NO15 05 SUBJECT Occupational Exposure Guidance Relating to Asbestos December 17 2014 Asbestosrelated diseases ARD ID: 720965
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "EEOICPA CIRCULAR" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
EEOICPA CIRCULAR
NO.15- 05
SUBJECT
: Occupational Exposure
Guidance
Relating to
Asbestos
December
17, 2014Slide2
Asbestos-related diseases (ARD) Asbestosis Asbestos-related pleural disease Lung cancer Mesothelioma (chest, abdomen) Cancer of larynx Cancer of ovary COPD
EEOICPA CIRCULAR NO.15- 05Slide3
For DOE worker with ARD, post 1986 work:Assume potential exposure to asbestos but at levels below accepted standards, except for 19 occupations on List A, who have potential for greater asbestos exposure between 1986 and 1995For DOE worker with ARD and who worked at a job on List A between 1986 and 1995, it is accepted that they were “potentially exposed” to asbestos but ”likely” at “low levels.”
EEOICPA CIRCULAR NO.15- 05Slide4
For CE to accept level of exposure above low level, there must be “definitive and compelling evidence” to show that post 1986 DOE work had “consistent, unprotected contact with asbestos or ACM”Evidence includes: IH monitoring, incident reports, documented abatement breaches, testimony or affidavits, or position descriptions.
EEOICPA CIRCULAR NO.15- 05Slide5
If evidence is suggestive of exposure “above the guidelines,” then CE contacts EEOICP IH regarding industrial hygiene referral.EEOICPA CIRCULAR NO.15- 05Slide6
“Any
findings of exposure, including infrequent, incidental exposure, require review of a physician to opine on the possibility of causation. This is necessary as even minimal exposure to some toxins may have a significant “aggravating or contributing” relationship to the diagnosed illness.”EEOICPA CIRCULAR NO.15- 05Slide7
Summary1. No presumptions on pre-1986 asbestos exposure2. Post 1986, assume asbestos exposure was below accepted standard, except for List A workers3. For List A workers, 1986-1995 work, assume potential asbestos exposure “likely” at low levels.
EEOICPA CIRCULAR NO.15- 05Slide8
Summary3. For List A workers, 1986-1995 work, assume potential asbestos exposure “likely” at low levels.4. To show greater than low level asbestos exposure in post-1986 DOE work , need “definitive
and
compelling
evidence” to show that
had
“consistent,
unprotected
contact with asbestos or ACM
”
EEOICPA CIRCULAR NO.15- 05Slide9
Summary5. If evidence of #4, screening referral to industrial hygienist.6. Any finding of exposure requires physician review.
EEOICPA CIRCULAR NO.15- 05Slide10
Issues1. No pre-1986 presumptions2. List A work between 1986 and 1995: “likely low exposure” is not evidence-based.3. Designation of List A 1986-1995 work as involving “likely low” exposure does not facilitate decision-making.
EEOICPA CIRCULAR NO.15- 05Slide11
Issues4. CE has to judge whether submitted evidence meets a vague threshold for IH referral: “consistent, unprotected contact with asbestos or ACM”
5. Exposure-based CE decision-making is
contradicted by stated basis for physician
review.
EEOICPA CIRCULAR NO.15- 05Slide12
Possible remedies for claims of ARDs1. Amend List A2. Presume List A DOE workers who worked prior to the late 1980’s had significant exposure
to asbestos exposure, which
contributed the
to the claimed ARD.
3. For all other claims, have industrial hygienist
and/or OM physician review exposure evidence
and decide on significance of exposure.
.
EEOICPA CIRCULAR NO.15- 05Slide13
Possible remedies for claims of ARDs4. Consider including exposure duration and latency minimums in presumptions.5. Specify terms of review for claimants who do not meet presumptions.
EEOICPA CIRCULAR NO.15- 05Slide14
Extra slidesSlide15
Asbestos and Ovarian CancerExposure presumption: 250 days of significant asbestos exposure (worked in a job title in List A), i.e., 1 year prior to 1986, and 20 years latency period from first DOE
exposure to asbestos
Or diagnosis of asbestosis or mesothelioma
4.
EEOICPA
Bulletin No. 13-02 Slide16
Asbestos and Ovarian CancerClaims which do not meet exposure presumptions are referred for industrial hygiene review.
EEOICPA
Bulletin No. 13-02 Slide17
“Assessing asbestosis claimsDEEOIC accepts that asbestos
was a common toxic substance
that existed throughout
all DOE facilities. While asbestos did exist at DOE facilities, the nature of an employee’s exposure would have varied based on different factors such as the period that the employee worked, the type of work performed, and the location of employment
.”
EEOICP Procedures Manual, Chapter 2Slide18
Surgeon General
Second hand smoke and lung cancer (52 spousal studies, 25 workplace studies) RR= 1.20 Conclusion: “Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke … causes ….lung cancer.”
2006 Surgeon General’s Report
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44330/#rpt-smokeexp.ch7.s2