve years. Directly across from the Rousseau home is a 100 metre mountain of asbestos tailings; one surveyor estimated that there a re millions of tons of tailings on this site. A kilometre from the Rousseau pro p e rty is the a b a ndoned Flintkote property which consists of a large pit and an enormous and unstable pile of tailings; there are no warning signs or fencing to keep out the public. An analysis of samples taken from this site revealed a chrysotile content of 10%. Herve said that after a few years on the farm, the animals started to die. Eventually he realized that the hazardous material which was causing ill-health amongst the asbestos miners in the town had also been responsible for the death of his animals. The asbestos dust was everywhere in the mining towns; in the winter there was as much asbestos as snow. Clearly, the Rousseau house and environment were polluted. It was hard to keep the home clean and the family did not invite guests to visit as they feared for their safety. Seventeen years ago, Mrs. Rousseau died of an asbestos-related disease; many of the neighbours have had similar fates. Two years after his wife’s death, Herve began to work with local people to publicize the town’s problems. Herve told the local newspaper that he would be coming to Ottawa to inform the c o n f e rence of the appalling situation in the mining region. He subsequently received thre a t e ning phone calls; although other residents were too frightened to come to Ottawa, three members of the Rousseau family made the journey. Days before they came to Ottawa, Herve and his children were informed by an independent asbestos specialist that their home was too contaminated for human occupation. Readings of 289.8 structures per mm2 were more than four times the maximum US levels for re-occupying buildings after asbestos abatement (US level: 70 structures per mm2). At the completion of the Family Panel during which Mr. Rousseau gave his moving presentation, the audience rose to their feet and gave these brave Québecois a resounding and prolonged standing ovation. There was a consensus that what we had witnessed during this hour-long session marked a turning point in the Canadian debate on asbestos. If the conference were to achieve nothing else but provide these compassionate and public-spirited individuals with a platform from which to publicize the horrors of asbestos exposure within their province, it would have been well worth the effort.
|
48
|
CAW delegates to Ottawa Conference.
Ban Asbestos Canada
Asbestos Victims Association of Québec (AVAQ)
In 2003 a new group called: Ban Asbestos Canada (BAC) was formed to campaign in Canada for a ban on the production, use and export of asbestos. Recognizing the complex political-economic forces which support the national asbestos industry, BAC is lobbying at local, regional and national levels to combat years of pro-asbestos propaganda. With its website and network of supporters, the group is working to make asbestos a core issue. Kyla Sentes, one of the founding members of BAC, says: “We must continue to put a human face on this tragedy. Thus those who speak from personal experience of loss must ensure that their voices are h e a rd. What profit lies behind mourning the needless death of a loved one? Are those who demand a stop to these deadly practices motivated by anything other than compassion? These are powerful stories, and they must be heard.”
|
Roch Lanthier of the Asbestos Victims Association of Québec (AVAQ) spoke about environmental protection in Québec to the International Global Asbestos Congress held in Tokyo, Japan, November 19-21, 2004. Concern over the environmental legacy of asbestos mining was one of the principal reasons for the formation of AVAQ, a Canadian citizens' group started in 2003. One hundred and twenty-five years of asbestos production has left a region of 200 square kilometres with 3.5 billion tons of asbestos-contaminated waste, much of which is contained in 30 heaps of tailings up to 150 metres high. Homes and schools lie in close proximity to these hazardous sites. Air samples collected by AVAQ show dangerous levels of indoor asbestos contamination in 15 of the 26 houses surveyed; 3 soil samples out of 14 taken near the houses showed a chrysotile content greater than 10%; 3 samples had a chrysotile content exceeding 60%. The effects of these exposures have been reported by the National 49
|
Institute of Public Health of Québec: “Women in the mining region thus had 10.8 times more mesotheliomas than women elsewhere in Québec. If we added to the 10 women, 7 other women who no longer resided in the mining region at the time they were diagnosed, but who had lived there in the past, the risk then became 20.3 times higher.” AVAQ is assisting victims to claim compensation for asbestos illnesses and is pressing for a reversal of federal policy which bestows political as well as financial support on the asbestos industry. Accepting that the resolution of Québec's environmental problems will require long-term planning, AVAQ is considering several options for the decontamination and regeneration of the area. Most unfortunately, Mr. Lanthier passed away from a heart attack on January 30, 2005. He will be sorely missed.
Rotterdam Convention
The international United Nations agreement, known as the Rotterdam Convention, lists hazardous substances that cannot be exported to developing countries without their knowledge and agreement. The Rotterdam Convention requires countries who export hazardous chemicals to warn those in other countries of the hazards of the chemicals. It’s like WHMIS for people in other countries. Member states meeting in Geneva in September, 2004 saw fourteen pesticides and industrial chemicals, including four types of asbestos added to the list. To Canada’s shame, our federal government successfully lobbied for chrysotile asbestos, produced in Canada and exported to many developing countries, not to be included on the list. The aim of the convention is to ensure that dangerous substances not be exported to poor countries that cannot handle them safely. Yet this is just what the Canadian government continues to promote. Clifton Curtis, Director of the conservation organization, Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), said, “Canada’s and Russia’s objections to listing chrysotile asbestos are embarrassingly self-interested, protecting domestic exporters interested in seeing this dangerous chemical abroad…Chrysotile unequivocally meets the Rotterdam Convention’s requirements, and those governments opposing its listing blatantly disregarded the treaty obligations.” Renewed deliberations held in Geneva February 11-18, 2005, saw the Rotterdam Convention’s Chemical Review Committee deliberate the inclusion of chrysotile after submissions supporting the inclusion of chrysotile asbestos on the prior informed consent list were received from Australia, Chile, the European Community, Latvia and Switzerland. The Canadian government continued to shamefully lobby for its exclusion and did not distribute the extensive research work on the health effects of asbestos, published recently in Québec. The
|
50
|
Epidemiology of Asbestos-Related Diseases in Québec, published by the National Institute of Public Health in Québec, showed excess levels of mesothelioma among people in Québec, especially in the asbestos mining areas.
Canada Can’t Keep Hiding a Deadly Export By David S. Egilman and Susanna Rankin Bohme,Globe & Mail, April 1, 2004 A famous 1966 memo from American automotive products producer Bendix Corp.’s purchasing manager to a Johns Manville Co. sales manager in Québec stated, “My answer to the problem is: If you have enjoyed a good life while working with asbestos products, why not die from it? There’s got to be some cause.” This statement sounds shocking to the Canadian public; we’ve spent millions over the past three decades to reduce the threat asbestos poses to our health. Yet our views on the subject aren’t reflected in our policy toward the Third World. The Canadian government is holding an official consultation today on whether it should continue to oppose regulations that would improve communication regarding chrysotile asbestos risks to developing countries. Sadly, our national asbestos industry has influenced Ottawa’s stand on this issue, at the expense of public health in the developing world. The Rotterdam Convention requires a ‘prior informed consent’ procedure for certain hazardous materials and pesticides in international trade. Under the convention, before the materials may be exported to a particular nation, that nation must register its consent to receive them. To date, Canada, the second largest chrysotile producer in the world, has successfully blocked this material appearing on the list. It’s all about the money. Milton Friedman argued that ‘there is only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.’ The easiest way for corporations to increase profits is to avoid paying for the full cost of goods they sell. The health-related costs of asbestos far exceed industry profits. Too often, these costs are not paid by industry, but by individuals and governments. In the United States, the accepted low-estimate cost for compensating injured asbestos workers is $114 billion (US) over the next several decades. At least $50 billion has already been spent by the industry and insurers on compensation, excluding the costs for asbestos removal and repair. But two-thirds of victims have historically not been compensated. And before compensation is paid, victims and their families must pay for their own care and loss of income. The Canadian asbestos industry transfers most of these costs on to its own workers and their families, and passes other costs (medical care and social services) on to Canadian citizens. In this way, the asbestos mines and factories socialize the costs and privatize the profits.
|
51
|
But we bring in health and environmental regulations to protect us by requiring companies to bear the full costs of production. Likewise, liability suits make companies pay for damage after it has been done. Alas, developing countries often have weaker regulatory regimes and less citizen access to courts. Subject to pressure from global companies, these nations cannot implement adequate protections. If injured workers receive any compensation for work-related disease, it is hundreds of thousands of dollars less than the amount Canada requires companies to pay. These “comparative advantages” save companies money but endanger Third World workers and consumers. The asbestos industry argues that asbestos can be used safely. But even where regulatory standards are well-developed, that doesn’t necessarily happen. The Québec workers compensation board issued 118 citations for violations of asbestos regulations during 300 Québec constru ctionsite inspections in the first nine months of 1999. The good news is that ‘only 10 per cent’ or so of the sites had violations; the bad news is that many sites received multiple citations. The situation in the US is likely worse. The US inspection agency refuses to release any records. If Canada and the US, with all our money, publicity, and litigation can’t use asbestos safely, does anyone really think Nicaragua and Mexico will be more successful at implementing safety measures? Occupational health programs at major medical schools in Nicaragua and Mexico have neither respirators nor sampling devices required for control of this hazard. Would Canada tolerate the importation of asbestos from Mexico? To preserve Canada’s international reputation as a moral leader, to value workers’ health, and to keep jobs at home, Canada should at least inform developing countries of the hazards of its exports. David S. Egilman is an associate professor of community health at Brown University. Susanna Rankin Bohme is a Canadian doctoral candidate focusing on health and globalization at Brown. They are co-authors of Exposing the ‘Myth’ of ABC, ‘Anything but Chrysotile’ published last year in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine.
|
52
|
The
W hite d eath
in our live s
Dying for a Living: Blayne Kinart Excerpt from Martin Mittelstaedt’s Globe and Mail article, March 13, 2004.
Blayne Kinart, asbestos victim.
Sarnia, Ontario—Blayne Kinart is a man who used to take pride in the look of his body. When he was 50, he says, there wasn’t an ounce of fat on it. He was all muscle, a tribute to the physical rigours of being a millwright in Canada’s chemical valley, the maze of petrochemical plants located on the southern outskirts of this Ontario city. His wife Sandy likes to joke that her husband, a childhood sweetheart who caught her eye in grade school, had always been as “healthy as a horse. If you got a cold in 300 years, it was something.” But today, at 57, Mr. Kinart looks like he wandered into Sarnia directly from a Nazi death camp. Eighteen months ago, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer in the lining of the chest wall. It’s an exceedingly rare cancer—but one that is exceedingly common around Sarnia. If you are unfortunate enough to get mesothelioma, it basically means only two things. The most immediate is that you’ve just been handed a death sentence, and an excruciatingly painful one. The other is that at some point in your life, you’ve breathed in asbestos fibres. Mr. Kinart doesn’t dwell on this big-picture stuff. For him, the effects of his disease are more immediate, scary and personal. For five months after his diagnosis, he couldn’t bring himself to look in the mirror. He knew that his body was under attack by the cancer and he was afraid of what he would see. Mesothelioma feels like being suffocated; there is severe weight loss, and chest pain so intense that narcotics are prescribed; death comes one to four years after diagnosis. Likewise, with asbestosis victims, there is shortness of breath and the prospect of death through lung failure.
|
54
|
Work Toward A Better Workplace Environment
Mr. Kinart doesn’t want his life to end in silence. He wants to talk about what happened to him, to show his cancerracked body. He wants people to know what he has had to endure is an injustice that shouldn’t be tolerated, as is the paltry compensation offered to industrial-disease victims in Ontario. His wife Sandy said, “Blayne always felt that this wasn’t about him. This was about the voice of all the men who were sick.” Mr. Kinart says the workplacec o mpensation system offered a financial choice for his pain and suffering that was little better than a lottery, belittling the loss of a decade of his life and likely more: He could collect either $298 a month until he died, or a $38,000 lump sum. He’s a mesothelioma case. He asked the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board to cut him a cheque. Mr. Kinart wants to believe that there will be punishment for those who knew about the dangers he faced, and didn’t speak out. “There will be a day of reckoning for them. I don’t know when it is but I hope it’s as hard and hurts as much as it does for me to walk away….Like, I got a wife, I got my first grandchild now and…I can’t even pick him up, my grandchild. He’s too heavy for me.”
Sarnia Observer: Lead Editorial, December, 1997 “Nearly everyone is aware there’s a cancer risk from even a few minutes of sun exposure, yet little attention is paid to the risk of working around carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) eight hours a day, 52 weeks a year, over a working lifetime. “This neglect has come at a high cost. “Cancer now claims one in three Canadian lives and is about to replace heart disease as the leading cause of death. Smoking and lifestyle are major factors, but many cancers—from 10-to40 percent—are the direct result of exposure to hazardous materials in the workplace. “This doesn’t come as a shock to people. We have all heard stories about asbestos-related illnesses and problems with other chemicals in the workplace. As we make progress in our knowledge of science and medicine we learn even more about what can harm us. “But, what’s upsetting is the slowness by which we react to our g ro wing knowledge of carcinogens. Not that long ago we thought nothing of smoking in the workplace. Some still see nothing wrong with it. “Even if we have a good idea that something can be harmful to our bodies, we demand more proof. We are re l u ctant to distribute the results of tests and
Brother Kinart passed away on July 6, 2004.
|
55
|
experiments. The debate on workplace safety often pits labour leaders against business owners. All sides should be tackling this issue with equal tenacity and honesty. After all, we are all at risk.” This editorial appeared as a result of a press conference in December in Sarnia, Ontario, called by the authors of the book, Workplace Roulette, Gambling With Cancer, which was sent to CAW locals. One of the authors is Jim Brophy, then director of the Windsor Occupational Health Clinic for Ontario Workers who explained that Lambton County (where Sarnia is located) has the highest rate in Canada of mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. Asbestos was extensively used in Sarnia’s Chemical Valley oil refineries as insulation around pipes. Brother Brophy explained that although Canadian and US insurance companies knew about the danger and stopped selling life insurance policies to asbestos workers in 1918, the asbestos industry claimed not to know about the extent of the hazard until 1964.
Holmes Foundry, Holmes Insulation and Caposite CAW Sarnia Holmes Asbestos Workers And Family Members Discuss Tragedy Thanks to Doug Smith’s Consulted to Death and many other sources Two hundred and fifty former workers at the Holmes Foundry, Holmes Insulation and Caposite plants in Sarnia, Ontario, came out to a public meeting called by the CAW on September 18, 1998 to discuss occupational diseases and attend a workers’ compensation intake clinic. Family members as well participated. It was a heart-rending experience. Then-Windsor OHCOW Executive Director, Jim Brophy clearly recalls the moment: “Two brothers came, holding each other’s hands. Both in their sixties, both of them with cancer. Many of these workers had been refugees after the Second World War, from eastern Europe. They came and worked in these jobs because it was the only way they could survive. Some of them still spoke broken English. They needed their children to translate for them.” Clare Hall was a Holmes Foundry millwright for 25 years, starting at the young age of 17. Brother Hall, who retired in 1988, attended the meeting and clinic. Brother Hall had taken mental note of the many co-workers from the foundry who were ill or who had died. “I stopped keeping track after about 58 or 59 of my former buddies from work died,” says Hall. Hall is an outgoing person who loves to talk about his days at the foundry, but even he had to admit, “After the intake clinic I went home and straight to bed. It depressed me for days seeing old friends who were sick, and realizing how many of them had died.”
|
56
|
In Sarnia in March 1999, 250 CAW Holmes Foundry, Holmes Insulation and Caposite workers and their families, many of whom were suffering from asbestos related diseases met again to discuss the status of the workers’ compensation cases and the CAW-OHCOW documents which analyzed Ontario Ministry of Labour records from 1958 through to the early 1980s. The first meeting of this group to discuss this occupational health disaster had taken place six months before. Our union obtained the government records of workplace inspections at these facilities through Freedom of Information legislation. The ministry knew exposure levels were thousands of times higher than the safe levels as far back as 1958. Neither the company nor the ministry informed the workers of the dangers between 1958 and 1974, when one of the facilities closed. It is estimated that approximately 400-500 workers were regularly employed at the Holmes site in Sarnia. Due to turnover, thousands of workers were exposed over the years. By the time of the 1999 meeting, 358 files had been established for former Holmes workers and their families. Another 100 questionnaires were picked up by people, including a man who delivered milk to the facilities, whose recent x-rays indicated asbestos in his lungs. Several workers urged the CAW to continue (to the applause of others) its actions on behalf of the workers. “We should have been told back then. Now the story is out, others should never have to go through this again,” said one elderly man. When CAW President Buzz Hargrove released the Freedom of Information analysis at a press conference he said, “Even an order in February 1973, to shut the place down—rarely issued—wasn’t complied with by the company or enforced by the ministry. It’s almost as if these workers were condemned—the dangers were known,
|
57
|
documented, but those with the power to act, didn’t.” Brother Harg rove blasted the employer and past Ontario governments for failing to act to protect workers and their families from incredibly high chemical exposures, despite repeated tests, warnings and ministry directives between 1958 and 1988, at the factories which produced engine block castings and asbestos products. Families were exposed as workers came home, clothes covered with asbestos. Across from the plant was a playing field. People from the community remember brushing the asbestos dust off the benches before games. “The struggle for these workers and their families, and our union on their behalf, is far from over,” said Brother Hargrove. Today, in 2005, the tragedy of the Holmes workers is still unfolding. We continue to fight for justice for the victims of this occupational health disaster. Summary of Analysis of Ministry of Labour’s Reports about Holmes In the spring of 1998, Brother Robert Clarke, first Health and Safety Representative of Holmes Foundry and its former CAW Plant Chairperson in Sarnia, approached OHCOWWindsor with an alarming account depicting disproportionate numbers of Holmes workers with cancer, hearing loss, and respiratory and heart disease. The Holmes Foundry plant was closed in 1988, the Caposite plant was closed in 1974 and the Holmes Insulation plant was closed in 1991 but workers are continuing to become ill and die from their workplace exposures to asbestos and other harmful substances. As part of our investigation into this occupational health tragedy, the CAW requested copies of the Ministry of Labour reports arising from the government's history of involvement with the former Holmes Foundry, Holmes Insulation and Caposite plants. Boxes of documents and records were surrendered to the CAW through the Freedom of Information Act. Months of painstaking work pouring over the records were done by Jim Brophy and Mark Parent, Executive Directors of the OHCOW Clinics in Sarnia and Windsor. The following is a summary of the reports. The entire reports are posted on our home page at: http://www.caw.ca/whatwedo/health&safety/pdf/HolmesInsulationandCaposite.pdf There were three separate operations being conducted in Sarnia at the Holmes facility which shared a common site until 1974. First, there was the Holmes Foundry. Second, there was the Caposite Insulation plant. Third was the Holmes Insulation plant. The Caposite plant closed in 1974 and at approximately the same time the Holmes Insulation moved to another location. On February 12, 1999, Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) Union President, Buzz Hargrove, released the report on the former Holmes Insulation and Caposite plant in Sarnia. The report was based on Ministry of Health and Labour documents, which were obtained under the Ontario Freedom of Information Act. These government documents revealed a
|
58
|
l e g acy of neglect and failure resulting in asbestos exposures that, “were the highest ever encountered by this Branch in any of the plants in Ontario.” Beginning in 1958, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour conducted a series of inspections at the Holmes facilities in Sarnia, Ontario. This report will examine the role of the Ministries at two of the three Holmes facilities. The Caposite and Holmes Insulation plants will be discussed in this report. During the sixteen-year period when the government conducted air sampling at Caposite they recorded asbestos “counts (that) were the highest ever encountered by this Branch in any of the plants in Ontario.” In fact, the Ministry stated in one of their reports that at least one of their samples was “probably the highest asbestos fibre concentration ever recorded”. In 1958 the Company and the Ministry of Health responsible for health and safety at that time exchanged letters acknowledging the potential health hazards of asbestos exposure. When the Ministry conducted air samples later that year they found levels that were 28 times over the standard. This would translate into exposures that were as high as 6,720 times over our current asbestos legal limit! At the time, however, the government issued no Directions or Orders. The Ministry did not return to this plant for another nine years. When the government inspectors finally re t u rned in 1967, they estimated the total p roduction at the Caposite plant at 10,000 pounds per day of asbestos insulation. The government inspectors took 34 air samples, of which only 5 were below the legal limit then in place. The average sample was 2.7 times the standard of the day. By Ontario's current standards, there were samples that were 1,890 times higher than today's legal limit. The Ministry issued 9 Directions to the Company regarding ventilation and asbestos handling. These Directions were not followed up, nor enforced. Government inspectors did not return to check the asbestos levels at the Caposite and Holmes Insulation plant until 1972, five years after their previous check for asbestos. By this time they acknowledged that, “three cases of asbestosis (were) reported from this company”. On May 17, 1972, the government officials issued directions. Mr. G.S. Rajhans, a Ministry of Health engineer, wrote: “Asbestos at the feed platform constitutes a very serious health hazard. This is also reflected by the air samples taken during the visit. The first sample was taken when the fibres were being broken by means of a pitchfork. This sample is 33 times the determined TLV. As a matter of fact, the writer has not seen such an excessive asbestos exposure anywhere else. The men engaged in breaking the fibres (were) practically c o vered with the loose fibres. An approved type respirator is provided to these men. However, it is my contention that this respirator would not prove to be very effective in such an excessive asbestos exposure. In fact, I would not be surprised if the men develop asbestosis before too long. The only respirator which could prove to be of some help would be an air line respirator. Mr. Burton has already issued a direction for such a respirator.
|
59
|
“A considerable amount of dust is also produced at the disintegrators. The sampling found levels as high as 24 times the TLV. Thus, there is a need for adequate local mechanical exhaust for the disintegrator.” Between 1972 and 1973 the Ministry issued 29 Ord e r s / D i rections, in response to exposures that reached as high as 852fibres/cc, which is 8520 times over the current Ontario limit of 0.1 fibres per cubic centimetre (cc) of air. Finally, in 1973, the Ministry issued an Order to “cease” production at the facilities, only to discover on their follow-up visit that the company had ignored the Order. In the hundreds of pages of Ministry reports there is not one mention of taking legal action to protect the workers exposed to such deadly levels of asbestos. And yet, in spite of the government's awareness about the potential adverse health effects present at the Holmes facilities, the inspectors and technical staff failed to enforce the asbestos regulations. They witnessed and recorded illegal and excessive asbestos measurements that were thousands of times higher than our current exposure limits and hundreds of times higher than was permissible at the time. In 1980, according to the Ministry of Labour, the UAW presence had an impact on the health and safety conditions. “There has been a significant change in the plant in general since my last inspection. A new union (UAW) has been formed. The management, with the union, has formed a health and safety committee with internal audits monthly. The audit report is posted and action is being taken to correct problems. There has been no directions or recommendations issued on this inspection.” The Ministry also acknowledged that asbestos disease was being documented and compensated: “Compensation for asbestos related disease has been awarded against this company but the Industrial Health and Safety branch's file did not reflect an asbestos evaluation at this plant.” In 1987, a Ministry of Labour epidemiologist, Dr. Murray Finkelstein, prepared a study titled Mortality Among Employees of a Sarnia, Ontario, Factory Which Manufactured Insulation Materials From Amosite Asbestos. Dr Finkelstein’s findings were staggering. He found a six-fold increase in lung cancer m o rtality among the Holmes workers exposed to asbestos for two years or more. He also documented an eleven-fold increase in respiratory disease mortality and a four-fold excess of all malignancies. Dr. Finkelstein also cited five cases of mesothelioma among former Holmes workers. Three of the five workers died at less than fifty years of age and all were less than sixty years old! In the report, Dr Finkelstein recorded the comments of a Dr. Ritchie:
|
60
|
“Professor A.C. Ritchie, the Consultant in Pathology to the Workers Compensation Board, reviewed the slides from the autopsy (a man who died of lung cancer at the age of 49). He found numerous asbestos bodies in the lung tissue and commented, ‘I have never seen a case in which contamination by asbestos is so great.’ With respect to a 54-year-old man who died of asbestosis, Dr. Ritchie reported finding severe asbestosis. This man had worked for 8 years as a pipe roller. “Two of the 10 deaths were from causes not usually attributed to asbestos exposure, namely kidney cancer and heart attack. For the man who died of a heart attack, Dr. Ritchie reported severe asbestosis.” It is important to remember that the Ontario Royal Commission on Asbestos defined the Johns Manville plant in Scarborough as being a “world-class industrial disaster” due to the asbestos exposure tolerated in that plant. And yet, the information from the Holmes facilities revealed an even more startling picture of asbestos exposure. The asbestos measured in 1973 at Holmes were as high as 852f/cc, while at Manville the highest level record was in the 40f/cc range in 1949. It is not surprising, therefore, that the lung cancer Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR) showed a statistically significant six-fold excess risk of lung cancer at Holmes, thereby confirming fears that the workers faced excessive exposures and a corresponding cancer risk. During the fifteen years that the government sampled for asbestos, it issued only one Order to stop production. This Order was ignored and forgiven. The Ministry sought Legal Action only once, in 1975, as a result of a "critical injury" during which a worker lost a finger. The Company was fined $1,000. Workers’ Compensation Cases Prior to the CAW/WSIB Task Force on Holmes being established in 1998, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) recognized 51 of 54 claims for occupational disease at Holmes. Many of these claims were established as a result of the diligence of former Plant Chairperson, Bob Clarke. Since the CAW/WSIB Task Force on Holmes was established in 1998, the union has helped hundreds of workers with their claims. CAW Local 2168 President Karen Willsey, former CAW Local 456 President Bill Hicks, current Local 456 President Steve Sharpe, and Paul Laporte from the Office of the Workers Advisor, CAW Local 1973 Benefit Rep Paul Edwards, and CAW Health & Safety Training Fund representative, Frank Marek have all helped these workers. Their activities have been co-ordinated by CAW National Representative, Health and Safety, Nick De Carlo. And though nothing will ever make up for the horrendous tragedy of hundreds of workers sick and dying from exposure at work, it is making a difference. Hundreds of workers’ claims for compensation have been established as a result of efforts by the union and people’s lives have improved as a result. Here’s just one example: A widow with seven children who
|
61
|
were raised in poverty as a result of the illness and then death of their father, has now been able to buy a new car to travel and is living comfortably. Each one of these successes gives hope, but the struggle continues. The deaths and diseases caused at Holmes Foundry should never have happened. Family Members and the Community—Innocent Bystanders There were environmental hazards created by the asbestos from Holmes. We have reports that asbestos was blown from the plant across to the local sports field where children played and that the asbestos had to be wiped off the benches in order to sit down. Asbestos was shipped to local dumps near areas where new housing was later built. Equally tragic was the effect on the health of families. Some families lived close to the foundry and insulation plant, close enough that even the inside of their homes was coated in dust. Other family members were exposed from the substances brought home on the work clothes of the men. Women and children, as well, have had their health severely affected. The children’s exposure came from hugging their dads when they came home from work and the women’s from doing their husbands’ laundry. At the September 1998 meeting in Sarnia, we discovered the wife of a plant engineer had mesothelioma, which she likely contracted from her husband’s clothes. Another woman’s husband had actually appeared in advertisements promoting Holmes products. She too had mesothelioma, a disease her husband had brought home with his paycheque. Children of workers exposed to asbestos have also contracted cancer. In 1974, Frank Fitzsimmons joined Holmes as a maintenance worker, where he worked for about five years. Soon after starting at Holmes, the young man and his wife had a baby boy, Donald. Brother Fitzsimmons didn’t know he was bringing asbestos fibres home in his clothes. “It would be on his clothes as fine black and red dust,” said Maria LaCount, Fitzsimmons’ ex-wife. “He would be literally black and he would pick up and hug the baby. We didn’t realize this stuff was hazardous.” At 14 years of age, Donald was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He died at 16 in the fall of 1989. “I was there when he died,” said Brother Fitzsimmons. “He was down to skin and bones. The cancer had eaten him up.” Overcome with grief, he said, “I felt like I killed Donald myself because I brought this stuff home in my clothes. I feel responsible.” Brother Fitzsimmons was also outraged at the Ontario government for not telling the Holmes workers the hazards they were facing. Holmes: A Brief History Holmes Foundry of Sarnia, Ontario, was established in 1918. It was originally owned by Mr. J.S. Blunt and was called Holmes Blunt Limited. In those early years, Ford Motor Company contracted the plant for a steady supply of engine casting blocks. Workers have described conditions at this time as appalling. The plant was dirty and unsanitary, with no v e ntilation, no showers, no sanitary toilets, and no lunchroom.
|
62
|
Holmes complex in early days.
Holmes strike, 1937.
In 1937, workers participated in one of the rare sit-down strikes in Canadian history. It ended 48 hours later in a riot, when workers were beaten and driven from the Holmes Plant by an armed mob of local goons. The UAW organized the workforce in 1943, chartering Local 456, becoming the thirteenth UAW Local Union organized in Canada. The plant had supplied American Motors (AMC) with motor castings (blocks) since 1962. American Motors (AMC) acquired a twenty-five percent interest in the plant in January of 1966. In July of 1970, American Motors acquired 100% of Holmes Foundry. It was not until October 1981 that Holmes Foundry finally became a Division of American Motors, Canada. At one time, there were three separate operations in Sarnia at the Holmes facility: the Caposite Insulation Plant, the Holmes Insulation Plant, and the Holmes Foundry. The Caposite plant opened in 1956 and began manufacturing asbestos pipes and asbestos insulation products. The Caposite plant closed in March 1974 and production of asbestos products ceased. At that time it became Holmes Insulation and moved from Scott Road to North Christina Street in Sarnia and was purchased by Babcock & Wilcox. Mineral wool insulation products were manufactured in the new plant which at that time employed 110 people. The old building, however, had a considerable amount of asbestos dust in the fabric of the building and on the ductwork. It was used as a storage depot for Holmes Foundry which was located next door. The Holmes Insulation plant was organized by the UAW in 1980. With the acquisition of AMC, Chrysler Corporation took ownership of the Holmes Foundry facility and its manufacturing business in 1987. Chrysler scheduled the operation for c l o s u re on September 16, 1988, which ended Holmes Foundry ’s seventy-year legacy of exposing workers to harmful and excessive hazards.
|
63
|
What can we learn? It is too late to bring back to life those who have died or to cure those who are suff e ring. All we can do now for them and their families is to fight for workers’ compensation and medical care for those who have been affected. We must intensify our Prevent Cancer Campaign and take on the fight to clean up the workplace. It is the responsibility of us all to ensure that the Holmes workers did not suffer in vain. These cancer deaths due to asbestos exposure could have been prevented. Had the g o vernment and industry representatives acted on the information that they alone had (since the government did not share their findings with the Holmes employees), then almost all of these people would have been spared these diseases. The Holmes experience raises serious questions about the historical role played by the government in its dealings with Ontario employers. It also reflects the current reality, whereby the Ontario government has refused to ban the use of asbestos and continues to tolerate exposures to toxic substances such as metal working fluids, diesel exhaust, electromagnetic fields and benzene at many times their safe levels. We know today that workers exposed to metal working fluids at levels 10 times below the current legal limit will still bear an excess cancer and respiratory disease risk. The Holmes experience tells us a great deal about our past, as well as the present. It is also a warning about the consequences of negligence and indiff e rence re g a rding toxic exposures in the workplace.
Deaths from Asbestos Accepted Workers’ Compensation Claims since CAW/WSIB Task Force Established 1998-2005 (in addition to previously 51 accepted claims): Holmes Foundry, Holmes Insulation and Caposite Workers: Asbestosis: 4 Asbestosis and heart disease: 1 Asbestosis and cor pulmonale and heart disease: 1 Pulmonary fibrosis: 1 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: 2 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cor pulmonale: 3 Cancer of the esophagus: 5 Cancer of the esophagus and pancreas: 1
|
Cancer of the gastrointestinal system: 2 Cancer of the larynx: 1 Cancer of the lung and colon: 1 Cancer of the lung and heart disease: 1 Colon cancer: 6 Lung Cancer: 39 Rectal cancer: 2 Mesothelioma: 11 Total: 81
64
|
Excerpts from Swimming in Asbestos By Doug Smith The Canadian Forum, May, 1999 “All that there, floating in the air, that’s asbestos. That’s what killed him.” With a shaking finger Ralph Crevier is pointing at a photograph of his brother, Bert. In the picture a happy-looking Bert is rolling insulation around a pipe. The whole Margaret Keith and Jim Brophy body-mapping. scene is flecked white with asbestos fibres. The picture was taken in the Holmes Foundry Caposite plant in Sarnia, Ontario, where Ralph and Bert both worked along with their two brothers, Bev and Jack. Bert and Bev are dead. “They died of asbestos,” Ralph says. “Their stomachs blew out and they died. My bro t her Jack and I, just two of us are around. For how long, I don’t know.” It was to the Caposite plant that, one by one, the Crevier brothers were recruited when they came of age. In 1958 Ralph Crevier started at Caposite. He and his coworkers were s w i mming in asbestos. At night he was in charge of cleaning the plant, blowing the asbestos away with an air hose. “On top of your hair, it used to be pure white. It used to be like cotton candy, used to fly around in the air.” The year that Ralph Crevier started at Holmes, government inspectors discovered that the asbestos levels in the Caposite Plant were 28 times above the standard of the day (and 6,720 times above the 1999 standard). But the government issued no improvement orders, and it was another nine years before inspectors returned. Francis Huggett started working at the Holmes Foundry in 1942, retiring in 1982. Suffering from emphysema, he lived with his daughter and her family in Sarnia. Years of foundry work have left him nearly deaf. His breath is short and he says he can’t lift anything. But his memory of the Holmes Foundry of 1942 is crystal clear: “That plant was a dirty, filthy plant. It was hell in the plant. Strictly hell. You could hardly see when you walked through the door lots of times.” When he started at the foundry there was no safety equipment other than safety glasses. Eventually the men were supplied with masks, but Huggett says they were useless: “The dust went right through the masks. You couldn’t keep it out.” (Frances Huggett, in his 60's, had to carry an oxygen tank with him wherever he went.
|
65
|
Due to financial insecurity, he had been forced out of his apartment to cheaper accommodation. He was severely restricted in his ability to travel and was constantly suffering from a shortage of funds. As a result of efforts by the union, a claim for workers’ compensation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was established, so that before he died he had an electric cart to go out every morning to have coffee with his remaining old workmates. He was no longer in dire financial straits.) Information that made the dangers these workers were facing abundantly clear was becoming common knowledge. In 1973 the New Yorker magazine ran an award-winning series of reports by Paul Brodeur on the ways in which the asbestos and insulation industries had destroyed their employees’ health. At the centre of his reports was the story of a plant in Tyler, Texas, that was closed in the wake of studies by the US National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. What did the Pittsburgh Corning Corporation do with the asbestos that it could no longer use? Sold it to the Holmes Foundry. More Holmes Victims At the Ottawa conference, Canadian Asbestos: a Global Concern, in September 2003, you could tell from her body language that Martha Fracalanza was not comfortable sitting on a raised stage in a huge hall and being the centre of attention. Martha’s determination and courage enabled her to share her experience and that of her husband Frank, who was exposed to asbestos at Holmes Insulation from 1956 to 1976. Many of Frank’s co-workers and friends have died from mesothelioma. His brother died of lung cancer ten years ago. At that time, Frank was diagnosed with pleural thickening and pleural plaques. His condition has worsened and he is now suffering from asbestosis. Martha, who was previously diagnosed with pleural thickening, has now also contracted asbestosis. She said, “Many wives and children of Holmes’ workers are suffering or have died due to asbestos exposure. To prevent this tragedy from happening to other workers and families we have felt compelled to speak out.” In Memory of Bob Clarke The Holmes tragedy might never have come to light were it not for the efforts of longtime Holmes worker, Bob Clarke. Brother Clarke served through the 1980s as the UAW, and later CAW, plant chairperson. In that leadership role he fought an ongoing battle to clean up the foundry and he assisted former Holmes workers in their fights for workers’ compensation. Steve Nield chaired the union’s health and safety committee at Holmes in the late 1980s and later became a Ministry of Labour inspector. He remembers Clarke as someone who never said no to a worker: “And he never stopped fighting on health and safety issues. He had unbelievable compassion for his members at Holmes Foundry.” Many of the first 51 occupational diseases claims recognized by the Ontario WCB were won with Clarke’s assistance. In 1998, Brother Clarke, who by this time was fighting his own battle with cancer, c o ntacted the Windsor occupational health clinic about compensation claims for his former workmates. He passed away soon after the public meeting where 250 former Holmes workers
|
66
|
began to publicly tell their stories. Bob Clarke, former plant chair at Holmes, passed away on October 22, 1998 from cancer. Brother Clarke was one of our CAW heroes, who tirelessly defended workers and pursued the fight for workers’ compensation for the Holmes workers. We will always remember his example.
Bob Clarke and Cathy Walker.
This table shows workers’ compensation claims for Holmes workers and their widows and children since the CAW/WSIB Holmes Task Force began. These figures do not include health care costs for any of the claims. It also does not include any of the costs associated with Holmes workers’ claims which were accepted prior to the establishment of the Task Force in 1998. Total Payout as of time noted (Conservatively Estimated) $25,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $15,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $0.00
|
67
|
Bendix Automotive This information comes from Dust to DUST to Dust: Asbestos and the Struggle for Worker Health and Safety at Bendix Automotive by Robert Storey and Wayne Lewchuk, Labour/Le Travail, 2000 and from Workplace Roulette, Gambling with Cancer by Matthew Firth, James Brophy and Margaret Keith and Maclean’s magazine. Bendix opened its doors on Argyle Road in Windsor in 1929 making starter drives, automotive and bicycle brakes and wheel and master cylinders. Asbestos was first used in 1940. By 1977 the plant employed almost 800 workers in two plants (Argyle Road and Prince Road) in Windsor.
The Argyle Road plant had been a horse barn for a local dairy so the working conditions were dismal with very minimal ventilation. Larry Knuckle who began with Bendix in 1947, said, “You came out of there and you were black… it was absolutely ungodly.” It was part of the everyday experience of the plant workers to work though a “white haze” of dust. Earl Groulx emptied the bags attached to the machinery to catch the dust. The workers who had to “shake out” the bag had to dislodge any dust attached to the inside linings where it would fall into uncovered wooden boxes, taken o u tside and emptied into large garbage bins. The dust, Groulx remembers, “was something like flour…It was a greyish colour…It would fly all over the bloody place if it was windy.” Conditions in the Prince Road plant purchased in 1963 unfortunately were similar. Jack McCann, the Local 195 health and safety representative said, “The brake assembly was right where you came through the doors. So, everybody was exposed in there. It wasn’t closed off. And it was bad! There would be clouds of asbestos dust flying around—real small particles that would stay in the air. If the sun was shining through the window, you would really see it. It would be visible when you ran those grinders in there. It would be on your clothes. You’d just brush it off. There was no protective clothing.” A growing awareness of the hazards of the dust led in the 70s to union requests for
|
68
|
s a mpling by the government during which the drilling and grinding machines were turned off by the company. Contract demands for the 1977 collective agreement included many related to health and safety. By the time of the strike, 9 out of the 11 outstanding issues were associated with the clean-up and containment of asbestos including a vacuum sweeper for the brake department at Prince Road; company provision of stand-up lockers, coveralls or smocks and shower facilities for all grinder operators; an adequate sweeper system for the grinder area at Argyle Road; correction of the dust collection problem outside the grinding area of the Argyle Road plant and correction of the dust collection problem outside the Argyle Plant. The company finally agreed but would not budge with the union’s demand for a full time union health and safety re p resentative. The three month long strike was only settled after the personal interv e ntion of UAW Canadian Director, Bob White, who bargained a half-time health and safety rep p o s ition which satisfied the membership. Shortly thereafter, Brother White appointed Jack McCann as the health and safety rep. The Bendix Automotive plant in Windsor, Ontario “had a big asbestos problem that may someday produce its own grim harvest of disease and death,” reported the UAW newspaper, Solidarity, in 1978. “The reason was poor local ventilation and dry sweeping,” said Jack McCann, health and safety officer of Local 195. “The sweepers really raised a cloud of asbestos dust. You could see it all over the place in the brake-shoe department. On top of that, we had no protective clothing, no showers, no double lockers, and no chance to see the monitoring results.” The union health and safety staff inspected the plant in 1977 and, the company agreed to major improvements including local ventilation around the machines that ground, drilled and riveted asbestos linings, provided showers and double lockers, a varnished floor that dust couldn’t cling to, plenty of protective uniforms and a warning system in case the ventilators lost their suction. Brother McCann pursued health and safety issues on behalf of the membership vigorously, including insisting on the Ministry of Labour (MOL) inspections to measure the dust. Bro t h e r McCann and a law student, John Pistor, working with the local for the summer as a Ministry of Labour placement, outlined in full detail the work histories of three men, Henry Bednarick, Nelson Masse and Edward Rogers who contracted fatal laryngeal cancers as a result of asbestos exposure. The Local President, John Moynahan, presented this evidence to Michael Starr, chair of the Ontario Workmen’s Compensation Board. The union’s brief outlined in detail the hopelessly inadequate protections for workers from asbestos dust including inadequate ventilation, little or no local exhaust systems, dry sweeping, using compressed air to blow away fallen dust, etc. Reports in the Windsor Star in 1979 outlined widows’ and workers’ concerns. Edith Rogers, Brother Rogers’ widow, said her husband believed there must be a connection between his cancer and the conditions under which he was working. “He really thought there was, because he had never been sick a day in his life.” Brother Rogers went on disability pension in July 1978 and died of laryngeal cancer less than a year later.
|
69
|
Brother McCann and Ontario Public Interest Research Group activist, Jim Brophy, (now Executive Director of the Sarnia OHCOW Clinic) organized a public forum on July 17, 1979, where 150 people listened to speakers talk about the dangers of asbestos and what was going on at Bendix. Workers from other plants shared their concerns. Frank Croswell, the UAW health and safety representative at Ford, talked about the hundreds of kilometres of pipes that were covered in asbestos insulation. He described how workers were exposed when the pipes were worked on, or when the asbestos wrapping became worn and friable. In January 1980 it was revealed that popular 34 year old Bendix worker Tommy Dunn, with 12 years service, had been diagnosed with mesothelioma. It shocked and galvanized the union to hold a press conference releasing the 1966 and 1977 Ontario govern m e n t inspection reports where the MOL said that asbestos was within government guidelines. As Jack McCann said, “How do they tell Tommy Dunn’s wife and the widows there is no hazard here.” The Bendix Company kept alleging that Brother Dunn had not worked dire c tly with asbestos and that thus his illness could not have been caused by it. The Bendix workers agreed with Jack McCann who argued the opposite: Brother Dunn’s c a ncer was strong evidence of the extremely hazardous nature of asbestos in that an individual did not even have to be working with it directly in order to be affected by its toxicity. Rather than cleaning up the plant, rather than substituting safer materials for asbestos, Bendix announced it was closing the plant. It cited economic reasons. The workers were shocked and outraged. Forty workers, members of both Local 195 and Local 240 (the office workers’ local) occupied the plant. The company tried to call in the police but only a few showed up and were greatly outnumbered by union supporters from the big auto plants. Bendix was forced to negotiate better severance and pension provisions and the occupation ended in three days. Most of the workers did not believe that the plant was not economically viable. “They took off because of the asbestos,” said Walter Patterson, whose reaction was typical. Like other workers in similar situations, some of these workers blamed the union for raising the asbestos issue and insisting on a plant clean-up and justice for workers who had died. To provincial government hearings on “Plant Shutdowns and Employee Adjustment”, Brother Bob Nickerson, Executive Assistant to UAW Canadian Director Bob White stated flatly: “In my mind there is no question that a major part of the decision by that corporation in closing down…was asbestos. It is better closing it out, putting it out of mind, out of sight…You will never have to worry about it again. That has got to have a lot of weight in the
|
70
|
decision of that corporation in closing the plant down.” On June 21, 1980, one day after the announcement of the Bendix closure, Brother Bob White proposed to the UAW Canadian Council that the union commit to full-scale mobilization including plant sit-downs to fight against plant closures. Due to corporate restructuring in the late 1970s and early 1980s, many workplaces were closing down and the strong resistance of Brother White with the strong support of the Canadian Council led to the formation of the CAW in 1985. According to Brother Nickerson, Brother White’s Executive Assistant, Buzz Hargrove, threw his support behind the Bendix workers’ victims group who were attempting to secure justice through the workers’ compensation system but these fights took years. One of the real tragedies of the Bendix closure was the reluctance of other employers to hire the Bendix workers because they might develop cancer. New employers were concerned they would be liable if workers applied for workers’ compensation. Lucie Dunn, the driving force behind the Bendix Victims Organization in 1987, wanted the Workers’ Compensation Board to promote the interests of all asbestos workers in its attempt to obtain compensation from parent companies in the US. The Board sought benefits for 180 former workers of the Johns Manville plant in Toronto. Lucie Dunn tracked down 500 former Bendix workers out of an estimated 2,000 and worked with Jim Brophy and Margaret Keith of the Windsor Occupational Health Information Service to arrange for physicians to assess the amount of asbestos disease in the former Bendix workforce. Plants similar to Bendix such as ArvinMeritor in Tilbury (then Rockwell International) where the workers are represented by CAW Local 1941, stopped using asbestos in brakes in 1988-9 and switched to safer substitutes. The ArvinMeritor plant is thriving today.
Occupational Death Wages don’t mean a thing if you don’t live to spend them by Linda McQuaig, Maclean’s, May 19, 1980 From the front Tommy Dunn looks like any other young father. He sits in the easy chair in early April sipping beer, while across the room his nine-year-old daughter, Shannon, sprawls reading on the couch. It’s only when he turns his head that you notice his hair has been falling out in strips.
|
71
|
This, in many ways, is the least of his worries, one of the lesser effects of the chemotherapy treatment he has been undergoing since he found out several months ago he has inoperable cancer. “Metastatic anaplastic sarcoma,” says the 34-year-old welder who until recently played hockey, chopped wood and didn’t think much about health. But putting up the family Christmas tree last December he felt pains in his chest. A few weeks later his doctor delivered the devastating news: two cancerous tumours in his lung. Prognosis: bleak. But there was something else the doctor said that sent chills through Dunn’s fellow workers at the Bendix Automotive plant in Windsor, Ontario. Inside Dunn’s lymph nodes pathologists found particles of asbestos, the fibrous mineral that has killed thousands of workers in recent years and is used in the assembly of brake linings at Bendix. Armed with a growing body of medical evidence linking disease to the workplace, labour leaders are pushing the issue hard. In Windsor, the United Auto Workers local at the Bendix plant has taken its case to the bargaining table, after it did a tally last year and found that 19 of its members had developed cancer—and 12 had already died of it. “We’re pretty emotional about this,” says local Vice-President Stan Weiko. “After you’ve worked with some of these guys for 30 years…” His voice trails off. The Bendix workers were particularly incensed when they read a provincial government document showing the company was ordered to clean up its operation as early as 1966 but hadn’t done so. “We cannot explain how this h a ppened or excuse it,” said company spokesman John O’Hare. Brother Dunn’s wife, Lucie, said Tommy Dunn’s pain started on December 8, 1980 and he died on January 3, 1981. His claim for workers’ compensation was accepted but the Bendix Company appealed the decision in 1982, two years after the plant had closed. Eventually the appeal was dropped. The legacy of death and disease from Bendix continues. In 1996, for example, a workers’ compensation claim was accepted for asbestos exposure for a former employee of Bendix in Windsor. This former member of Local 195 contracted kidney cancer.
|
72
|
General Electric, Peterborough, Ontario General Electric in Peterborough, Ontario, once employed in the range of 6,000 people. It remains a major industry in Peterborough today employing 600 members of CAW Local 524. Over the decades workers at GE have been exposed to many toxins. One of the most lethal has been asbestos. The General Electric complex in Peterborough, Ontario, was built in the late 1800s. Over the past 100 plus years, many different departments existed, all with their specific and unique processes. Many of these processes no longer exist or do not exist as they once did. However, many of the workers who were assigned to these various departments are still alive today. Here’s one example of a terrible tragedy. In 1971 there was an explosion and fire at the plant. A tank containing epoxy resins was overheated (reportedly it was red-hot) and exploded when doused with cold water. Epoxy resin fumes were thick in the air. After the fire department left, the workers, armed with little more than rubber gloves were sent in, to clean up the mess. Of note is that of the 14 firemen who fought that fire, all but 1 has died. One person reports that the fire was so toxic, trees were defoliated for many blocks surrounding the building, and that paint blistered off buildings and cars from as far as three kilometres away. Until the 1980s asbestos was widely used in many of the processes and as insulation in the building. Asbestos was used to wrap wiring for small electrical products. This asbestos was purchased raw and “carded” to wrap around the wire. Exposure to asbestos was extensive. No precautions were taken in those early years against exposure to the asbestos fibres. There were no stringent protective measures taken against exposures to the many chemicals that were used in the plant. Since the 1980s the union health and safety committee, along with the company have worked to remediate some of the major problems. Although working conditions have improved and exposures have been reduced over the years at these workplaces workers there have had significant exposures to various toxic materials in the past. For more than 100 years, however, people were subject to working conditions that were deplorable and even life threatening. Because workers were suffering terrible illnesses and difficulties, health and safety advocates within the plant began to track the problems and exposures. They kept records on what chemicals were used and where. They also started tracking the people and the illnesses, diseases and causes of death. People were concerned about exposures to such substances as asbestos, arsenic, beryllium, toluene, benzene, epoxy, solvents, PCBs, uranium dioxide, zirconium, acetone, keytone, MOCA, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, nickel, silica, ammonia, mercury, trichloroethylene, and many others. Consistent pressure from the workers led to a company study begun in the 1990s which showed in the first stage an excess of lung cancers. When the study was completed in 2001 it was inconclusive. The workers continued to advocate for more effective action and in 2003 the
|
73
|
union began to work with OHCOW (Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers) to assist them with a health survey of the current workers. The response was not large enough to draw any firm conclusions about current health issues. As a result, the CAW chose to move forward with an occupational disease intake clinic, focusing primarily on the retiree group. Plans were put together over the course of several months and the intake clinic was set for May 6 and 7, 2004. Attending the intake clinic were 675 GE workers, mostly retirees. This was one of the largest occupational intake clinics ever undertaken in Ontario. In addition to filling out medical questionnaires and workplace histories, workers were asked to contribute to a body map (which locates on a body outline the various illnesses that are reported) and a plant map (which locates on a plant map the various chemicals that workers worked with). The Work Has Just Begun Retirees have formed a committee to write up a description of the workplace production. This “exposure profile” will be used by medical pro f e ssionals to determine work relatedness of the various illnesses and by union re p resentatives to present cases to the workers’ compensation system. The long process of scheduling medical appointments and determining whether to file claims has begun. Extensive work has been undertaken to develop an exposure profile, research the hazards, and assess the workers. Initial analysis shows asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancers related to asbestosis. Claims are now being filed on behalf of those workers.
|
74
|
Ventra Plastics
ArvinMeritor Brake Plant By Rick Garant, President, CAW Local 1941
Eighty workers and survivors turned out to the CAW Local 1987 occupational health intake clinic held in Peterborough on June 7, 2004. This represents approximately 20 per cent of the work force. Ventra originally opened as Pebra in the 1980s and though things have improved a lot under new ownership concerns remain high about historic e x p o s u res at the plant. Workers and the union leadership have been concerned for a long time about what appears to be a high number of cancers, reproductive problems and birth defects. All those who attended the clinic will be scheduled for medical assessments with the Toronto OHCOW (Occupational Health Clinic for Ontario Workers) to make a determination as to whether some of these problems are related to the workplace. So far there are two confirmed cases of mesothelioma—a form of lung cancer unique to asbestos exposure.
At ArvinMeritor (formerly known as Rockwell) in Tilbury, Ontario, members of CAW Local 1941 manufacture class 6, 7 & 8 truck brake assemblies. Complete component assemblies are manufactured from stamped and forged materials. Brake shoes are welded, formed, broached and heat treated. Brake linings are riveted to the brake shoes and in some cases were ground down to a specified size. The final assemblies are then line-sequenced and shipped to the various customers. ArvinMeritor has done this for over 40 years. The brake lining material was originally shipped in individual boxes of approximately 25 and eventually arrived in large boxes stacked neatly in rows. Handfuls of linings were grabbed and placed onto a table adjacent to where the riveter stands. Until approximately late 1988 or early 1989, this lining material was asbestos. It has since been replaced by fibreglass brake linings which are still in use today. In the year 2000, I filed the first occupational disease claim for a young worker at ArvinMeritor. Unfortunately, as of January 2005, there are now several occupational disease claims for ArvinMeritor workers. These claims are all primarily for lung cancer. In September 2001, a member of Local 1941 named Wallace (“Wally”) Bennett came into my office with his wife to tell me he had heard of a couple other WSIB claims filed for ArvinMeritor workers and that he had just been diagnosed with lung cancer. He had tumours in his right lung. Wally was 54 years old and had not smoked for over 18 years. He suspected it
Rick Garant.
|
75
|
was related to the workplace. Wally had approximately 17 years of service at the time and had worked with the asbestos brake material. The day Wally and I sat together in my office to p repare, neither of us knew at the time that he was yet to be diagnosed with mesothelioma, a usually fatal asbestos related disease. Wally died in October of 2002 at the young age of 55. Prior to Wally’s death, he took comfort in knowing that his widow would be looked after by the WSIB. His claim had been allowed and he received a NEL award just days before Christmas 2001. He told me he was going out to buy the boat he always wanted. Wally was an avid outdoorsman who bought the boat of his dreams but only got to enjoy it for a short time before he became too ill and subsequently passed away. Since that time, there have been other WSIB. claims at ArvinMeritor, including another mesothelioma claim, which also resulted in a member’s death. ArvinMeritor has certainly cleaned the place up, power-washing the entire plant and painting everything after removing all asbestos. They have been fair and understanding and have not challenged the asbestos related cancer claims, accepting the fact that we worked with this deadly substance while not actually aware of the danger within. The management has worked co-operatively with me, accepting the fact that we must put our best foot forward to deal with our past, not knowing what’s in store for our future. I too am an ArvinMeritor employee who worked hands on with this deadly substance. Today the ArvinMeritor plant is thriving in Tilbury with 350 CAW members employed. By changing to a safer substitute in 1988-9, the company ensured the survival of the plant, unlike the Bendix company in Windsor that refused to change to a safer substitute.
The original Rockwell plant.
|
76
|
Working with Asbestos-based Brakes in Québec These comments on the evolution of the use of asbestos-based brakes are provided by Local 4511, which represents 1,700 CAW members across Québec working in auto dealerships and repair shops. Back in the days when auto repair shops in Québec cleaned asbestos-containing brake shoes there was some awareness about the dangers involved in the work. Nevertheless, brake drums were sanded in the open and air hoses were used for cleaning. Clouds of asbestos dust spread throughout the work area and airborne metal and asbestos fibres accumulated on the ground. Brake mechanics often had chapped hands and the use of gloves was not part of their work habits. With time and as a result of worker demands important changes were introduced to the work. First of all, the brakes arrived in a box, in plastified packages. Brake cleaner was used instead of air hoses and, after having removed the drums, cleaning was done using an external vacuum source. In addition, the use of gloves designed for this type of work was prescribed for these operations. In conclusion, we can say that today part of the problem has been solved due to the use of new brake pads and shoe composites, as well as improvements in work methods. (Asbestos stopped being used in passenger vehicle brakes in Canada in the late 1980s.)
|
77
|
General Motors’ Asbestos Management Program By Dan Boone, CAW National H&S Coordinator for GM GM’s Asbestos Management Program says that GM employees will not undertake any asbestos repair or removal work. This will be contracted out to experienced, pre-approved asbestos abatement contractors. Another section says that general health and safety awareness training including the health effects of asbestos shall be provided to all operational staff working in proximity to asbestos containing materials. I have underlined this because it’s a really important point. This does not distinguish between friable, non-friable, various types of asbestos, or the condition of the asbestos—it simply says asbestos containing materials. The CAW knows that there ’s no proven safe exposure to asbestos. Workers will inadv e rtently drill, cut and otherwise disturb asbestos containing materials in the course of maintenance work and management will not exercise enough diligence in all cases to prevent exposure. When asbestos gets disturbed, workers get exposed to proven deadly fibres! There is only one way to rid workers of potential asbestos exposure and that is to remove it all and safely dispose of it. Here’s a quote from a long time CAW H&S rep at GM. “If we don’t know if it’s asbestos….it is!”
Dan Boone.
|
78
|
Letter from GM of Canada Limited General Motors of Canada Limited 1908 Colonel Sam Drive Oshawa, Ontario L1H 8P7 March 21, 2000 Subject: GMCL Asbestos Use To: D. Boone Cc: B. Bouckley W. Marsh At your request the use of asbestos containing pro ducts in GM of Canada plants has been reviewed. Each location was contacted and the GM of Canada’s Hazardous Materials Database was searched for products that contain asbestos.
|
79
|
Although there are many products on the HM system which contain asbestos, none of them are in active use at this time. No products that contain asbestos that are on the GMCL HM inventory are currently being purchased or used at any location. At this time Windsor Transmission still has some asbestos brake shoes in several of the stamping machines in their Stamping plant. When these shoes need to be replaced they will be changed over to non-asbestos containing shoes. Maintenance supervision is aware of the asbestos shoes and have procedures in place to remove them safely. At the St Catharines Components plant asbestos containing seals are still being used in Heat treat. The plant is currently looking for replacements for these materials. They are also attempting to obtain an MSDS for this gasket type material. This material is not friable and supervision is aware that there is asbestos in the material and that the proper precautions will need to be followed during replacement. It is a GMCL policy that asbestos containing products not be purchased and used at any location. Its use is also prohibited under GMCL Environmental policy. Otto Peter, CIH Administrator, Industrial Hygiene
GM Worker With Mesothelioma Recently a workers’ compensation claim was filed on behalf of a member of Local 199, a GM worker from St. Catharines, who developed mesothelioma after his retirement. He had worked in the brake department during the asbestos brake-lining years. In this department they machined, riveted and assembled asbestos-containing brake shoes. His exposures were quite obvious and re p o rtedly the claim went u n d i sputed by the company. In later years they changed the composition of the brake shoes to a safer alternative that consisted of nut shells and metal, rather than asbestos.
|
80
|
Enzo Mancuso.
Airports and Asbestos Toronto Airport By Ian Bennie, National H&S Coordinator, Local 2002 Asbestos was widely used in buildings for its fireproofing qualities and insulation value. It is still present in many older buildings. For the members of CAW Local 2002 who check you in at the airport or make your telephone reservation on Air Canada or other carriers, the affected buildings we work in are most of the airports within Canada. In one manner or another there is asbestos in airports in Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Sault Ste. Marie, and Halifax, to name a few. The present day Airport Authorities who are responsible for these airports should have an Asbestos Management Program in place, which would control all building maintenance, alteration, repair, or other activities that may disturb the asbestos. In reality, most programs should be renamed the Mismanagement program, because while they are government approved, the nature of these programs follow the concept of the safe-use principle in which the people involved with the asbestos are obliged to follow precautions to reduce asbestos dust exposure during renovations and demolitions. Unfortunately, the renovating, construction or maintenance companies don’t view the danger of asbestos with the same trepidation as we do. Following the rules for dealing with asbestos costs them time, and in their mind, time is their money. Every time they violate safety procedures they endanger the lives of our members due to the loosening of the encapsulated asbestos. Toronto’s Pearson International Airport used asbestos as fireproofing and insulation in the passenger terminals from the late 1930s until 1974. As a result of a lot of concern by the members of CAW Local 2002, an Asbestos Management Program was created. The program included annual surveys of Terminal 1 and 2 to assess the condition of the friable asbestos material. Additionally, any major renovations within the terminal buildings were required to remove asbestos material during the course of construction. Now that the old Terminal One has been destroyed, the remaining asbestos in Terminal Two will remain until 2008, and at that
|
81
|
point all vestiges of the asbestos will be gone. Based on the violations of protocol by the construction and maintenance companies, we have had numerous examples of members exercising the right to refuse. Sometimes it would be a ceiling tile being moved and unknown dust exposing the members to potential dangers. In other situations, the construction companies had been doing work without first checking the asbestos maps. The only safe practice is a policy of zero tolerance, enforced by severe penalties for contraventions. Aside from our airport locations, our airline local has been touched by a tragic asbestos exposure case involving a member at one of our reservation offices. For nearly 30 years our member worked as a reservations agent at the downtown Toronto reservations office. She was exposed to airborne asbestos fibres during renovations and construction phases in the building. She was exposed to an excessive amount of asbestos as a result of a fire in the facility where asbestos insulation rained down on the desks of the workers who were sent back to work without it being properly cleaned up. Air Canada management simply told people to brush off the dust and start working. In 1998, about twenty years after the fire, our member passed away from mesothelioma, the rare cancer most commonly associated with asbestos fibre exposure. After a lengthy appeal process, the WSIB was satisfied that there was a causal relationship and accepted the claim for survivor benefits. She, along with the thousands of other workers who have been affected by asbestos, will be remembered and mourned on April 28th, “The National Day of Mourning.” Vancouver Airport By Pam Taylor, Chair H&S Committee, CAW Local 2002, Vancouver Airport In the fall of 1997, the construction at Vancouver Airport was massive. Everywhere you looked something was being torn down and rebuilt. The airport was a noisy, stinky, dusty and d a n g e rous place to work. Workers started to complain of various symptoms such as rashes, re spiratory problems, and dry, itchy, swollen eyes. In total over 200 WCB claims were filed. Rumour had it that it was asbestos causing all our health problems. The employers and the Airport Authority assured us that asbestos could not be the cause of these illnesses. By this time, the workers really didn’t care what was making them sick, they just knew they were not getting better, so they exercised their right to refuse dangerous work. As the employer could not resolve the issue, HRDC Labour Canada was called in. They immediately ord e red the construction halted, and air and dust samples were taken. The tests revealed many chemicals that alone could cause symptoms, and the synergy of them together made the results much worse. Two of the bulk samples taken from an area that was being demolished, where the workers were most affected, contained asbestos. There was a nearby asbestos removal project in the area, but since it was being done under strict WCB regulations by a reputable remediation firm, it was not likely it was the source of the asbestos. Labour Canada asked the airport to see the maps of the asbestos containing areas. The demolition area was shown to be asbestos free. However, further testing of
|
82
|
the concrete in the demolition area confirmed it did indeed contain asbestos. Also, asbestos insulation was found around the plumbing pipes. Labour Canada wrote Directions to both the employer at that time, Canadian Airlines, and the Vancouver Airport Authority. They directed that any construction in the domestic terminal must first have the area surveyed for asbestos. The airport authority had to come up with an asbestos plan. This was very costly for the airport, as the entire domestic terminal had to be surveyed and mapped. The H&S Committees kept pushing the authority, and now a plan exists, which includes a binder containing the constru ction protocols, maps of the entire airport, with the locations of asbestos marked, labeling of any asbestos, an orientation video for employees new to the airport, ongoing surveillance and removal. Throughout, we were the watchdogs and two of us from the CAW were on full time, paid for by the employer, for a long time monitoring the construction and asbestos removal program. The airport is now 90% free of asbestos, with existing asbestos scheduled for removal over the next few years.
Susan Stout and Pam Taylor.
|
83
|
Fighting back with work refusals and using the existing regulations, can really make a difference in the workplace. We were proud we protected not just our members, but members of the public as well. Not only were we able to get the Asbestos Management Plan in place, but also a Construction Protocol that regulates how construction will be done in the airport when workers and public are present. Noisy, dirty work must be performed at night and behind walls to keep it out of our workplace. Through our highlighted presence during the construction crisis, we were able to bring other issues forward such as Indoor Air Quality and Ergonomics. The Airport Authority now involves the H&S Committees in any new construction or renovations at the Airport. The plan is in place and has been working well, however it will not be over until the airport is 100% asbestos free. One of the most important outcomes of all of this activity has been the recognition by the membership that when they support their health and safety reps, the most amazing things can be accomplished.
|
84
|
Health and Safety Committees must continue the push for removal under proper proc edures and urge their unions to lobby the Canadian Government to e n s u re the removal of all asbestos in Canadian workplaces and to put an end to asbestos mining. Halifax Airport All renovations at Halifax airport were stopped following an emergency meeting on April 23, 1987 called by CAW airline local representative Marlene Wentzell to deal with the possibility of widespread airport asbestos contamination. In attendance at the meeting were officials from the airline local, Air Canada, Ministry of Transport (MOT), Labour Canada, Health and Welfare Canada and the RCMP. Responding to members’ concerns about ceiling tile renovations, the CAW airline local had dust and debris analyzed. It was confirmed to contain asbestos. The MOT was asked not to disturb the ceiling tiles but workers re p o rting for duty in the morning found their work s t ations c o v e red with thick layers of dust and debris. Union members and passengers complained of throat irritation and breathing difficulties. The MOT repeatedly denied asbestos was a p ro blem. Labour Canada finally called a halt to the work but the debris remained. Repeated efforts by CAW Health and Safety Coordinator for Air Canada, Enzo Mancuso, resulted in a proper cleaning of the work areas using proper asbestos removal procedures.
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace vs. CAW Local 1967 Members of CAW Local 1967 employed at the McDonnell Douglas Aerospace plant in Toronto were concerned about the presence of asbestos in putty which had a variety of uses as a caulking and gasketing compound. The union members of the joint health and safety committee raised it with the employer in May 1989 and it was tested and confirmed to contain asbestos in November. The union insisted that wherever the putty was found in the workplace it should be noted as part of the asbestos inventory. The employer refused, saying that it was not friable (crumbly to hand pressure). In August 1991, an Ontario Ministry of Labour inspector visited the plant and issued an order saying that the employer must "prepare and maintain on the premises a record of the location of the friable material" as required by the asbestos regulation. The employer appealed to the Adjudicator. The union, ably represented before the Adjudicator by then-President of CAW Local 1967, Nick De Carlo, now national re p resentative with the CAW Health and Safety D e p a rtment, argued that the word friable meant “able to become dry and crumbly” and that
|
85
|
there f o re any asbestos material that was able to d ry out and crumble was by definition friable and c o v e red by regulation. CAW Local 1967 health and safety representative Dennis Jordan testified that, though the putty was initially soft and plia b l e , he found that it had dried out and was crumbly. As well, the manufacturer of the putty said to a witness that it would probably dry out in 15 to 20 years. The employer’s witnesses testified that 800 pounds of putty were used in the plant each year by maintenance workers. The Adjudicator agreed with the union and re-issued the order on January 15, 1992, compelling the employer to prepare and maintain a record of all locations of the asbestos-containing putty in the plant.
Nick De Carlo.
Death in the Shipyards, Atlantic Canada Brother Wayne Butler from the Marine Workers’ Federation (part of the CAW) in Newfoundland did an outstanding job in 1999 explaining the health hazards suffered by the workers in the shipyards in Newfoundland during a presentation to then Newfoundland Minister of Environment and Labour Oliver Langdon. Brother Butler explained that his m e mbers were exposed, with virtually no protection, to asbestos, welding fumes, metalworking fluids, PCBs and a variety of other carcinogens from the time the Marystown Shipyard opened in 1967 to 1988, the year WHMIS (Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, workers’ right to know) became law. Brother Butler compiled a list of 25 members employed after 1977 (taking into account a 10 year latency period) who have died from cancer. A number of others are ill with the disease. These shipyard workers had to cut asbestos panels and asbestos lagging around pipes with saws in confined areas throughout ships. The asbestos was also broken using hammers, axes, or other tools. Brother Butler explained, “This work took place in confined spaces such as the engine room with piles of asbestos thrown or piled everywhere and at times employees were up to their knees in asbestos, with clouds of white asbestos dust power all around.” His submission to the Minister explained, “Looking from the outside in, one would not be able to
|
86
|
see through much of the interior of the ship for the asbestos dust fibres in the air. Employees were subjected to these conditions and airborne fibres on a continuous basis while the ships were being constru c ted. Although work was not continuous w i t h asbestos, the fibres were never pro perly cleaned up and any and all activities made the fibres airborne so employees were continuously exposed.” There were no dust extraction systems for removing the dust. Workers were offered only ineffective dust masks for protection. Wayne says, “It was common practice for workers to return to their lunch room or change room covered with dust particles.” In his submission to the Minister, B rother Butler made the chilling statement, “It was always accepted as a reality of life and never as the horrible, truthful fact that our workplace and working conditions were killing us and we had no way of knowing the difference.” Particularly moving speeches were given by the delegates from Atlantic Canada to the December 1998 CAW Council meeting about exposures to asbestos among their members in the shipyard industry. Shipyard worker representatives Les Holloway and Wayne Butler explained in graphic and horrifying detail the exposure of their members in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland to asbestos which was used to insulate ships as late as 1982, all of which was installed with no protection for the workers. Brother Holloway emphasized the need to express solidarity with our brothers and sisters
|
around the world who today are exposed to these same carcinogens with no protection, just as Canadian workers used to be. Brother Butler continues to argue for justice in the workers’ compensation system for the workers who have died of cancer or have cancer from their work in the Newfoundland shipyards. And he continues to insist on safe protection for those workers who are now exposed to asbestos and other carcinogens when they are repairing ships.
Marystown Shipyard, Newfoundland.
87
|
Asbestos in Health Care Facilities By Harold Shore, OH&S Coordinator, CAW Local 2458 Does it still exist? Yes. It exists in our older hospitals, nursing homes, homes for the aged and shelters, depending on what remediation measures have taken place, if any. In older facilities asbestos was used on the building structure as fire protection and throughout the building as insulation on heating and cooling pipe work. Asbestos tiles were used as a durable floor covering and in some facilities asbestos ceiling tiles were used. The c e i ling tiles were twelve inch square tiles with holes in them like peg board, usually screwed to a metal frame-work above. The difference between asbestos found around pipes in factories compared with health care facilities is that in factories the pipe work is primarily exposed, whereas in health care it is behind ceilings and walls. As well, in mechanical service areas in health care it is exposed. In large hospitals and nursing facilities ceiling spaces may have been used for the ventilation return air. If maintenance personnel disturbed the asbestos it would become airborne and travel through the ceiling space to the mechanical ventilation system equipment, which is generally equipped with filters. If the filters failed for any reason the asbestos fibres could be injected into the occupied space through the supply air. The purpose of the filters was not to remove airborne asbestos but normal airborne particles so the filters may not have been suff icient to remove tiny asbestos fibres. The Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital in Windsor, Ontario, a four hundred bed acute care facility, embarked on a major asbestos remediation project in about 1996. The intent was to remove all asbestos from ceiling spaces, mechanical rooms and areas where it was accessible. After the project was completed it left asbestos only inside walls. An updated asbestos policy was put into place and maintenance staff were trained in asbestos recognition. If they are opening a wall and it appears pipe work has asbestos, work is to stop immediately. It is reported to management who call in a qualified contractor for testing and removal of the material. The wall is sealed with plastic until the contractor arrives. Privately owned nursing facilities, homes for the aged, etc. may have asbestos which the owner is reluctant to remove. Since the choice is asbestos removal or profit, we know what will win out. Asbestos should not just be identified and encapsulated, it should be removed. We must place pressure on the provincial governments for funds to remove all asbestos in all health care facilities, not just to protect our members but for those we are taking care of.
|
88
|
Telecommunications Worker with Lung Cancer Unitel Communications was once part of CN/CP Telecommunications. The union re presenting the workers merged with the CAW and is now CAW Local 2000. A worker, Brother Donald D started with the telecommunications firm in 1947 and retired in 1988 after 41 years of service. He became a roving electronics technician servicing the company’s equipment at various locations throughout southwestern Ontario. From 1966 on, he was based in Windsor on Caron Avenue. Donald worked in a battery room, rectifier room, a heating and cooling room and an air filtration room, all of which had ceilings covered with an asbestos material Asbestos in Manitoba that generated a lot of fibrous dust. As well as asbestos dust, Donald had been exposed to Claims have been made to the sulphuric acid mist from the batteries. He Manitoba Workers’ Compensation Board for contracted lung cancer and filed a WCB people harmed by asbestos. One died of lung claim in 1992. The WCB initially denied the cancer after years of installing asbestosclaim and the employer also argued against cement pipe for the city of Winnipeg. accepting the claim. Donald appealed with Another had extensive surgery after years of the support of his union. Dr. Abe Reinhartz, working at Asbestonos, a small brake-lining an occupational health physician from the plant where asbestos is found in car brake Occupational Health Clinic for Ontario shoes under repair. A secretary at the same Workers was called as a witness in the appeal plant, whose desk was an open-door away and gave evidence supporting Donald’s from the shop, died of throat cancer, said appeal. Cecile Cassista, CAW national representaComplaints over the years about the tive, but the secretary did not file a WCB amount of dust in the workplace resulted in, claim. The plant has since closed. finally, a visit by the Ministry of Labour inspector in 1987. After Donald retired, the MOL ordered the employer to paint the University of Manitoba—A c e i lings to encapsulate the asbestos. The Nightmare Waiting to hearings officer who decided the WCB appeal Happen? in Donald’s favour said, “And by that time By Darren James, CAW Council Mr. D had worked under those ceilings for 21 H&S Committee years!” The WCB appeal was decided in 1994 in Donald’s favour. In 1992, Canadian Auto Workers members from Local 3007 began to ask their employer at the University of Manitoba about suspicions they had about asbestos in their workplaces. The employer’s health and safety office emphatically assured our
|
89
|
members that all asbestos containing materials (ACMs) were properly encased everywhere on campus and even wrote a letter to the union restating that claim. The university’s claim fell on deaf ears. Our members, mostly skilled trades people in the maintenance departments throughout the campus, knew from experience that there was a problem and relentlessly kept asking questions. It turns out that their suspicions were correct. In 2001, at the insistence of the workers, a local independent asbestos remediation company investigated and found friable ACMs in many locations. From stores and warehouses to lunchrooms and even in gymnasiums where balls would frequently disrupt the friable material and asbestos would rain down on the students; no one was immune from these exposures. Manitoba Workplace Safety and Health ordered the worst situations closed until the asbestos could be removed, but this was only in areas where the asbestos was practically crumbling from its own degraded condition. At about this time news came to light of professors at the University of Manitoba having mesothelioma, a cancer directly related to asbestos exposure. Two of the p rofessors, Dr. William Morgan and Dr. John Matthiasson, both from the Anthropology Department, died of the cancer. Since our concerns were substantiated there have been some cases of our union’s members developing asbestosis. Manitoba’s asbestos regulation does not, in many people’s opinion, have any teeth. It allows for an employer or building owner to work with materials with a “low potential for exposures” until they get around to removing them. In other words, wait until it starts raining asbestos and then remove it, and only if they are forced to. It’s the proactive versus reactive argument and science proves that it results in sickness and death.
|
90
|
Ken Francey, President of Local 3007 says that the situation is dire; his members are being exposed every day. He is fearful of the possible links between diseases his members are fighting and their workplace. The reality of the nightmare for Ken and his members is that no one seems to want to help. Ken was told that a request made to the Province by the University for the funds to do a full removal of all ACMs was denied. It was just too expensive. Instead, reactive and completely inadequate control measures were put in place to try to minimize exposures. He spoke of one system that puts a tiny red dot on the outside of a door leading to a known asbestos exposure area. On the inside of the door is the actual written warning about the presence of asbestos, but if you can read it, you’re already exposed. The University feels this is an adequate way to make workers aware “without alarming the students”. Many things need to happen for the workers and students at the U of M. First, it must become the highest priority for the Government of Manitoba to provide the funding to have all ACMs removed from the campus immediately. Second, there must be more training in the identification and remediation of asbestos for all CAW members at the U of M to pre v e n t continued needless exposures. They also need full and proper identification of all ACMs t h rough joint union-management audits of the buildings on campus. The workers and the students have a right to know about hazards and full identification should be automatic. It’s been a long and frustrating road for the members of Local 3007, but they clearly deserve a lot of credit. It was their insistence that something big was wrong and their demands for a third party investigation into the presence of ACMs that brought the issue to light. They have made sure that all personnel who work to remediate the severe problem areas are fully trained and protected and negotiated that the CAW signs off on all jobs before they are declared finished. The CAW standard is the law. These are successes in the presence of extreme adversity that the members of Local 3007 should be very proud of and must be applauded for. CAW skilled trades are working very hard to protect not only themselves, but also the students and faculty of the U of M. Thanks to Ken Francey, President Local 3007, and Rick Charette and Reid Dewbury, CAW worker health and safety committee members and the CAUT health and safety director, Laura Lozanski, for their contributions. (Our CAW health and safety department has been working with the university professors’ union, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) to try to address the pro blems arising from asbestos found on university and college campuses across the country.)
|
91
|
Left to right: Joe Calleja, Ed Gunness, Gary Grant, Evan Wilson, Stephen Moses, Wayne Morris.
Zeller’s Warehouse The Hudson’s Bay Company decided to sell its Zeller’s Wa rehouse in To ronto in 2004 and then lease it back. In order to sell buildings today, real estate companies demand that an asbestos inspection be done. In the spring, an asbestos inspection was done by a consultant who found asbestos around pipe elbows and in the boiler room, in vinyl floor tiles and possibly in chalk boards. The company did not share the information with the union or the health and safety committee. The President of Local 1000, Dwayne Eddie Gunness, however, got wind of the asbestos in the warehouse. Concerned about his 450 members employed there, Brother Gunness asked for the report and persisted over a number of months until it was finally turned over to the union in the fall. The report recommended damaged asbestos on pipes be addressed in accordance with Ontario regulations. The company had done nothing until the union read it. Embarrassed with the insistence of Brother Gunness, Chief Shop Steward Stephen Moses and the health and safety committee, the company agreed to immediately hire an asbestos removal firm to repair the damage and another firm to develop an asbestos management plan. The joint health and safety committee had full input into the plan. As well, the company agreed to call meetings for everyone on each of the three shifts at which the company and the union had equal time to address the asbestos issue and answer questions from the membership. Educational sessions on asbestos were held by the asbestos consultant and the union for the joint health and safety committee and senior management. All maintenance workers part i c i p a ted in the same four hour joint presentation on February 5, 2005.
|
92
|
Bus Mechanics Protect Themselves and the Public Because of concerns about exposure to asbestos, the Independent Canadian Transit Union was successful in having the Gordon Grinder (a machine used to grind brake linings) removed from use in the bus garages in the Vancouver bus system i n 1983. This ultimately led to the company purc h a sing only asbestos-free brake linings for the bus fleet and limiting the use of other asbestos products. Through mergers, these workers are now members of the CAW. Their concern led to improved working conditions for their members and improved enviro nmental conditions for bus passengers.
Freightliner: insulation falling out.
Freightliner— Asbestos Insulation In 1978, the former Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Freightliner: intact but not contained Workers union (CAIMAW), asbestos insulation. which merged with the CAW in 1992, held a health and safety seminar in Vancouver in which asbestos was one of the topics. Derek Todd, health and safety representative for the 500 Freightliner truck plant workers in Burnaby, returned to his plant d e t e rmined to use the knowledge he’d learned to make the workplace safer. Freightliner workers had seen asbestos insulation from the ceiling fall down on the floor and Derek was concerned about the exposures. Brother Todd raised the issue of asbestos exposure repeatedly within the health and safety committee meetings but the company would not address the issue satisfactorily. Brother Todd next called in the Workers’ Compensation Board who conducted an inspection on January 11, 1979. The inspector found the presence of asbestos at levels well below the legal
|
93
|
limit and issued no orders for asbestos removal, but instead issued three orders which required safe handling and safe clean-up. But Brother Todd didn’t give up. He began writing letters to Freightliner management, providing extensive information about the dangers of asbestos and challenged the basis of the WCB regulation. Derek asserted asbestos was a high risk substance and that action needed to be taken, despite the relatively low exposures. Here is an excerpt from one letter written on August 11, 1981 to the company: “In conclusion, there is evidence of asbestos dust in the plant. This dust is ubiquitous and insidious even though it exists in low concentrations. The job of cleaning it out and of removing the deteriorating insulation is a one-shot proposition and a one-time expense. I hope that I have demonstrated that the problem is serious and that the expense should be seriously considered.” The company still refused to act, not even agreeing to encapsulate the deteriorating insulation. But still Brother Todd persisted, badgering them and the WCB with thoughtful, w e l l - a rgued letters and documents. Finally, in 1982, the WCB came in again. At that time, c rocidolite asbestos was considered more hazardous than other forms of asbestos (today the legal limit is the same for all forms of asbestos in BC) and since it was determined that the asbestos was in part crocidolite asbestos, the WCB occupational hygienist, Don Ward, took a courageous stand and issued four orders. Throughout the more than three year effort, Brother Todd made sure the membership was fully informed through leaflets, articles in the local newsletter and reports at membership meetings. This leaflet in day-glo orange was issued by Brother Todd to the membership on April 19, 1982: “WCB Orders Removal Of Asbestos Insulation “On April 13, 1982 the Workers’ Compensation Board issued four compliance orders (orders requiring that the company perform specific actions) concerning the asbestos-based insulation which is deteriorating over Cab Final, the Print Shop and parts of Rough Cab. The first of these orders requires removal of the insulation from the ceiling and the other orders pertain to clean-up of fallen insulation and give a deadline for the company to respond. The orders are posted outside the First Aid Room and everyone is encouraged to examine them. This is a courageous step for the Workers’ Compensation Board and the result of at least three years of effort on the part of the Union.” The company complied with the orders. The asbestos removal took several weeks during which time the plant was shut down due to shortage of truck orders. Brother Todd continued to lobby the WCB to lower the legal exposure limits in BC and today, as a result of his efforts and those of many others, they are 20 times more stringent than they were in 1982. Although the Burnaby plant subsequently closed, Freightliner opened a plant in St. Thomas, Ontario, now called Sterling Truck, which is now CAW Local 1001.
|
94
|
Work Refusal at Arrow Transport Arrow Transport had a long-term contract with Cassiar Asbestos to haul asbestos from its mine in northern BC to North Vancouver. Damaged containers were repaired at Arrow’s Vancouver maintenance shop on the graveyard shift and “B train” vans were also serviced there. (Through union mergers, Arrow workers eventually became members of CAW Local 114.) The welder doing container repair, Dave Bostock, noticed that the floor of the container he was working on was littered with what appeared to be asbestos. He drew the shop steward’s attention to the material and an inspection by the Workers’ Compensation Board was requested. The WCB occupational hygiene inspector took samples from several containers, “B train” vans, dust from the shop floor, and air samples near a mechanic performing a brake re-line. The material from the container floor proved to be 100% asbestos. Also, airborne asbestos fibres around the brake job were found to be 0.5 fibres/cc, one-half of the then-legal maximum. Workers at the shop refused to perform further work on the B trains and containers until the problem was dealt with. The company immediately requested a meeting with the union. National representatives Cathy Walker and Pete Smith and shop steward Roy Cabot met with the company and presented a position to the company on a procedure for the resumption of work. The company agreed to the following: in future, all containers sent for repair and all B trains must be cleaned out properly and be inspected at Arrow before any work would commence. If any asbestos contamination was found, the B train or container would be closed up and returned to Cassiar in North Vancouver for de-contamination and safe disposal of the asbestos. On the issue of asbestos-containing brake shoes, it was pointed out to the company that while airborne concentrations of asbestos fibres were still below the maximum allowable, they represented a real health hazard. The union noted that plans were underway to lower by half the legal airborne asbestos fibre standard and that asbestos-containing brake shoes would be banned in the US after January 1988. The company agreed to begin using non-asbestos brake shoes immediately. Also, it was agreed that the dust in the wash-bay was to be periodically tested. The union proposed that during working hours a film presentation of the British film Alice: A Fight for Life and a discussion of the hazards of asbestos would be conducted by the union and the company agreed.
|
95
|
As it turned out, non-asbestos brake shoes were cheaper and the company was quite happy with them. Brother Bostock noted, “In the last analysis, our only protection from this and other health and safety hazards on the job lies in a well-educated workforce who are well aware of the hazards around them and are willing to stand up and refuse to perform hazardous work. After all, any negotiated or legislated solution is ultimately policed by the worker.” Brother Bostock passed away from stomach cancer on March 8, 1991.
Cancers at Alcan Smelter, Kitimat, B.C. Workers at the Alcan Aluminum Smelter in Kitimat, British Columbia, have suffered from many occupational diseases, including those caused by asbestos. Here is a list from Local 2301 of successful WCB claims re l a ted to asbestos: 1986, Millwright, mesothelioma caused by asbestos 1990, Cell operator, mesothelioma caused by asbestos 1991, Potroom worker, mesothelioma caused by asbestos 1992, Serviceman, lung cancer caused by asbestos 1997, Carpenter, mesothelioma caused by asbestos
Alcan Vaudreuil, Jonquière, Québec The 1,050 members of the Syndicat National des Employés(es) d’Aluminum d’Arvida, Local 1937, part of TCA Québec are as concerned about asbestos exposure as their counterparts on the west coast in Kitimat, British Columbia, who are also employed by Alcan at their aluminum smelter. During the 1990s, the health and safety committee at the Alcan Vaudreuil Complexe J o n q u i è re began to evaluate the risks of asbestos exposure and to ensure that asbestos abatement was considered. They evaluated the risks of asbestos by identifying jobs and activities where the risk of exposure was elevated. They evaluated which workers were affected, completed an inventory of asbestos-containing material and developed an ongoing plan. The health and safety committee began the asbestos abatement program by gathering information on asbestos and had discussions with professionals at the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CSST) in charge of pro jects and prevention. They analyzed the nature of the type of asbestos found in the workplace. Then they set out to identify a company to remove the asbestos. Identifying a protocol for medical surveillance was next, as well as p e r iodical medical follow-up.
|
96
|
By the end of the 1990s a report on the current state of asbestos at the Alcan facility was developed and submitted to the CSST. During the past several years there has been an assessment by an independent firm concerning asbestos at the Jonquière facility. The firm was given a mandate to remove asbestos or encapsulate it and determine the condition of friable and non-friable asbestos containing material. A fourteen page re p o rt with recommendations was submitted by the firm to the c o mpany and the health and safety committee. Workers at the Vaudreuil facility are exposed to different levels of asbestos but only a few exposures have been higher than the legal limit established by the Québec government. The main groups of workers exposed are operators, service employees and maintenance employees, including mechanics, electricians, stationary engineers and garage mechanics. The consulting firm found 220 areas in the asbestos inventory in which it was decomposing. These areas were classified as having light exposure, moderate exposure and elevated e x p osure. A work plan was developed which included asbestos abatement, an information plan and medical follow-up. The firm found that a number of different sites were in mediocre shape and that some required repairs and/or removal of asbestos to ensure dust would not become airborne. The firm recommended that Alcan begin an asbestos abatement program, despite the lack of re q u i rements in Québec legislation requiring its removal. The firm recommended that Alcan employees be trained in safe asbestos abatement and that for major repairs an asbestos abatement specialist firm be hired. As well, if there was to be any major demolition, the firm recommended that Alcan go to an asbestos abatement program prior to the demolition. The final recommendation called for establishing an airborne asbestos testing protocol. An example of one type of equipment with asbestos is the boilers in the heating system. Their asbestos is 25% to 75% chrysotile asbestos. In 1999 they were identified in the asbestos registry. In 2004 there were still some areas in which it had not yet been possible to correct the
|
97
|
p roblem at its source. Consequently, a program of personal protective equipment was developed in which workers exposed would wear masks and disposable coveralls. Asbestos insulation is being replaced with fibreglass insulation as a permanent solution. Temporarily, the asbestos insulation is being covered with textile Yellow Jackets and strapping. In terms of new materials being purchased, there is a great deal of effort being made to abolish the purchase of any asbestos products and to find non-asbestos based products to replace them. Since 1990, there have been about 8 claims for asbestos-caused occupational disease submitted to the CSST. In November 2004 four claims for asbestos-caused lung cancer were accepted by the CSST.
William McKeachnie.
Canadian Pacific Railway Carperson—Sudbury, Ontario December 2004 My name is William McKeachnie and I have been employed with Canadian Pacific Railway as a carperson for the last thirty-six years. I am a member of CAW Local 101, Lodge 187 here in Sudbury, Ontario. I originally hired on in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, in 1969 but due to downsizing I had to relocate to Sudbury in 1982 in order to continue my employment with the company. In my early career I routinely worked with asbestos in many diff e re n t a p p l ications. Some of these different applications were applying asbestos as pipe wrap on steam lines on boilers, steam cranes and auxiliary equipment and on Budd cars. We also used to repair the asbestos jackets on Volcano Boilers as was required, almost annually. These boilers were used to heat the Car and Locomotive Shops and some equipment stored outside. Besides the asbestos used to insulate steam or heating pipes there were many other applications where
|
98
|
asbestos gaskets were used on railway equipment itself. An example of what we did with the asbestos was mixing the powered asbestos that came in about 50 lb. bags with a paste and water so that we could apply it with a trowel, like mortar, to the outside of the boiler jacket and elbows etc. and then covered it with a canvas type material. While perf o rming all these diff e rent jobs with the asbestos never did anyone say that it was dangerous or hazardous to your health. The Locomotive and Carshops in both Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury had excessive amounts of asbestos used to insulate piping and eventually an Asbestos Abatement Program was carried out to rid our workplace of same. Throughout the CP Rail system, the company has been working on a removal program for the past 10-12 years on all pipes in buildings and locomotives. They completed removing asbestos from all heating boilers during the summer of 2004. When I received information about asbestos spots on my lungs, called pleural plaques, we performed an inspection of the workplace and did in fact discover some old asbestos tank car gaskets. These were filmed and then properly disposed of by our supervisor. This whole asbestos issue came to light due to a CT Scan I was given to try to determine what material I had been exposed to that caused me to be very ill, damaged my lungs, and put me off work for four months. Some unknown chemical was found in a rail car I was working on and I became very ill. Three other co-workers suffered mild reactions to what I was exposed to but I was totally disabled, hospitalized for two days and put on oxygen and steroids and had to take time off. The illness affected my breathing ability and also my heart rate. The Company would not acknowledge the exposure to the unknown chemical and only took an accident report from myself after I had been hospitalized. To this date they have still not taken reports from the three other employees. The WSIB has rejected the claim, as they always do, regardless of the facts, and we are now in the second appeal process to try to recover earnings lost on account of the exposure to the unknown material dumped into the railcar. The CAW S&H representative at this location advised the company that employees had been exposed to some unknown contaminant and samples had been taken and should have been sent for analysis. The local manager decided to do nothing and acknowledge nothing. I lost four months wages. Due to the testing I underwent for the acute exposure to the chemical in the railcar, I have been advised I have three asbestos spots (pleural plaques) in my lungs. The doctor advised me that he believed it to be from an exposure about twenty-five years previously. I was issued a claim number for my first claim for the chemical exposure and upon discovery of the asbestos spots the WSIB issued me with a second claim number for the asbestos exposure. I am really concerned about the spots on my lungs and I am seriously concerned that I will be hung out to d ry by both the WSIB and the CPR as they have not yet reached a decision on my exposure to asbestos. The WSIB investigator was advised by retired supervisors in Sault Ste. Marie that we did in fact use a lot of asbestos in different types of jobs and applications. The fact that I have asbestos spots on my lungs has me really concerned as upon my death my pension would be cut
|
99
|
in half for my wife and family and my early demise would place undue hardships on my wife and family. Thank you for your interest and concern for helping to address the asbestos issue.
considered as unsafe and that the company acted improperly in sending them home and denying them their salary. The employees cited as a reason that they were not satisfied the area was yet safe, and asked to be assigned other work. The union further contended that the employees were improperly treated in a disciplinary fashion. The union requested that the employees be compensated for their lost salary. Arbitrator M.G. Picher ruled in favour of the workers in the following judgment: “In all of the circumstances I am satisfied that they had reasonable grounds for the action which they took, and that the decision of the company's officers to hold them out of service was, at the time it was taken, a disciplinary response to what was perceived as their insubordination and unjustified refusal to work. For the reasons canvassed above, I am satisfied that the company did not have just cause for that conclusion. It is further clear that there was alternative work available for at least a substantial number of the employees involved. “For all these reasons the grievance must be allowed. The Arbitrator orders that the grievors be compensated forthwith for the loss of wages and benefits sustained by virtue of their being held out of service on March 25 and 26, 1986.”
Rail Workers Refuse in the Ogden Yards, Calgary, Alberta The following are excerpts from an arbitration decision by M.G. Picher On March 24, 1986, at approximately 11:30 a.m., some asbestos insulation was uncovered in the Wheel Shop locker room at Ogden Shops of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Calgary. Work was halted in the Wheel Shop and a clean-up of the asbestos insulation was initiated. At the same time, Labour Canada was requested to inspect the worksite. On the morning of March 25, 1986, 36 employees represented by the IAM & AW (these shop craft workers are now part of the CAW) regularly assigned to the Wheel Shop on the day shift, were instructed to go to the affected area and participate in the clean-up operation. They declined. They were sent home for 12 hours. The union claimed that the employees in question were justified in declining to work in an area which they
|
100
|
VIA Rail Building by Ken Cameron, CAW VIA Rail National H&S Coordinator On Sunday, February 4, 2001, the old VIA Rail train terminal in London, Ontario, was demolished by implosion, the button pushed by the local winner of the KABOOM! Contest. It took ten minutes for the dust to settle. On the following day asbestos-containing material was detected in the debris of the demolished building and reported to VIA Rail. During the following week, the railway conducted air and dust collection sampling for asbestos fibres. None of this information was made available to employees, safety committee members or the general public who had come to witness the event. The London Free Press, on Saturday, February 17, 2001, in its lead story, profiled the issue of asbestos being present in the debris of the demolished building. That same evening three station employees of VIA Rail—Bill Prest, Susan Gillick and Kristin Beer, members of CAW National Rail Council 4000—refused to work due to their concern that asbestos fibres could migrate from the demolished building next door into their current work place through the ambient air or ventilation system. In the course of his investigation, the HRDC Labour Canada Safety Officer obtained detailed industrial hygiene test results from VIA Rail indicating no airborne asbestos hazards. He determined that the employer had not been communicating this legally required health and safety information to the workers and their representatives. VIA Rail had failed to inform employees of known hazards and of the measures it would take to eliminate them. If the employer had shared their information from the start, these work refusals would have been unnecessary, he said. VIA Rail was directed to terminate the contraventions immediately. Construction workers were then protected by the actions of the provincial government’s health and safety inspectors who required the area to be wetted down before the asbestosc o ntaining material was handled and disposed of.
Vancouver Planetarium Asbestos Removal In 1981 the members of the Vancouver Municipal and Regional Employees’ Union became concerned about asbestos from the ceiling of the Vancouver Planetarium becoming dislodged by workers entering the confined area between the roof and the projection screen and by a botched attempt at removing part of the insulation. This led to one of the first orders in Canada to completely remove the asbestos-containing insulation, an order by the WCB occupational hygiene inspector that the City unsuccessfully tried to appeal.
|
101
|
The massive removal project cost in the order of $500,000. The planning process for the removal involved a union-management asbestos committee at which workers’ concerns were presented and, in most cases, answered. Continuous fibre monitoring and a negativepressure, sealed removal area ensured planetarium workers were not exposed during the removal process. Removing the asbestos safely p rotected not just the union members, but also members of the p u blic.
24 Workers Dead from Asbestos in Alberta In just one year, 1997, the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board compensated 34 occupational disease fatalities. Of those, 24 were for fatal diseases related to asbestos exposure. Here is a summary of the fatalities published by the Alberta government in their Occupational Health & Safety magazine: Stanislaw W. died at 64 of mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as an insulator. John W. died at 67 of respiratory failure. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as an insulator in industrial plant maintenance. Donald B. died at 58 of asbestosis. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as a field superintendent in the siding business. William C. died at 74 of bronchogenic carcinoma related to asbestos exposure. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as an insulator. George D. died at 67 of mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as a sheet-metal worker. Wallace M. died at 59 of mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as an electrician in the federal civil service. James S. died at 57 of mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres during his employment as a pipefitter.
|
102
|
Conrad S. died at 63 of carcinoma of the lung. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as an insulator. Robert P. died at 61 of mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos while employed as a brake mechanic in a tire repair shop. Patrick H. died at 63 of mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as a driver in the trucking industry. John M. died at 64 of mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as a boilermaker in the plant maintenance industry. James E. died at 61 of mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as a plumber for an electrical power utility. Peter R. died at 74 of asbestosis. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as a brake-shoe mechanic. John S. died at 69 of mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as a bricklayer. Robert G. died at 56 of mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as car inspector for a rail transportation service. Joseph M. died at 84 of mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as a carpenter in industrial construction. Frederick V. died at 51 of malignant mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed by an electrical utility company as a millwright. Edward B. died at 80 of malignant mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as a boiler inspector. Norman N. died at 69 of mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as an insulator in industrial construction. Andrew M. died at 61 of pleural parenchymal disease. He was exposed to asbestos fibres and toxic fumes while employed as a tile setter. Gordon A. died at 63 of mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as a plant maintenance worker. Cameron J. died at 55 of malignant mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed in electrical maintenance for the oil and gas pipeline industry. Harold B. died at 71 of mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as an operator for oil and gas wells. Paul E. died at 68 of mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos fibres while employed as a pipelayer of water and sewer lines. Alberta Mesothelioma Cases All Dead from Asbestos Exposure Until recently Alberta led the pack among Canadian Workers’ Compensation Boards in compensating the families of workers who have died of mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a cancer
|
103
|
of the lining of the lung or abdomen. Once it begins, the tumour grows quickly, crushing the life out of its victims. It is a disease always associated with exposure to asbestos. From November 1998 to February 1999, the WCB accepted 17 mesothelioma claims. They included insulators, electricians, a painter, a drywaller, a labourer, plumbers, mechanics, maintenance workers and bricklayers. They were exposed to asbestos insulation from spraying asbestos, from old asbestos insulation which became crumbly and airborne, from asbestos insulation around boilers and pipes, and from asbestos sheets and asbestos cement. Today, all are dead.
Asbestos in the Home Excerpt from Winnipeg Free Press article, 1987, by Barbara Robson When John and Barbara Bandor decided to replace the old linoleum in their Portage la Prairie home, they thought that they would be improving the resale value of their house. Instead, the simple home improvement project turned into a nightmare. Asbestos dust from the old kitchen and bathroom flooring filled their house and forced them to flee it for a month. The contractor who installed the new flooring, sanded the old surfaces rather than adding a layer of plywood before laying down the new covering. When the dust that filled the Bandors’ house was tested by a provincial lab, it was found to be 30 per cent asbestos. The house was quarantined, the Bandors moved out, and a clean-up crew wore pro t e ctive suits and respirators while vacuuming the dust. Weeks passed before the Bandors and their young son and daughter could return home. The old flooring in the Bandor house was just one of an e s t imated 3,000 consumer, construction or industrial asbestos-containing products manufactured in North America for decades. Canada’s asbestos has been used to make everything from insulation and water pipe to heat shields in
|
104
|
hair dryers and toasters. In many homes, asbestos can be found between walls, in plaster, in wrapping around old pipes or furnaces or in vinyl-flooring floor tiles, sheet flooring or the backing of those products. In the early 1970s, while doctors were counting the death toll from asbestos, University of Manitoba physics professor Francis Konopasek was in his lab looking at asbestos in baby powder. He found one brand contained a lot of it and he wrote to Ottawa’s Department of Consumer Affairs. Officials there said his research was considered insignificant. Konopasek then wrote to the drug company that made it and “very soon after they set a limit on the talc,” he said. “We no longer have samples with five-per-cent asbestos.”
Asbestos in Home Insulation Nine members of a Manitoba First Nations family contracted asbestos-related diseases from the insulation in their homes. Raven Thundersky reports that her sister, Mardina Mitchell, died of mesothelioma at 38 and another sister, Melvina Mitchell, died from m e s o t h elioma at 44. Her mother, Nora Bruce, 72, and her sister Rebecca Bruce, as well as her brother, Delbert Bruce, were also diagnosed with mesothelioma. The insulation in their home, vermiculite, contained asbestos. The family grew up on the Ojibway Reserve at Poplar River, 350 kilometres north of Winnipeg, until 1976. As well, Raven’s sister Rita, born to her mother prior to her marriage to Victor, and who never set foot in the house at Poplar River has mesothelioma contracted from the house she grew up in at Berens River First Nation, just south of Poplar River. The house was insulated with the same asbestos-containing Zonolite (vermiculite) insulation. Ms. Thundersky has been trying to get all levels of government interested in the problem for eight years. Ms. Thundersky has asbestosis. On March 5, 2005, Ms. Thundersky told us, “Today we learned that one of my nephews, the son of my first sister who died from mesothelioma, has asbestosis. He was only in our death house at Poplar River for about two and one-half years as a toddler, but even that exposure was enough. This brings to nine the members of my family who suffer from either mesothelioma or asbestosis or who are already dead from these two diseases.” Ms. Thundersky said they “have now identified seven communities in which we have either suspected or confirmed cases of mesothelioma stemming from Zonolite here in Manitoba alone. Three are confirmed, four are suspected and are being assessed. This disease is more widespread than officials would like us to believe.” As a result of the publicity, the federal government has combed through tens of thousands of construction records on Canadian Indian reserves to identify homes containing vermiculite
|
105
|
insulation. NDP native affairs critic, Pat Martin, who worked in an asbestos mine in Clinton Creek, Yukon, during the 1970s, said the federal government should not just be identifying the vermiculite, it should remove people from hazardous conditions. The insulation, marketed under the trade name Zonolite, is likely found in hundreds of thousands of Canadian homes.
Clifton Grant Each year, the Windsor Occupational Health and Safety Information Service awards a prestigious award to the most outstanding health and safety activist in the area. Many CAW health and safety activists have won this award over the years. The award is named after Clifton Grant who was a school custodial worker in the Scarborough school district who, at 37 years of age, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in the 1970s. He later died from the disease. Brother Grant was a member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Informed of his death, CUPE custodians exercised their right to refuse and publicly demanded asbestos inspections in the schools in school districts across the country.
|
106
Art Teacher Dies of Mesothelioma “The first person I ever spoke with who had mesothelioma was an art teacher in Vancouver in the early 1980s,” said CAW health and safety director Cathy Walker. During art class she would open a bag of raw asbestos and mix it with water into a type of modelling compound for the children in her elementary school. The art class students would use it to make small sculptures. “She was calling me to find out if I knew of any treatment or cure for mesothelioma,” said Cathy. “Unfortunately, there was and is no effective treatment for this terrible disease. Like many of us who went to elementary school in Canada during the 1950s, I remember making things out of asbestos in art class,” said Cathy.
|
Mi ni ng
A s b est o s
in
C anada
The Quiet Revolution Asbestos mining began in Thetford, Québec in 1879. By 1905, miners were using compressed air drills and dynamite. The ore was hand-sorted, winched up in wooden buckets from the mine and hauled away by locomotive. Then men and women used hammers to break up the fibres. It was loaded into bags and taken away. This was the system until 1918 when Johns Manville began using steam shovels instead of wooden buckets to get the ore up from the pit. The asbestos companies in Québec and the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company hid the results of a 1930 survey amongst the miners showing asbestosis. Company doctors claimed later that no cases of asbestosis had been uncovered, while they knew that the opposite was true. The company-funded clinic in Thetford Mines, run by Dr. Paul Cart i e r, deceived individual workers from 1940 by simply not telling them they were sick with asbestosis and allowing them to continue working in the mines. This deception included hiding cases of occupational lung cancer as early as 1948. Johns Manville physicians X-rayed 708 workers at the Jeffrey Mine and Mill in Québec. The physicians discovered that only four workers had normal lungs, and then left without informing anybody of their findings. The first demand of the asbestos miners when bargaining began with the Asbestos Corporation and Canadian Johns Manville in December 1948 was: “Elimination of asbestos dust inside and outside of the mills.” When newspaper readers in Québec learned in 1949 that asbestos ravaged the lungs and lives of miners and millers in the province’s Eastern Townships, they reacted immediately and vigorously. Montreal’s Le Devoir ran an account of the misery in East Broughton where an American-owned mine and mill spewed asbestos dust over the town—dust so thick that street lights in the early evening were dimmed by it. Burton LeDoux wrote this which ran on the front page: “In so far as the past is concerned, investigation reveals that the exploitation of the asbestos mineral deposits in Québec has brought about an incalculable amount of unnecessary misery, chronic invalidism, and premature death to the district. The sight of East Broughton in the twilight from the train approaching the village produces a feeling of horror in the visitor. Short, tiny threads of asbestos dust pouring down….So thick was this dust that the streetlights turned on in the early evening were dimmed by it, while houses only a short distance away seemed to be enveloped by fog.” Asbestos dust had killed men who worked in the mill, some of them in their early 40s. Their families were left destitute because no one told them they might claim workers’ compensation. Those accounts of activist and journalist Burton LeDoux were so powerful that Le Devoir readers donated money to have them translated into English and published in the form of a small book. The 55-page result was a searing commentary on Québec’s Duplessis government
|
108
|
for its disregard of its people. LeDoux’s articles helped fuel the famous strike by asbestos miners that same year—a strike which brought together former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau as well as Gérard Pelletier, Marc Lalonde and union leader Jean Marchard, all of whom later became members of his federal government cabinet. They all supported the strikers’ cause. Dust control was the workers’ first demand. A decade later, Trudeau edited a book, The Asbestos Strike, about the d i spute. Upon his death in 2000, asbestos miners still remembered his role at that time in the fight. R o s a i re Drouin, miner, speaking of Trudeau, on October 2, 2000, “He was sort of the a m b a s s ador for the union. He explained to us our rights against Duplessis.” And even those who normally do not support rights for workers, cannot today shake that 1949 experience. Mr. André Bachand, Member-of-Parliament for Richmond-Arthabaska for the Progressive Conservative Party, spoke in favour of anti-scab legislation in Parliament on October 21, 2003. Why? He told Parliament, “I am from Asbestos…The scabs were the main problem during the strike of 1949 in Asbestos. I am not going to call them ‘strikebreakers’ or ‘replacement workers’; they were scabs. There were fights, and the provincial police were there.” On Dominion Day, July 1, 1949, some 2,000 cheering, jubilant workers and their families, headed by a band, paraded through the little town of Asbestos, Québec, according to Newsweek. They were celebrating the end of a bitter four-and-a-half month strike. The companies, the provincial police, eventually the Catholic Church (though Archbishop of Montréal, Joseph Charbonneau, and Archbishop of Québec City, Maurice Roy, had been on the side of the workers) and especially the Duplessis provincial government had all been arrayed against the workers. But in the end, the workers won improved working conditions and wage and other improvements. Working conditions improved as a result of the strike, but 25 years later, in 1974, w h e n Dr. Irving Selikoff of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, visited the Québec asbestos mining a rea, nearly two-thirds of the miners he examined and X-rayed showed signs of having developed incurable asbestos lung disease. Paul Formby who took dust samples at this time said he “was shocked” at the levels he found. He measured asbestos levels of 30, 40, and sometimes 50 fibres/cc, which is 50 times the present Québec legally allowable level. He said, “It’s almost as if they’re committing a genocide.” Dr Selikoff and his team of eight doctors described the conditions at Thetford Mines as the worst in North America. The doctors said it was “suicide” to live in Thetford Mines and that the whole town was full of “very sick people”. They were shocked at the poor working conditions which provided no protection from the dense cloud of deadly asbestos dust. Lloyd Tataryn reports of Dr. Selikoff’s and his colleagues findings in Dying for a Living: Of the men who had worked twenty years or more in the Thetford asbestos industry and taken part in the survey, an appalling 60 per cent had X-rays which showed abnormalities. The greater the seniority, the more frequent were the abnormalities;
|
109
|
36 per cent of the men who had worked twenty to twenty-four years in Thetford had abnormal X-rays; 75 per cent of the men who had worked forty or more years in Thetford had abnormal chest X-rays. The doctors also uncovered cases of asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma amongst the Thetford workers. On the CBC Radio program As It Happens you could hear patients suffering from asbestos-related diseases. They were coughing persistently, literally gasping for breath, as well as coughing up blood. You can listen to this on the CBC Radio clip, broadcast March 3, 1975, “The Most Dangerous Town in Canada: Thetford Mines” with Paul Brodeur, Paul Formby, Dr. Susan Daum (one of the Selikoff team). http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-75-608-3400/ science_technology/asbestos/clip2 In 1976 the Beaudry Commission studied the health of asbestos miners in Québec and reported serious defects in the miners’ medical surveillance. It was the strikes of the 1970s and the takeover of the industry in 1979 by the first Partie Québecois government led by Premier René Levesque that led to significant improvements. Ventilation and working conditions were greatly improved, providing stringent pro t e ction for the asbestos miners and mill workers. Today, there is a state of the art asbestos bagging facility in which workers are very well protected from asbestos dust. In 1986 15 miners employed by J.M. Asbestos submitted claims for lung cancer caused by asbestos. The company fought their claims furiously. Finally, in 1998, the appeal board ruled in the workers’ favour. But by then 14 of the 15 miners were dead. Why is the industry so important to Québec? Why do the federal and provincial governments vie for the position of who can promote the Canadian asbestos mines the most? Alek Ignatow, former head of the federal government’s working group on asbestos, says asbestos continues to be a celebrated cause in Québec. “It’s a nationalistic issue. The Quiet Revolution in Québec started with that confrontation with Duplessis in 1949.” When Québec nationalized large sectors of the asbestos industry, as it did in the late 1970s, the industry’s survival became enmeshed in the Québecois nationalist spirit. Asbestos became a “cause celèbre”. It had to be defended against any “threats” emanating from what was perceived to be a hostile Anglo world. Almost overnight an industry, “poisonous” when owned by foreigners, was no longer hazardous when in government hands. It became, according to then-Québec Natural Resources Minister Yves Bérubé, “a natural p roduct we have been breathing in for thousands of years. Moreover we have developed resistance to it. Exposure to asbestos is no more harmful than any other product.” Henceforth, federal politicians, acutely sensitive to the power of the Québec electorate, were willing to commit the entire central government apparatus to the campaign. The Canadian and Québec governments allege that chrysotile asbestos, mined in Québec, is much less harmful than other forms of asbestos. They also allege that there is a level of exposure beneath which asbestos fails to cause disease, and that substitutes such as glass fibre are also hazardous.
|
110
|
The CAW-TCA believes that these allegations negate the heroic struggles of the asbestos miners in 1949 and in the 1970s. They knew they were dying as a result of their e x p osure to the chrysotile asbestos that they mined. These allegations negate the sacrifice of the families of asbestos workers, many of whom have died from exposure to asbestos carried from tailings waste piles on the wind, or brought home from work on their family members’ clothing. They negate the recent Québec public health institute research that shows excess mesothelioma rates in Québec. And these allegations negate the fact that manufacturers of man-made mineral fibres can manipulate the size, length and shape of the fibres so they do not mimic the configuration of asbestos fibres and are thus less hazardous.
Baie Verte, Newfoundland The Baie Verte mine in Newfoundland opened in 1955. Concerned about their health, in 1976 the Baie Verte miners asked Dr. Irving Selikoff of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York to examine them. Dr. Selikoff and his colleagues examined 485 miners and mill workers (97% of the workforce). He found 10% of them had asbestos related disease. Studies showed that Baie Verte had 14,000 times the normal amount of asbestos particles in the air. In 1978, Baie Verte residents told CBC’s Stuart McLean how asbestos would cover their homes, cars and playgrounds. One woman testified that she found asbestos fibres in the fish her family caught. Their demands were simple. The 500 Baie Ve rte, Newfoundland, miners were not asking for more pay or more vacation time. Instead, they wanted double lockers: one for their clean
|
111
|
clothes and another to store their asbestos-covered work clothes. They wanted car washes and showers. They wanted a clean lunchroom. It was all in an attempt to protect themselves and their families from exposure to the deadly asbestos dust. With these demands, the Baie Verte asbestos miners began the longest strike in Canadian history for health reasons. The protest caught the attention of the nation. Support flooded in from across the country. Baie Verte miners fought to protect the entire community. The nearly 15-week strike finally came to an end when the Johns Manville Corporation, the multinational that owned the Advocate Mines in Baie Verte, finally agreed to the workers’ demands. Subsequent to the strike, the union reported a dramatic decrease in dust levels. The CBC radio program, Sunday Morning, broadcast the story of this strike on May 7, 1978: http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-75-608-3401/science_technology/asbestos/clip3 In a July 19, 2001, letter to the editor applauding Buzz Hargrove’s article, “Just Say No to Asbestos” that appeared in the Globe and Mail newspaper, Rick Rennie of St. John’s, Newfoundland, said, as a researcher on occupational health and safety in the Canadian mining industry, he assured readers that “the negative health effects of asbestos inhalation are long and well established.” He added: “Incidentally, Industry Minister Brian Tobin hails from the area of Baie Verte, Nfld. the site of widespread disease and death associated with an asbestos mine and mill that operated there from the ‘50s to the ‘90s. Is Mr. Tobin, in his zeal to play the role o f Jean Chrétien’s lapdog (in promoting the sale of asbestos to developing countries), now willing t o tell the people of Baie Verte that asbestos has had no adverse health effects in their community.” The mine closed in 1990. The legacy of asbestos-related disease in Baie Verte lives on.
Cassiar Asbestos Mine, Cassiar, British Columbia Cassiar miners were concerned about excessive exposure to asbestos in the northern British Columbia (BC) mine. In 1974 the miners and office workers struck over health and safety during the life of their collective agreement. The company took them to the BC Labour Relations Board (LRB) where the LRB Chair ruled that the miners were legally permitted to stop work over health and safety but the office workers could not because their exposures were not excessive. The BC Labour Code, Section 83(3) provided that when workers stop work due to health and safety it is not a strike. Conditions were still less than satisfactory, however, as excerpts from the exchange the following year between the Minister of Mines, Leo Nimsick and the Leader of the Conservative Party, Scott Wallace, shows.
|
112
|
Hansard, British Columbia Legislature, May 20, 1975 Asbestos Fibre Content In Air At Cassiar Asbestos Corp. Mine Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Mines if it is correct that the amount of asbestos fibres in the air at the Cassiar Asbestos Corp. mine is 125 times the legal limit. Hon. Mr. Nimsick: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Member asked that question because I expected a question like that today. It came over the air last night from CBC, and I was called on the phone about 10 o'clock. They got a report that's about two months old. Our experts had been in Cassiar at that time and found that the legal limits were too high. They gave orders to improve them. They went back a month afterwards; it was improved but still out of line. They ordered them to close down at that time and them got them to agree to set up a new system of filtration for the dust requirements in the Cassiar Asbestos mines. We are on top of this situation and it's being looked after. Hansard, British Columbia Legislature, June 17, 1975 Cassiar Asbestos Dust Counts Hon. Mr. Nimsick: One further question. In answer to a question by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) in regard to Cassiar Asbestos: Cassiar has been closed down by the environmental section of the department for about one week for high asbestos dust counts. It's back working, but further checks showed that patchwork corrections are not the answer. The company has agreed to install a new ventilation system in the mill costing about $3 million, but this will not be completed until 1976. In the meantime, respirators will have to be worn. The actual dust count for the last three months are as follows for fibres per millilitre greater than five microns in length. Crushers: March, 15.7; April, 7.6; May, 6.3. The dryer: March, 34.8; April, 18.9; May, 20.9. The mill: March, 20.2; April, 21.1; May, 12.2. The figures indicate a general improvement but are still higher than required, and we're keeping right after them on it. Note: The present legal limit in 2005 for asbestos dust in BC is 0.1 f/cc. Cassiar Asbestos Company Made Safe from Lawsuits Facing 3,350 lawsuits by US workers who had suffered from asbestos-related disease worried the owners of the Cassiar Asbestos mine in Northern British Columbia. The then-BC provincial Social Credit government obliged them by passing an amendment to the Court Order Enforcement Act in 1984 which provided that foreign judgments for loss or injury caused by asbestos could not be enforced in BC. In other words, if US workers were successful in
|
113
|
suing the Cassiar mine in a US court for making them ill from asbestos produced in the mine, they could not get the money out of Cassiar. Why was the amendment passed? The Cassiar Company said that the amendment followed discussions among company representatives and government politicians. “We asked them to do it,” said Cassiar Executive Vice-President Peter Jones. Driving Truck at Cassiar for 2.5 Years Not till 1987 was the BC Workers’ Compensation Board forced to accept lung cancer cases for asbestos exposure without the presence of asbestosis. In 1983 John Kingsbury was diagnosed with lung cancer and his upper left lung was removed. The cancer then spread into his chest and spinal column. Ronald Bunn, working for the Labourers’ Union represented Brother Kingsbury, who contracted lung cancer in 1983 as a result of driving a truck at the Cassiar Asbestos mine for two and a half years in the 1950s. The claim was initially turned down and Brother Kingsbury described his work at the appeal hearing. He explained that conditions were very dusty in the 1950s. The dust blew down from the mill into the town where he was lodged. Thick dust was constantly present in the working and living quarters. Only some trucks had cabs. Safety masks were not worn. The employer vigorously fought against John’s claim and appeal, even denying the length of time John worked at Cassiar, despite evidence from the Ministry of Mines on his dates of employment. Dr. Moira Chan-Yeung, a world renowned occupational respiratory disease specialist based at the University of British Columbia, in 1987, explained that, “Studies have shown that lung cancer can arise from asbestos exposure without evidence of asbestosis in the lung.” Brother Kingsbury’s appeal was won at the Review Board. ----The Cassiar Asbestos mine opened in 1952 and closed in 1992 (re-opening briefly between 2000 and 2002). Cassiar Asbestos Mine, Clinton Creek, Yukon The Cassiar Asbestos Mine in Clinton Creek in the Yukon was open from 1967-78. The workers were very concerned about asbestos exposure. One of the union leaders, Paul Formby, participated in the investigations conducted by Dr. Irving Selikoff in Thetford Mines in 1975.
|
114
|
R oyal
c ommission
on
a sbestos
Royal Commission on Asbestos
It was the mounting death toll of workers at the Johns Manville plant in Scarborough Ontario, shut down in 1980, that prodded the Ontario Government to create its Royal Commission on Matters of Health and Safety Arising from the Use of Asbestos in Ontario, headed by Stefan Dupré. By 1983, 68 of the plant’s 700 workers had died of asbestos-related disease, more deaths than the entire province’s 30,000 worker mining industry recorded in an average four-year period. The 1984 Dupré report described the deaths at Johns Manville as an occupational health disaster of world-class proportions. The Royal Commission failed, however, to take bold steps and instead recommended only the banning of the use of crocidolite (blue) and amosite (brown) asbestos and the pro h ibition of chrysotile (white) asbestos in textile manufacturing. The Commission noted, however, that crocidolite and amosite asbestos had already ceased being used in the province since 1980 and textile manufacturing operations were not “substantial in Ontario”. The commission did warn, however, that “construction, demolition, renovation, maint enance, and custodial workers in asbestos-containing buildings may be exposed to significant fibre levels and may, during their work, cause elevated fibre levels for nearby occupants.”
|
116
|
Despite gasket and friction products manufacturers telling the Royal Commission that by 1987 all asbestos would be phased out of gaskets and brake linings, the commission allowed the continued use of dangerous asbestos in these products. Why? The Ontario Federation of Labour’s (OFL) response explained the commission endorsed the concept of acceptable risk, which is based on the questionable practice of risk assessment and cost benefit analysis. Using a study of workers in an English friction plant to estimate the risks, many of whom worked there only a short time, the commission neglected to take into account the long latency of asbestosrelated disease, and thus under-estimated the risk. They also underestimated the actual exposure to asbestos at work or the actual length of a full working life, assuming it was only 10 years, rather than 25. The OFL’s response, written by Linda Jolley, then OFL health and safety director, also had this to say: “Even more objectionable is the determination of cost-benefit in deciding acceptable risk. In a section entitled ‘Cost of Recommendations Per Life Saved,’ the commission calculates that it would cost $68 million to reduce asbestos exposure in brake manufacturing to save one life. This they consider a high cost. Using the same figures, however, they predict a 7% cost increase to reduce exposures to 0.5 fibres per cc for brake lining operations and admit that cost of controls may be considerably less. “What may be the equivalent of a sales tax on brake linings is not too high a cost for additional reduction in risk. Surely the exercise in occupational health is to eliminate excess risk and hopefully the move to asbestos-free products will not be discouraged by this commission.” The OFL’s prediction was entirely accurate. The asbestos brake manufacturers did indeed switch to safer substitutes, despite the lack of a recommendation by the commission. The Dupré Commission called for the controlled use of asbestos but, Paul Brodeur, author of Outrageous Misconduct, said, “The Dupré Commission was myopic about the latency period (up to several decades) re q u i red for the development of asbestos disease. And those people whose disease develops, as it surely will when people are exposed to asbestos in offices, schools and homes, those people can look to the Dupré Commission.” The OFL said, “While this Royal Commission on Asbestos carried out an exhaustive search of the literature, little in their recommendations will improve the health or safety of asbestos workers or provide justice to those victims and their survivors of past neglect. “Their recommendations that the WCB recognize the psychological impact of occupational disease and that a panel be established to determine eligibility rules means little to the widows and children who are left with nothing. “To recommend that Johns Manville be penalized a mere $60,000 for their part in p roducing a world class occupational health disaster is simply outrageous. “Labour in Ontario does not need Royal Commissions set up by a government to diffuse controversy and pressure; we need the political will to save workers’ lives! Was this Royal Commission really necessary? Definitely not!”
|
117
|
And in a most telling statement, the Ontario Federation of Labour’s brief responding to the Royal Commission had this to say: “More than enough scientific, technical and economic information was available on which to make the necessary political decision to phase out the use of asbestos by 1985.” Asbestos in Buildings The Royal Commission commissioned Donald J. Pinchin to prepare a report, “Asbestos in Buildings”. In this Study No. 8 for the Royal Commission, Dr. Pinchin had this to say, in response to “Question 4: What constitutes an appropriate asbestos control programme?” “Response 4: Removal of all friable asbestos containing material from a building constitutes the only truly permanent solution to the potential for the release of airborne asbestos during the normal use and maintenance activity, renovation or demolition of a building.” He goes on to add, “It is the author’s judgement that neither encapsulation nor enclosure are g e nerally useful asbestos control procedures with only a few exceptions. As long as the friable material is left in an undisturbed condition, however, a programme of management and custodial controls may avoid significant work exposure to elevated fibre level in many buildings.”
Wear Goggles In the CFTR radio program Sunday, Sunday on F e b ru a ry 8, 1981, Johns Manville workers and their family members described working with asbestos at the Toronto plant and its effect on their health. The company did not warn workers of the dangers of asbestos nor provide them with personal protective equipment until the mid70s. Johns Manville worker Ed Couchi had this to say, “The only warning I ever got from Johns Manville in the first 15 years I worked there is that I must wear goggles when I’m using the jackhammer.”
|
118
|
Canadian Laws and enforcement
CAW Submission on Regulation 838 November 29, 2004 Regulation 838 Review Project Ministry of Labour 12th Floor, 400 University Avenue Toronto, ON M7A 1T7 Fax: 416-326-7889 E-mail:
[email protected] Dear Sirs: Thank you for putting out the draft of proposed amendments to the Asbestos Abatement Regulation 838 for public comment. On the whole, the proposed changes would make the regulation more stringent. Far more, however, is needed if Ontario is to bring the present out-dated regulation into line with comparable jurisdictions elsewhere in Canada and the United States. Many CAW members
have died as a result of asbestos-related disease and many more will die. Asbestos remains the most significant cause of occupational disease in Ontario. This proposed regulation must be amended to provide the most stringent protection possible for workers who may be exposed to asbestos.
|
120
|
Ban Asbestos Use The CAW has banned the use of asbestos in our major collective agreements with General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and Ford. The automotive industry in the past used asbestos in its products and now has prohibited the use of asbestos. There is no reason that any other industry in Ontario should be allowed to continue to use asbestos. In Section 9, the draft regulation proposes that certain p roducts “including vinyl or ceiling tiles or asbestos cement pro ducts” and elsewhere, “tape and sealant” are permitted to be installed. We are adamantly opposed to this permission. We demand that all asbestos products be prohibited from installation in any Ontario workplace. Throughout the world, asbestos has been banned in 31 countries and restrictions exist in three more countries or regions. Plans are underway to ban asbestos in many other countries. Canada should be no exception and Ontario should take the lead. At a minimum, the provisions of Section 6 of the British Columbia Occupational Health and Safety Regulation should be included in the amendments: “6.10 Substitution “(1) The employer must substitute material less hazardous than asbestos when practicable. “(2) If such substitution is not practicable, the employer must document the reasons why less hazardous material cannot be substituted for asbestoscontaining material, and make this documentation available to workers and to the joint committee or the worker health and safety representative, as applicable.” Removal of Asbestos There must be a requirement that asbestos be removed prior to any maintenance or renovation work being done. This is the procedure and practice in the automobile plants in Ontario, Michigan and elsewhere. There is no reason other employers and industries cannot follow the same practice. Encapsulation of asbestos simply delays the inevitable. Eventually, asbestos will dry out and become friable. It must be required to be removed, not simply covered up.
|
121
|
Chrysotile The Canadian asbestos industry continues to claim that chrysotile asbestos is a less harmful form of asbestos from other types. This is not true. It makes no sense in the proposed amendments, eg. Section 5(6) to continue to distinguish chrysotile from other forms of asbestos. We demand that any suggestions that chrysotile be treated differently from other forms, be deleted. This would also be consistent with the Occupational Exposure Limit for asbestos which stipulates the same legal limit for all forms of asbestos. Labelling Asbestos-containing materials must be required to be labelled. This is the requirement for the label from the US OSHA Construction 29 CFR 1926.1101 “Danger, Contains Asbestos Fibres, Avoid Creating Dust, Cancer and Lung Disease Hazard”. Why shouldn’t Ontario workers receive similar identification labels and warnings? Licensing of Asbestos Abatement Contractors It is vital to the well-being of Ontario workers that only licensed contractors be allowed to engage in asbestos abatement activities. We have been very concerned when asbestos abatement contractors have come into some workplaces where we represent the workforce and those contractors have not demonstrated safe work procedures in the handling of asbestos. We want to make sure these contractors are competent before they come into any workplace. The Ministry of Labour must have the power to license contractors and pull their license if they do not continue to follow good work practices. Michigan law, specifically, the Asbestos Abatement Contractors Licensing Act, 1986, requires licensing. Since so much Ontario industry in both auto and auto parts exists in both Ontario and Michigan, these employers are already used to ensuring these requirements are followed. Ontario workers should not have to accept a lesser standard than Michigan workers. A licensing requirement must be added to the regulation. Accreditation of Workers Michigan requires asbestos abatement workers, supervisors, project designers, inspectors and management planners to successfully complete the appropriate initial or refresher training requirements and become accredited before working in Michigan as required by the statute, the Asbestos Workers Accreditation Act, 1988. Asbestos inspectors, management planners and project designers must also satisfy asbestos-related work experience requirements to become accredited to work in the state. The same requirements must apply to Ontario. Approval of Asbestos Training Courses Michigan has required training courses since 1988. Why should Ontario workers wait until 2006 for a similar requirement? We demand that the detailed, stringent requirements of Michigan law be required here. Michigan requires workers to take a designated training course
|
122
|
recognized or approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Michigan Asbestos program. For the 32-hour asbestos abatement worker, 40-hour contractor/supervisor, 24-hour project designer, 24-hour inspector and 16-hour management planner courses, Michigan course sponsors must submit an application and other specified materials to the Asbestos Program and receive approval before the course may be taught in Michigan. Specifically, course sponsors must submit all course materials, instructors’ credentials, and a completed application form with the appropriate fee. When a course sponsor has satisfied Michigan’s minimum requirements, it receives “Contingent Course Approval” and is able to provide asbestos-related training within the state of Michigan. Each sponsor must then pass an on-site review of their courses before receiving “Full Course Approval”. Anything less for Ontario asbestos training courses, is completely unacceptable. We have a competent worker training organization, the Workers Health and Safety Centre, funded by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board which is well equipped to develop and run such courses. There is absolutely no reason why such courses cannot be up and running when the new regulation, which must require such approved courses, comes into effect. The OSHA 29 CFR 1926.1101 (Asbestos Standards for Construction) and OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1001 (Asbestos Standards for General Industry) have training re q u i rements including referencing the EPA 4 and 5 day training requirements. Course content is made explicit such as abatement, installation, removal and handling; contents of the standard and identification of asbestos. People in the Ontario asbestos abatement industry should have no less stringent a standard than those required in the United States. Thank you for considering our proposals for strengthening this regulation. We include as attachments for your reference, the summary of the MIOSHA Asbestos Regulations and the two Michigan statutes. Yours truly Cathy Walker, CAW H&S Director Attach. 3 Cc: B. Hargrove, J. O’Neil, N. De Carlo, G. Botic, L. Hargrove, J. Teixeira, National Health & Safety Coordinators, CAW Council H&S, Env. and WC Committees Asbestos Abatement Regulation 838 So many workers in Ontario have died and are dying of asbestos-related diseases. The government must take firmer action to ensure future diseases and deaths are prevented. The asbestos abatement regulation, 838, must be strengthened. We demand the regulation be amended to ensure: 1. Asbestos use be banned in Ontario
|
123
|
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Asbestos be removed, not just covered up. Chrysotile be treated in the same way as any other type of asbestos. Asbestos containing material be labelled. Asbestos abatement contractors be licensed. Asbestos abatement workers be accredited. Extensive asbestos abatement training courses be developed by the Workers Health and Safety Centre.
Québec Government Lobbied Against Stringent British Columbia Controls When the British Columbia Workers’ Compensation Board improved the asbestos regulation reducing the legally permitted exposure to 0.1 fibre/cc standard in 1993, the Québec Minister of Energy and Resources, Lise Bacon, wrote to the BC Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, Dan Miller, arguing that the new standard was too stringent and that a less stringent standard should be in place for chrysotile asbestos. The BC minister said, “Our view is that the new standard is both re asonable and feasible to administer.” Mr. Miller said that he felt the BC position was consistent with ILO Convention 162 on Safety in the Use of Asbestos and was necessary. The Minister said, “The necessity for a strengthened level of control to protect the health of workers is clearly borne out by the fact that there were a total of 173 disease claims accepted by the Board for asbestos exposure over the period from 1988 to 1992. Seventy-four of these claims were for cancer.”
|
124
|
Asbestos Must Be Substituted British Columbia’s Occupational Health and Safety Regulation requires the substitution of asbestos with less hazardous products. BC’s OH&S Regulation 6.10 says: (1) The employer must substitute material less hazardous than asbestos when practicable; (2) If such substitution is not practicable, the employer must document the reasons why less hazardous material cannot be substituted for asbestos-containing material, and make this documentation available to workers and to the occupational health and safety committee, if any, or health and safety representative, if any. “Practicable” means that which is reasonably capable of being done. (The BC regulation requires OHS Committees for most workplaces with more than 20 employees and worker H&S representatives for smaller workplaces.)
Firm Fined $125,000 for Asbestos Exposure On March 24, 2004, Carmeuse Lime-Beachville was fined $125,000 for exposing its employees and contractors to asbestos during the demolition of a kiln in 2001 in Woodstock, Ontario. The Labour Ministry had requested a bigger fine. In her sentencing report, Crown counsel Alexandra Merscereau had requested Carmeuse face a fine in the $200,000 range. “This court should levy a fine that sends a message to this company and acts as a general deterrent,” Merscereau said. “The fines have been too small in the past.”
Saskatchewan Enforces Requirements, not Limits
In a paper based on a brief prepared by Robert Sass (former Associate Deputy Minister of Labour for Saskatchewan) who appeared before the Ontario Royal Commission on Asbestos on June 14, 1982, the author, known affectionately as the father of Canada’s three worker health and safety rights, had this to say: For substances like asbestos, “no level of exposure is regarded as ‘acceptable’; intake into the body must be prevented by engineering controls and personal protective equipment, and whenever available safer materials must be substituted. The Saskatchewan view is that a 2 f/cc occupational standard does not afford an acceptable level of protection against cancers, particularly mesothelioma. While the 2 f/cc standard may at present be the best attainable for some asbestos operations, Saskatchewan does not endorse it for workers.”
|
125
|
Canada’s Hazardous Products Act Bans Some Asbestos Products The federal Hazardous Products Act (Schedule 1, Part 1, Section 28) bans some asbestos products in Canada, including asbestos products “that are: for use by a child in learning or play and made in such a way that asbestos may become separated from the products; for use in modeling or sculpture; d ry-wall joint cements or compounds or spackling or patching compounds that are for use in construction, repairs or renovations, and made in such a way that airborne asbestos may become separated f rom the p roducts during the pre p aration of the products; other than preparation at the manufacturing level, or during the application of the products or at any time thereafter up to and including the repair and removal of the products; or for use in simulating ashes or embers.” Other uses of asbestos are still permitted in Canada. For example, if a remake was done of the movie, White Christmas, the singer doing a reprise of the Bing Crosby role could be covered with asbestos dust in place of snow, as was used in the original movie.
|
Supreme Court Victory WCB Claim for Lung Cancer/Asbestos In February 1998 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the right of a worker, M. Guillemette, who died of lung cancer caused by e x p o s u re to asbestos in 1986, to receive workers’ compensation benefits. The Québec Court of Appeal had ruled against the worker and sided with the JM Asbestos corporation. The Supreme Court agreed with the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Forget in the Québec Appeal Court decision. Forget had emphasized that legal presumptions regarding occupational disease would be of little use if the worker had to prove causation. He also said that it was no more an injustice to mistakenly compensate a worker whose disease had not been caused by work, than it was to wrongfully refuse compensation to a worker whose disease had in fact been caused by work. Thanks to Katherine Lippel from the Law Faculty of the University of Québec at Montréal for sending out information about this important victory.
126
|
The white death in the World
Canadian Exports in 2002 Country
Total Exports (%) Crude, milled Fibres and shorts ($140,201,000)
Total Exports (%) Manufactured products ($107,012,000)
India
21.1%
—
Thailand
17.4%
—
Japan
11.3%
0.5%
Indonesia
8.4%
—
Algeria
5.8%
—
South Korea
4.8%
0.8%
Malaysia
3.3%
—
Mexico
3.1%
—
Portugal
2.7%
