NEWS: RAN Asbestos Timebomb

[kookaburra]

A major front page investigative report in Melbourne's broadsheet The Age today reports that the R.A.N. and its ship repair yards potentially face up to $100 million in fines, and a timebomb in future compensation claims over continued use of asbestos-contaminated materials in its establishments.

Must say I've long suspected this, and I have a feeling this is not confined to the R.A.N., but probably other navies.

The Australian Defence Force was given exemptions to clear up its asbestos problems, but these expired several years ago.

Here are the articles

http://www.theage.com.au/national/navy-defies-asbestos-safety-laws-20090106-7b6l.html?page=-1


http://www.theage.com.au/national/defence-force-faces-a-dangerous-enemy-20090106-7b6x.html


The risk assessment report:
http://www.theage.com.au/ed_docs/riskassessment.pdf

[nigelweysom]

The word Time bomb to describe Asbestos is very apt, many of us in the construction industry worked with Asbestos in the 70s and are now beginning to show the results of it ,Asbestos like many products that have a certain benefit are not tested for long enough before they are put on the market , share holders don't want to trial a product for 30 years plus before they see a return on their investment ,
Nigel

[John Odom]

Timebomb is the word. One of my friends died of mesothelieoma. I worked a lot of asbestos in the early 1970s. I would come home white with dust.

Unfortumately, here in the US this has become a cash cow for some law firms and they are getting rich and many real victims are uncompensated.

The nature of the asbestos hazard was partially known and seriously suspected in the 1930s, but that information was surpressed.

[kookaburra]

The follow-up press today are calls from several asbestos action groups for an inquiry, and condemnation of the ADF, and R.A.N. in particular for not being rigorous enough in using the time allowed by exemptions to eliminate asbestos materials completely from their establishments.

Don't feel it's necessary to post the details of the articles here, but will on request. My intention was to raise general awareness, and an alert to the possibility of this being a problem also in the defences forces of other countries.

Australians have been widely aware of asbestos because of the operations of a blue asbestos mine in Wittenoom Gorge in Western Australia well into the 1960s, despite an alarming incidence of mesothelieoma. Originally owned by the eccentric mining magnate Lang Hancock, its continued operation eventually cost its ultimate owners James Hardie Industries biliions of dollars in a staged process of compensation payments for former workers and residents.

Wittenoom, once the largest town in WA's Pilbara region is now virtually a ghost town, although as late as the last year or two there were still a tiny handful of hold-out residents there still seeking compensation, although connection to the State's power grid had been turned off . Scientific tests found the contamination of the area to be a medium danger for visitors and extreme for residents. It's a moonscape now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittenoom,_Western_Australia

I guess it registered for me that this would be a big problem for the R.A.N. when I saw the photograph below of deteriorating egine room conditions in HMAS Melbourne in her final years (incidentally, that pic is by no means an indication of the way the R.A.N. generally maintains its ships - I once went into the engineroom of one of the frigates and it was spotless to the extent that water in a bilge runnel was as clear as drinking water, with not a hint of oil in it).


Still, this is a frightening photograph, isn't it?

[kookaburra]

The good old R.A.N. is all over the news yet again today - the question of a ship for the anti-piracy effort in the Gulf of Aden is page 1 lede of the Melbourne Age, (see 'hijacked tanker' thread in Everything Else), and the asbestos issue is the subject of this heavy-hitting editorial in the same paper:




Flawed culture tolerates navy dragging chain on asbestos
January 9, 2009
AUSTRALIAN Defence Force personnel join up knowing they will face risk. They would assume, as a matter of course, the dangers would arise from combat or other unavoidable risk such as in training or overseas peacekeeping operations. They would hardly expect that risk to their health and lives would come from a flagrant disregard for workplace safety by their own leaders.

As The Age has revealed this week, thousands of sailors and civilian contractors are still being exposed to deadly asbestos fibres because the navy persists in stockpiling and using contaminated parts, such as gaskets and hoses, years after Australian law required their removal from other workplaces. A nationwide ban on the use of asbestos-containing material has been in effect since 2004. While the navy is still all at sea when it comes to defining the size of its contaminated inventory, about 235,725 items are suspected of containing asbestos. Importantly, none of these is classified as critical to the completion of any operational mission. Defence as a whole, however, has managed to secure exemptions from the relevant authority for about 209 asbestos parts until 2010. The exemptions are specific and limited, but the hierarchy has chosen to interpret them in a blanket fashion nevertheless. By doing so, the navy exposes itself to fines of more than $100 million for breaching work safety laws.

Even more troubling than the financial cost is the likely human toll on sailors and other staff. An external risk assessment by Defence contractor SYPAQ Systems, which the navy commissioned, said "several hundred confirmed asbestos items have been issued to operational units in direct contradiction of state and federal laws".

The risks to the people exposed to asbestos were not only significant — there is no known safe level of exposure — but the financial consequences were "potentially catastrophic".

Underscoring the ADF's negligence, in 2006 the federal workplace safety agency, Comcare, served the ADF with an improvement notice — issued for systemic breaches of law — warning that greater protection against asbestos exposure was needed.

In any other work site such reports would have compelled a swift response. The risks of asbestos, after all, have been known for decades. Indeed, the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia reports seeing a "steady stream" of former defence personnel suffering asbestos-related diseases from past exposure, which makes the ADF's inaction all the more inexcusable. But the military has long regarded itself as sui generis. Predictably, it has gone into a defensive posture. A spokesman, responding to The Age report, acknowledged that asbestos products were issued but the ADF did not accept the finding that "thousands" of people had been exposed. For Defence, it's apparently business as usual, an attitude that is symptomatic of a culture that all too often seems to assume Defence need not be held accountable, no matter how big or costly its blunders.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon seems determined to change that culture. His comments are telling. "We wouldn't let a major company get away with it and we should be just as tough on ourselves. I expect Defence to change its culture of endless exemptions and waivers," he said. While there might be more than a dollop of political self-preservation in his remarks — the buck, after all, must ultimately stop with the minister — the comments do point to a larger problem.

The portfolio itself is a behemoth, one that has become used to setting its own terms, often at a cost that few other departments could get away with. Defence, according to the last annual report, had 69,047 permanent employees, made up of 53,149 ADF personnel and 15,898 civilian public servants. Moreover, it is administered jointly by a civilian departmental secretary and a defence force chief. The resulting culture — or rather competing cultures — are unlike any other government department. While troops are highly professional in the field, when it comes to getting things done off the field there is a history of bureaucratic obfuscation, delay and costly blunders. The debacle over the abandoned purchase of Seasprite helicopters, at a cost of $1 billion, is just one case of huge cost overruns in defence projects.

Many of the problems have been acknowledged in recent times. In the spirit of more openness, secretary of Defence Nick Warner conceded to a Lowy Institute forum last year that "parts of our business are ailing or broken from neglect, from turf wars, from poor decisions in the past and from bad planning". The Auditor-General's approval of Defence's $22 billion accounts for 2007-08 without qualification, the first time this had happened since 2000, was a welcome indication of improved financial accountability.

Several reviews are under way or have been recently completed into Defence administration. One of the key decisions to be made is how to organise its acquisitions. A Defence white paper due in April is expected to resolve some of these big questions. But when it comes to tackling the issue of asbestos, it appears it's still one step forward and two steps back.

[herakles]

Re the asbestos problem, it strikes me that they are between a rock and a hard place. The solution is going to be staggeringly expensive and cause parts of the navy to close down.

I don't want to detract from the obvious dangers of asbestos but any decision is going to be hard to make and harder to implement.

Great response here from our English members. It's as if the problem doesn't concern their navy!

[CGRET]

Yes it does,

The USN and USCG all have there dealing's with this deadly material. While I was in the Coast Guard, considering the ship's(Bouy Tenders) were build in the 40's using this material in mass in the engine room and motor rooms. The was the top priority in the Coast Guard to remove ALL asbestos from all of it's ship's and any building or any other place's it may be used, including aircraft..

When I joined my first ship in Honolulu, USCGC Mallow, the ship's crew was instructed on the hazards on this material. The key to this training was that the asbestos was to be kept in good condition and not let it turn to a powder form. The chief engineer was very concerned about this, he made it a point to inspect the ship on a regular basis and any asbestos found suspect was removed by special procedures. Air tight containment with removal.

So yes the US have some of the same problem's with this material. The ship yards here were to have the biggest part of there employee's subjected to asbestos without telling them the hazards. The end result was that some of those companies are paying for that hap hazard approach even today.

Regards
CGRET

[mik43]

I can assure Herks and others that here in the UK legal cases are ongoing as I bash the keys. It is not only service people who are affected but also dockyard workers, who one could say are more at risk as they removed the lagging etc. Generally the risk was low unless the asbestos was disturbed and then it was down to lady luck whether you were affected. I should like to mention that I have had two friends who have been affected by exposure to asbestos, one is sadly no longer with us, he died in his forties, the second is keeping his fingers crossed, and probably everything else. It should be mentioned that insurance companies here in the UK won a court case on not paying out compensation if the unlucky individual only(!!) had pleural plaque. It has/is going to appeal but I'm not sure what the result is/was. Strangely enough there hasn't been anything made out of the merchant navy seamen who must have been exposed to the same risks, it has only been those in the defence sector which have got the press attention.
Mik

[Maritime Michael Ian]

There was certainly plenty of asbestos "rope" used in the lagging of pipes aboard passenger liners with it being encased in canvas and repeatedly painted during annual refits. This will pose obvious hazards to those who dismantle the ships eventually.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the "Ghost Ships" in the North of England, those from USA and the decommssioned French Aircraft Carrier which are to be broken up by a British firm.

Ian

[mik43]

regarding the 'ghost ships' which now include the ex-Clemenceau, there have been very strict rules and regulations and best practice on how to remove asbestos for many years now. As long as everyone concerned follows the correct procedures then there shouldn't be any problem to those doing the dismantling, disposing of the asbestos or to the environment. But as we all know there is no such thing as 100% no risk, but at least it is kept ALARP - As Low As Reasonably Practicable.
Mik

[oldsalt]

If you served in the Royal Navy and left before 1987 you are not able to claim compensation, it's called Crown Imunity. I served in the engine room branch for 23 yrs with intense contact with asbestos. During the early 60's in Ark Royal we were issued with tins of asbestos fibre which had to be rolled into small balls for packing valve glands, you can imagine an overhead valve ,upside down, standing beneath it with asbestos falling on your face. Left the service before 1987 TOUGH!:mad::mad::mad:

[CGRET]

Now that does not "excuse" the fact the most of world's navy's used Asbestos up until it found to be VERY dangerous.

Nor does excempt any of the world's Armed Forces from limiting the years of exposure to validate your claim. All claims are based on medical fact. ALL personel have the right as a citizen/member of that country's Armed Forces to asset/claim medical assistance from there Armed Forces/Government. To limit those claim's is NOT very "forthcoming".

I'm sorry!, but this subject really eat's me up when I hear that some Goverment's try to limit the claim's in response to Abestos.

Regards
Charles
[CGRET]

[herakles]

I couldn't agree more with you. It's not as if this is the first time the authorities have dodged their responsibility. The matter of compensation to those souls destroyed during the A bomb testing is another.

But what to do about it? Violence maybe? Sufferers to make a public exhibition? Would the public care less though?

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool,you bet that Tommy sees!

[CGRET]

As to your question what do we do about it?

Well, for starter's the Veteran Group's need to stand up and make it a point to those in government they are NOT going to let this die on the vine. As in the US the veteran organization's made it a point and a very clear one at that the use of abestos was a product of industry and the government as well as the private industry sector need's to face to the fact that asbestos was and is a deadly time bomb.

Voilence is not the answer and should "NEVER" be attempted!

Another form of letting your elected official's know is by a letter signing campain, that is to say, have a letter stating that the veteran's and Veteran groups of this country do not and will not let the government forgot it's obligation's towards it's citizens and it member's of the Armed Forces who have been effected by this deadly materail.

Until the government's of the world face up to the fact's, then it is up to those veterans/veteran groups as well as other groups to press home the point.

Regards
Charles[CGRET]

[Maritime Michael Ian]

It's not only with asbestos that govt's back track on.... look what happens in this country when a serviceman/woman is badly injured.... the MOD don't want to know them then! This was one of the main criticisms of Simon.... (damn can't think of his surname at the moment) the Guardsman who was badly burnt on his face in the Falklands... his own Regt/MOD didn't want to know him afterwards.... seems to be OK if the person dies, but not if he/she is badly injured....

Ian:(

[designeraccd]

IMhO, biased, opinion if one has HONORABLY served in his or her country's Armed Service they DESERVE follow up medical care, etc, as needed. NO excuses or time limits...period. DFO :mad:

[oldsalt]

I read today that Mr Brown is going to reconsider the decision not to award compensation to dockyard employees who develop pleural plaques , which don't always turn cancerous. Why, why are service men who left the RN before 1987 denied any compensation at all for asbestos related illness???

[nigelweysom]

It's not only with asbestos that govt's back track on.... look what happens in this country when a serviceman/woman is badly injured.... the MOD don't want to know them then! This was one of the main criticisms of Simon.... (damn can't think of his surname at the moment) the Guardsman who was badly burnt on his face in the Falklands... his own Regt/MOD didn't want to know him afterwards.... seems to be OK if the person dies, but not if he/she is badly injured....

Ian:(

how true its the same with posttraumatic stress disorder, when you leave the service you sign to say that you are ok and then you find that you are having problems but its too late ,
Nigel

[mik43]

Mr Brown is to consider a decision made in favour of insurance companies not to pay out compensation, not the government itself!!

From our local paper here in Plymouth – Saturday 14 Feb 09

BROWN PROMISES DECISION ON ASBESTOS COMPENSATION

The law should be changed to allow former dockyard workers suffering from an asbestos-related disease to claim compensation, says a city MP.
There has been continuing pressure on the Government to end injustice done to victims of pleural plaques, a scarring of the lungs caused by breathing in asbestos fibres, and reinstate the right to payouts, halted following a controversial ruling by the House of Lords in 2007.
Plymouth is a hotspot for asbestos-related deaths, many of the victims being former workers at Devonport Dockyard.
Devonport’s Labour MP Alison Seabeck pressed again for a change in legislation during a debate on the subject at Westminster.
Gordon Brown has said an announcement will be made ‘very soon’ on the issue of compensation for pleural plaque sufferers.
Mr Brown told MPs that Justice Secretary Jack Straw has been examining the situation and holding talks to assess the likely implications were the Government to take action.
The House of Lords ruled Pleural plaques would no longer be a compensatable illness, which unions claimed would save insurance companies more than £1billion in payments to sufferers.
The issue was raised at Prime Minister’s Question Time by those campaigning for the Lords’ decision, made nearly 18 months ago, to be overturned.
Speaking in the Commons, Mr Brown said: “It’s very important that we get a resolution following the court judgement on pleural plaques.
“The Secretary for Justice has been looking at this matter and talking with his colleagues right across government about the implications of what we can do and I can assure you there will be an announcement very soon.”
And Justice Minister Bridget Prentice agreed with Ms Seabeck that the law on pleural plaque compensation should be changed.
Responding to the Parliamentary debate, she said Mr Brown’s comments should be seen as an indication that “something will be coming forth from the Government very, very soon”.

Regards
Mik

[CGRET]

Let's hope Mr Brown make the right decision based on the medical fact's and not polictical convenience!


Regards
Charles

[mik43]

Now, now Charles, I can't believe you said that.................!!
Mik

[oldsalt]

If you are ex RN, forget it. While on this subject a similar atrocious ruling is, if you married after leaving the service your widow will NOT recieve a forces widows pension. Are'nt ex servicemen treated well!!!

[CGRET]

Mik,

You know as well as I do that in most case's that is the issue with politicians.
It is a sad, yes i would agree! But if the leader's are going to do the right thing in this case, then maybe it's about time someone did in fact say it. I have seen it in more case's in recent year's.

Sorry, but this issue is one that if the public and vet's do not stand up for what is right, then it will die on the vine.

Regards
Charles

[cheapchippy]

The follow-up press today are calls from several asbestos action groups for an inquiry, and condemnation of the ADF, and R.A.N. in particular for not being rigorous enough in using the time allowed by exemptions to eliminate asbestos materials completely from their establishments.

Don't feel it's necessary to post the details of the articles here, but will on request. My intention was to raise general awareness, and an alert to the possibility of this being a problem also in the defences forces of other countries.

Australians have been widely aware of asbestos because of the operations of a blue asbestos mine in Wittenoom Gorge in Western Australia well into the 1960s, despite an alarming incidence of mesothelieoma. Originally owned by the eccentric mining magnate Lang Hancock, its continued operation eventually cost its ultimate owners James Hardie Industries biliions of dollars in a staged process of compensation payments for former workers and residents.

Wittenoom, once the largest town in WA's Pilbara region is now virtually a ghost town, although as late as the last year or two there were still a tiny handful of hold-out residents there still seeking compensation, although connection to the State's power grid had been turned off . Scientific tests found the contamination of the area to be a medium danger for visitors and extreme for residents. It's a moonscape now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittenoom,_Western_Australia

I guess it registered for me that this would be a big problem for the R.A.N. when I saw the photograph below of deteriorating egine room conditions in HMAS Melbourne in her final years (incidentally, that pic is by no means an indication of the way the R.A.N. generally maintains its ships - I once went into the engineroom of one of the frigates and it was spotless to the extent that water in a bilge runnel was as clear as drinking water, with not a hint of oil in it).


Still, this is a frightening photograph, isn't it?

I could be wrong but this photograph looks to be of the Shell Evaporator in the Forward Machinery Space.