/
EEOICPA CIRCULAR EEOICPA CIRCULAR

EEOICPA CIRCULAR - PowerPoint Presentation

luanne-stotts
luanne-stotts . @luanne-stotts
Follow
346 views
Uploaded On 2018-11-07

EEOICPA CIRCULAR - PPT Presentation

NO15 05               SUBJECT   Occupational Exposure Guidance Relating to Asbestos December 17 2014 Asbestosrelated diseases ARD ID: 720965

asbestos exposure circular eeoicpa exposure asbestos eeoicpa circular 1986 list work doe review evidence 1995 cancer levels physician assume

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

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.


Presentation Transcript

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