[Senate Hearing 110-22]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-22
ASBESTOS: STILL LETHAL/STILL LEGAL: THE NEED TO BETTER PROTECT THE
HEALTH OF
AMERICAN WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND
WORKPLACE SAFETY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXAMINING ASBESTOS, FOCUSING ON EFFORTS TO BETTER PROTECT THE HEALTH OF
AMERICAN WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES
__________
MARCH 1, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-334 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
TOM HARKIN, Iowa JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
PATTY MURRAY, Washington JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
JACK REED, Rhode Island LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma
J. Michael Myers, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Katherine Brunett McGuire, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
PATTY MURRAY, Washington, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
TOM HARKIN, Iowa RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming (ex
(ex officio) officio)
William Kamela, Staff Director
Glee Smith, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
STATEMENTS
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Page
Murray, Hon. Patty, Chairman, Subcommittee on Employment and
Workplace Safety, opening statement............................ 1
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia,
opening statement.............................................. 3
Castleman, Barry, ScD, Environmental Consultant and Author,
Garrett Park, MD............................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Wilson, Richard, Professor of Physics, Harvard University,
Boston, MA..................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Vento, Susan, Widow of Representative Bruce Vento, St. Paul, MN.. 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Pass, Dr. Harvey, Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery, New York
School of Medicine, New York, NY............................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Thayer, John, Pipefitter and Supervisor, Office of the Architect
of the Capitol, Washington, DC................................. 26
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator for the State of
Pennsylvania, prepared statement........................... 36
Linda Reinstein, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
(ADAO)..................................................... 39
Jennifer Joy Wilson, National Stone, Sand & Gravel
Association (NSSGA)........................................ 40
Kerry Swift, parent of Brookfield, Connecticut Public School
student.................................................... 42
Letter from Richard A. Lemen, Ph.D, M.S.P.H., Asst. Surgeon
General, USPHS (ret.)...................................... 46
Letter and post-hearing comments from Robert P. Nolan, Ph.D.,
Deputy Director, Center for Applied Studies of the
Environment................................................ 47
Letter from David S. Egilman, M.D., M.P.H., Clinical
Associate Professor, Brown University...................... 57
Letter and comments from the Government of Canada............ 58
(iii)
ASBESTOS: STILL LETHAL/STILL LEGAL: THE NEED TO BETTER PROTECT THE
HEALTH OF AMERICAN WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
Room 430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC., the
Hon. Patty Murray [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Senators Murray [presiding], Brown, and Isakson.
Opening Statement of Senator Murray
The Chairman. This subcommittee will come to order. I am
very pleased to convene the first hearing of the Senate
Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee of the 110th
Congress and I want to thank our Ranking Member, Senator
Isakson, who has worked with me in the past in reverse order
but I look forward to working with you on this subcommittee
again in this Congress. I want to thank some of our
subcommittee members who will be joining us and I especially
want to thank all of the witnesses who are here for us today.
The purpose of this hearing is to gather information on the
need to ban asbestos, improve public awareness and invest in
research and treatment. But before I turn to the policy, I want
to introduce you to two people.
Six years ago I held my first hearing on asbestos in the
workplace. One of the witnesses at that time was Fred Biekkola.
He is from Michigan. He served in World War II and for almost
30 years, Fred worked for a mining company in Michigan where he
was exposed to asbestos. Fred testified at my very first
hearing back on July 31st of 2001. That hearing was held right
here in this room and in fact, he sat right there at that
witness table and I'll never forget what Fred told us.
He said, Senators, please make sure that what happened to
me won't happen to anyone else. Workers like me are counting on
you to protect us. Please don't let us down. Well, I'm sad to
say that we did let Fred down. We didn't ban asbestos. We
didn't warn the public and we didn't invest in research and
treatment.
Fred died of asbestosis and mesothelioma on April 7 of
2004. Sadly, Fred is not the only advocate that we've lost over
the years because Congress has failed to act. This is a picture
of Brian Harvey. He is a teacher who lived in Marysville,
Washington in my home State. Brian stood by my side as I
introduced my first bill to ban asbestos back in July of 2002.
Most asbestos victims die within a year of being diagnosed.
Brian lived for 6 years after being diagnosed. He knew he was
living on borrowed time so he used his time to fight for
others. He stood by my side again in 2004 at another press
conference. Sadly, Brian died in July 2005.
Now Fred and Brian are not with us but their words hang
over this hearing. It is estimated that each year, up to 10,000
Americans die every year from asbestos. Ten thousand Americans
every year. I've been at this for 6 years. This is my third
bill and I know we cannot wait another year to fix this
problem. The stakes are too high. To anyone who says we don't
need this bill, I pose one question. How many more Americans
have to die before our government finally does the right thing
and bans asbestos? We have to do the right thing and I believe
we need to do it now.
As I look at this issue, four problems stand out. First,
asbestos is deadly. It's so deadly that there is no known safe
level of exposure. It only takes a tiny bit of fiber to cause
disease. Second, asbestos is everywhere. It's put into consumer
and industrial products on purpose every day. We bought these
brake pads in a store 3 days ago. They contain asbestos. Brake
pads like these ones are on tens of thousands of cars. Any time
one of those cars gets their brakes repaired, a mechanic could
be unknowingly exposed to asbestos.
Now fortunately, there are alternatives. These brakes I'm
holding right here, are made without asbestos and they work
just as well. We shouldn't keep selling these kinds of products
containing asbestos. We are putting more and more consumers at
risk every day by doing that and that's not just brake pads.
There are thousands of products that contain asbestos--floor
tiles, roofing materials, cement pipes, even hair dryers.
Third, asbestos is still legal. Many Americans assume, as I
did, that asbestos is already banned in this country. It is
not. In 1989, the EPA tried to ban asbestos but most of those
regulations were overturned in a 1991 appeals court ruling. As
a result, while new applications for asbestos were banned,
asbestos is still being imported and used in consumer and
industrial products.
Fourth, research and treatment for asbestos diseases are
not very far along. Doctors have been hampered by the lack of
research on how asbestos fibers actually cause disease and what
treatment strategies work best. Industrial hygienists have been
hampered by the lack of research on how to best measure
asbestos fibers in the air.
To address this national challenge, I have introduced the
Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007. So let me quickly
summarize the bill and then I will turn to Senator Isakson and
our witnesses.
First, my bill bans asbestos. It prohibits the importation,
manufacture, processing and distribution of products containing
asbestos.
Second, my bill dramatically increases and expands research
and treatment. It creates a 50 million dollar 10-center
asbestos-related disease research and treatment network. It
creates a new national asbestos-related disease registry. It
supports research at the Department of Defense and launches a
study to determine the most promising areas for new research.
And finally, my bill importantly launches a public
education campaign to protect and inform Americans of the
dangers of asbestos and the treatment options.
I know we can make progress. More than 40 other countries
have banned asbestos. Around the world, chlorine producers are
phasing out dangerous and inefficient methods in favor of safer
and environmentally responsible technology. We need to help our
U.S. companies embrace new, greener approaches today.
To help inform our work, we've invited a panel of expert
witnesses. Dr. Barry Castleman, Dr. Harvey Pass, Dr. Richard
Wilson, Sue Vento and John Thayer. I will introduce them more
before they come up before us but I know that each one of them
will provide us with useful information and unique
perspectives.
I want to thank all of you for coming today to help America
join other enlightened countries in banning asbestos.
Now I want to turn to my Ranking Member, Senator Isakson,
for his opening remarks.
Opening Statement of Senator Isakson
Senator Isakson. Well, thank you Chairman Murray and thank
you very much for holding this hearing. I admire your advocacy
and appreciate the opportunity to participate today. I
particularly want to acknowledge the presence of Sue Vento. I
had the privilege of serving in the United States House of
Representatives with her husband and had the privilege of
meeting her then and we're honored to have you here today.
I appreciate the Chairman also allowing Senator Specter,
who will be here in a few moments, to testify. That request was
late and I appreciate very much your courtesy in that.
There is no debate that certain forms of asbestos are toxic
and are deadly. Over the past 30 years, we've learned the sad
truth that exposure to air-borne asbestos fibers pose
potentially serious health risk. Continued exposure to air-
borne asbestos can increase the amount of fibers that remain in
the lung. Once embedded in lung tissue, those fibers, over
time, may cause serious lung diseases, including asbestosis,
lung cancer and mesothelioma.
We will hear today that there are several types of
asbestos. Different forms of asbestos pose different health
risks. Any ban passed by Congress should recognize those
differences.
The EPA initially proposed a ban of asbestos in the late
1970s. At the time, the United States consumed over 500,000
tons of asbestos, about 7 percent of which was the very toxic
amphibole asbestos. The rule was then struck down by the 5th
Circuit because the EPA had, according to the court, failed to
muster substantial evidence in support of the ban. The Court of
Appeals remanded back to the EPA, demanding the agency
demonstrate that all asbestos posed an unreasonable risk to
Americans.
During the 1990s, the worldwide trade of the most hazardous
form of asbestos, amphibole asbestos, ceased. Thus, the very
toxic form of asbestos is no longer available in the United
States. Essentially, there is a defacto ban put on by all
people of reason who recognize the dangers and the fact that it
shouldn't be used.
Today, asbestos is still used in the United States albeit
very sparingly. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the
United States consumes about 2,000 tons of chrysotile asbestos
every year, down from almost 800,000 tons consumed in the mid
1970s. The consumption has decreased by 99.75 percent by
industry on its own and with the recognition of the advocacy of
people like Senator Murray.
Chrysotile asbestos is used for three purposes only today:
roof coatings, the space shuttle motor parts and specified
fibers used in the manufacture of chlorine.
Last congress, I was happy to support an asbestos ban,
included in Senator Specter and Leahy's Fair Act. Senator
Specter and Leahy recognized the important distinctions between
various kinds of asbestos and the ban that emerged in their
bipartisan bill was a workable and reasonable ban.
In closing, there are many kinds of asbestos. It comes to
many different forms. There is room for bipartisan work on this
bill to bring it to the floor and I look forward to working
with the Chairman to recognize those differences, find out
where we can have common ground and move forward in the ban of
the most dangerous forms of asbestos.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Isakson. We are
waiting for Senator Specter to arrive but I think what I will
do is have our witnesses go ahead and come forward to the
witness table and when Senator Specter arrives, we'll have him
give his statement. If our witnesses could come up to the
table. I'm going to introduce you quickly while you are moving
forward.
We have Barry Castleman with us today. Dr. Castleman is an
environmental consultant with a long-term interest in the use
of asbestos in the United States and worldwide.
Dr. Harvey Pass, who is a Professor of Cardiothoracic
Surgery at New York University School of Medicine and
Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Mrs. Sue Vento, who is the widow of Congressman Bruce
Vento. He died from mesothelioma in 2000 and let me just thank
you for your tremendous work over the years on making sure we
continue to work to the right thing.
Professor Richard Wilson is a Research Professor of Physics
at Harvard University.
Mr. John Thayer is a pipefitter and supervisor of the 10-
man power plant tunnel crew here within the Office of the
Architect of the Capitol.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here. Before
I move to our witnesses, I also wanted to acknowledge one
person in the audience, Linda Reinstein. Linda, thank you so
much for being here. She is the Executive Director and co-
founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. Linda
knows personally about the tragedy of asbestos. She lost her
husband, Alan, to the disease this past year. Linda, I just
want to personally thank you for your commitment and your
support. Thank you for being here today.
With that, I'm going to turn to our panel and Dr.
Castleman, we will begin with you and your testimony.
STATEMENT OF BARRY CASTLEMAN, ScD, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT AND
AUTHOR, GARRETT PARK, MD
Mr. Castleman. I've worked for 35 years with U.S.
government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and
international agencies on asbestos. I also testify as an expert
witness about the public health history of asbestos, the
subject of my doctoral thesis. I work with other public health
workers all over the world on asbestos and we all hope that
soon the United States will join the other 40 or so countries
that have banned asbestos.
Asbestos is banned throughout the European Union, 27
countries and in many other parts of the world, including Saudi
Arabia, Argentina, Australia, Chile, Japan, Kuwait and other
countries. Bans have been in effect for 10 years or more in
Germany and Italy and Sweden and France. The cars still stop.
The roofs don't leak anymore than they did when they had
asbestos in the roofing materials. Life goes on and their
economies are going on just fine without endangering people by
the use of asbestos.
The World Trade Organization has ruled that controlled use
of asbestos is unrealistic and has supported national bans on
asbestos when the issue was brought up at the WTO about 7 years
ago.
In your legislation, there is a possibility that there may
need to be some exceptions considered to the ban. The only
exception that I know of in the European Union is the exception
for the chlorine industry and this was agreed to based on the
state of things in 1999, when the European Union voted to have
such a ban. If the chlorine industry wishes to have an
exemption in the United States to the ban here, they should
have to make the case based on the state of technology today
and the issue is, can they convert to the membrane cell plants,
which are the kind of chlorine plants that have been built all
over the world for the last 20 years. It's a superior
technology to the asbestos and mercury cell plants.
As noted, the use of asbestos is down to about 2,000 tons a
year. The only use that I know of is in roofing materials.
There is no exception for roofing materials in Europe. I don't
understand why we would need to have one here but again, if
companies want to make the claim that they have to continue to
use asbestos in such products, your law would provide them the
means to press for an exemption at the EPA.
The big problem is imports of asbestos products. We import
over 100 million dollars a year worth of asbestos brake linings
and brake shoes from countries that use a lot of asbestos.
Senator Murray, you wrote to the Head of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration 3 years ago, asking them to
look at the imports, the rising imports of brake shoes and
brake linings coming in from Brazil, China, Columbia and Mexico
and they brushed you off. Since then, the importation of
asbestos--of these products has doubled from those countries.
So I think it is an urgent matter to revisit this.
Asbestos-cement sheet products have been coming in from
Mexico in rising quantities, over 60,000 tons last year and
these are dangerous construction materials. If you cut them,
saw them, drill them, demolish them, you have exposure, as
you'll hear from John Thayer later today. Once you have
asbestos in the structure of buildings, it stays there a long
time and it can endanger many people through that time.
The U.S. automakers ought to be able to sell cars and
replacement parts here that are asbestos-free, just as they do
in the European Union. The U.S. brake part manufacturers ought
to welcome a ban on imports of asbestos brakes because it
competes unfairly against their safer brake products.
With two other scientists, I want to talk now a little
about contaminant asbestos. With two other scientists, I filed
a complaint a month ago at the Consumer Product Safety
Commission over a consumer patching compound called Durham's
Water Putty. Now, this is sold from coast to coast at Ace
Hardware Stores and the asbestos in this product comes from the
talc that they use as one of the ingredients in it. This is a
notorious talc from New York, where there has been reports of
lung scarring, lung cancer and mesothelioma, going back to the
1940s. And there are deposits of talc, vermiculite and
construction stone around the country that have contamination
of asbestos and we really need to have a thorough look around
at all these sites by the government to root out these kinds of
dangers and make sure that people aren't exposed to mortal
risks from products like this.
This is actually a banned--asbestos is banned in these
consumer patching compounds in the United States. It was banned
30 years ago by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Just
last month, I testified in a case involving a person whose only
exposure was that when he was 20 years old, he spent 2 weeks
preparing a building for his father to use as a pharmacy and he
was doing all this sanding and sweeping and mixing of these dry
powders to set up the interior of the building with the drywall
patching compounds and this guy--he's my age. He's dying of
mesothelioma now as a result of that one exposure. There is no
other known exposure in his case.
We need additional help in analysis of asbestos. The method
of analysis that is used by OSHA is only considered reliable
down to the present permissible exposure limit and at that
limit, it's expected that 5 to 10 people per thousand workers
will die from lifetime exposure. We need to have more high-
power magnification to limit the measurement methods--35 years
old. And we need to get NIOSH and other government agencies to
come up with an improved method.
The same for bulk sampling of asbestos--the method
specified by EPA over 30 years ago is only good down to 1
percent. We need something that can go below 1 percent in
analyzing soil samples and minerals and so on.
So to conclude, banning products made with commercial
asbestos, I think should be relatively easy and should be very
high priority. Stop these importations of these brake shoes and
these asbestos-cement products and the rest. And dealing with
the contaminant asbestos in these other minerals will be a
little more difficult but that should be expedited. The law
should be written in a way that enables bans on the less
controversial imported products made with commercial asbestos
to take effect as soon as possible. Any product that is made
with commercial asbestos that is not under review for possible
exemption by EPA should be banned within a year after enactment
of this legislation.
Thank you for inviting me to speak. I have a longer
prepared statement for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Castleman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Barry Castleman, ScD
I have been warning mechanics about asbestos hazards in brake
repair since 1972, as a local health official in Baltimore. Since then,
I have been involved as a public health worker in a wide range of
issues involving asbestos in the United States and around the world. I
support banning asbestos product manufacture and importation in the
United States.
U.S. imports of brake shoes from countries that mine asbestos and
manufacture asbestos products are growing and now total over $100
million annually. There is no surveillance to assure that asbestos
brake imports from China, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico even carry the
cancer warning labels ``required'' by OSHA. We also are importing a lot
of asbestos-cement sheet from Mexico. These products are no longer made
in the United States, and they compete against safer products made
here.
To this day, we are faced with scandals in government efforts to
deal with public health asbestos problems, while companies involved in
damage suits try to distort public policy to gin up trial court
defenses for their historic failure to warn workers using asbestos
products. It is my hope that these companies, who now use little or no
asbestos, will not oppose the asbestos ban just so they can go on using
the argument that the asbestos products they used to sell are still
legal for sale in the United States. If Ford and GM oppose an asbestos
ban here as they face throughout Europe, they should tell us what they
are selling in the United States now, what models of their new vehicles
and replacement parts are still made with asbestos. And they should
explain why this should be allowed to continue.
I testify as an expert witness in asbestos litigation, usually at
the request of plaintiffs. This has given me access to corporate
documents not available in public libraries. I tell juries about the
corporate and public health history of asbestos, the subject of my
doctoral thesis at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and an
894-page book, now in its 5th edition (Asbestos: Medical and Legal
Aspects. Aspen, NY, 2005).
Global Consensus That Asbestos Must Go
Back in 1989, when the U.S. EPA issued rules to phase out the use
of asbestos in almost all products, the United States was a leader in
moving to ban the manufacture and importation of asbestos products. The
EPA rule was overturned in a court challenge, and EPA was unable to
persuade the Justice Department to appeal the ruling. Nothing has been
banned since 1991 under the Toxic Substances Control Act, and asbestos
products continue to be manufactured and imported for use here.
European countries took the lead in issuing national bans on
asbestos use in the 1990s and enacted a ban throughout the (now 27)
countries in the European Union that came into effect in 2005. Asbestos
is also now banned in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Honduras, Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Australia, Japan, the Seychelles, New Caledonia,
and Gabon. Egypt, Croatia, Vietnam, South Korea, and South Africa are
moving to end their consumption of asbestos products.
In the past year, major initiatives on asbestos have been
undertaken by the World Health Organization, the International Labor
Organization, and the World Bank. The World Health Organization has
concluded that ``the most efficient way to eliminate asbestos-related
diseases is to stop the use of all types of asbestos.'' The WHO is now
working with the ILO to help countries around the world develop
national plans to eliminate asbestos use and minimize the hazards from
in-place asbestos materials. The World Trade Organization has given its
blessing to national asbestos bans. The World Bank is avoiding the use
of asbestos-cement materials in tsunami reconstruction in Indonesia. I
drafted a guidance note that the World Bank plans to use, to select
safer materials in new construction projects and to minimize asbestos
hazards in infrastructure renovation.
Current Situation in the United States
At present, 10,000 Americans die every year from our past use of
asbestos in this country. The continuing use of asbestos adds to the
eventual toll. Liability considerations and regulation have steadily
reduced the quantity of asbestos fiber imported and used as a raw
material in U.S. manufacturing, but imported asbestos products continue
to enter the country, endangering workers and the general public.
Workers in other countries make asbestos products we import, in
conditions that would not be permitted here under OSHA and EPA
standards. The products are distributed here by companies that may not
be labeling them as containing an asbestos cancer hazard in accord with
OSHA standards. And the distributors of the products sold here may or
may not be around to pay compensation, by the time people get sick from
these products, if they ever figure out why they were stricken with
asbestos diseases. Last, the continuing sale of the asbestos products
here undercuts U.S. manufacturers of safer, non-asbestos products,
damaging health, contaminating the environment, reducing employment,
and harming the U.S. economy.
The United States continues to import substantial quantities of
asbestos-cement construction materials and other asbestos products. In
2006, the United States imported over 63,000 metric tons of asbestos-
cement sheets from Mexico, a 25 percent increase from the year 2000.
These hazardous construction products have not been made in the United
States since 1992. Their handling, transport, installation (with
cutting, drilling, etc.), renovation, and demolition expose countless
U.S. workers and other citizens to occupational and environmental
dangers. This is commonly unrecognized as asbestos exposure; and even
where it is so recognized, it is from a practical point of view largely
uncontrollable by government regulators. The World Trade Organization
concluded that the idea of ``controlled use'' of asbestos-containing
construction materials is unrealistic.
The United States imports an increasing amount of brake linings and
pads, now over $120 million worth a year, and an unknown share of these
imports is made with asbestos. The U.S. International Trade Commission
has refused to separately classify brake friction materials made with
asbestos from those made with other materials, so it is not possible to
know exactly what the imports of the asbestos brake parts come to. But
leading sources of these brake friction material imports are countries
that still use (and three of them mine) a lot of asbestos: Brazil,
China, Colombia, and Mexico. U.S. brake friction material imports from
these countries have risen from $23 million in 2000, to $76 million in
2005, and $90 million in 2006. Automotive friction materials have not
been made with asbestos in the United States for the past several
years.
OSHA
OSHA standards since 1972 have required that brake and clutch parts
made with asbestos bear various warning labels, and none of the
manufacturers put warning labels on these products before that time.
Litigation of claims by mechanics has disclosed that Ford Motor Company
did not start putting OSHA warning labels on the packages until 1980.
Chrysler did not do so until 1984. General Motors still hasn't produced
documentation of when GM started to warn consumers of their brake parts
about asbestos. Yet, it appears from the records I have seen that OSHA
has never cited, much less fined, any seller of these unlabeled
products for violation of the standard. OSHA was criticized for its
poor record of enforcement by Congressman Kucinich (OSHA's Failure to
Monitor and Enforce Asbestos Regulations in Auto Repair Shops, Feb.
2004). And when Senator Murray suggested that OSHA monitor the imports
of these products from Brazil, China, Colombia, Brazil, and Canada, she
was told, ``OSHA is not contemplating a warning label survey.'' (John
Henshaw, OSHA Administrator, letter to Senator Murray, Aug. 31, 2004)
OSHA did post a long-delayed factsheet on its Website on July 26,
2006, explaining the mandatory appendix of the current (1994) OSHA
asbestos standard applicable to mechanics doing brake and clutch
repair. This was immediately challenged by former OSHA chief John
Henshaw, urging his former subordinates at OSHA to retract the
factsheet and possibly redo it with additional references included.
Henshaw threatened that OSHA could be hit with a data quality
challenge, the same tactic that had been used to press EPA to withdraw
its published brake asbestos guidance document in 2003 (explained
below). Henshaw's call precipitated a conference at OSHA that same day,
including his successor, Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.
In the flurry that followed, OSHA scientist Daniel Crane was among
those who did a technical review of the factsheet. He noted that, in
issuing the 1986 asbestos standard, OSHA had relied on NIOSH data
showing that asbestos exposures of mechanics exceeded the current
permissible exposure limit. ``OSHA has no reason to believe that the
nature of dust generated in the repair of asbestos-containing brakes
has changed since that time.'' (Aug. 26, 2006)
Notwithstanding this, on November 6, 2006, OSHA threatened the
author of the factsheet, industrial hygienist Ira Wainless, with
suspension for ``failure to perform a comprehensive review of current
research.'' The ``current research'' consisted mainly of re-analyses of
earlier articles published in scientific journals, commissioned jointly
by General Motors, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler, starting in 2001. Line-
item billing for Dr. Shannon Henshaw Gaffney's services appeared 21
times on Chemrisk asbestos litigation bills to the Big Three in 2004,
totaling around $10,000. John Henshaw's daughter went to work at
Chemrisk when she obtained her doctorate in environmental science in
2004. Mr. Henshaw, who departed OSHA on Dec. 31, 2004, told his former
subordinates at OSHA last August that there was a lot of litigation
over asbestos and brake work, but he neglected to mention that he was
involved in it as an expert witness for a leading defendant, Honeywell
(Bendix brakes).
After publicity and inquiries from Congress, the OSHA bosses
completely withdrew their threat against Mr. Wainless within weeks;
they also decided to not retract or revise the fact sheet (A.
Schneider, ``Brakes warning remains/OSHA statement on asbestos exposure
hazard survives challenge,'' Baltimore Sun, Dec. 17, 2006; E.G. Foulke,
OSHA, letter to Rep. George Miller, Dec. 14, 2006).
Mr. Henshaw testified several months ago that he did not know his
daughter did asbestos litigation defense work at Chemrisk, where he
began to be listed as a ``teaming partner'' in early 2005, soon after
leaving OSHA. He says no one paid him to call OSHA officials about
withdrawing the factsheet, which he contends was ``poorly written.''
Henshaw has never published anything in the peer-reviewed scientific
literature, but he read it regularly during his 25 years at Monsanto
before becoming the OSHA chief in 2001. (Deposition of John Henshaw in
Blandford, Dec. 13, 2006)
Henshaw's approach to his former subordinates at OSHA on a policy
matter he was involved in as OSHA chief less than 2 years before may be
a violation of the Federal Ethics Act. An examination of this case may
suggest areas where the law should apply if it does not yet do so. I
understand that the U.S. Office of Government Ethics has explained 18
U.S.C. Sec. 207 as follows:
As an executive branch employee, you are barred permanently
from trying to influence any Federal agency or court, by
communications or appearances on behalf of someone other than
yourself or the United States (i.e., ``representational
contacts''), on a matter that has parties (such as a contract,
grant, or lawsuit), if you have worked on that matter as a
Government employee. If the matter was under your official
responsibility during your last year of Government service,
even if you did not personally participate in it, you are
barred from making representational contacts about that matter
for 2 years.
Seeding the Literature
The publication and promotion of scientific reviews was key to a
brazen litigation defense strategy of General Motors, Ford, and
DaimlerChrysler. Defendant corporations have been prevailed upon to
disclose copies of the bills received for litigation services by
Exponent and Chemrisk. The Exponent bill to the Big Three on Apr. 4,
2003, titled ``Technical Support--Asbestos Litigation,'' has a line
item, ``Completion of Meta-Analysis.'' Additional charges for
``Completion of Meta-Analysis'' were billed on May 2, Aug. 1, and Aug.
29, and Oct. 31, 2003. On Jan. 2, 2004, there was a charge of $19,500
for ``Presentation of Mechanic Meta-analysis.'' In all, ``Presentation
at Conferences'' was billed seven times between February and November,
2004 as ``Technical Support--Asbestos Litigation.'' The ``Finalization
of 2 Submitted Manuscripts'' (on garage mechanics epidemiology) was
another item in bills for technical support in asbestos litigation to
the Big Three (May 28 and July 1 and 30, 2004). Additional Exponent
billings to the auto companies in 2004 were for writing responses to
separate articles by Drs. Dodson, Lemen, and Egilman.
GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler have spent at least $23 million
between 2001 and spring of 2006, for the consulting and publishing
services of Exponent and Chemrisk, and scientists including Dennis
Paustenbach, Michael Goodman, David Garabrant, Mary Jane Teta, Patrick
Hessel, Patrick Sheehan, Elizabeth Lu, Gregory Brorby, and Brent
Finley. (D.S. Egilman and S.R. Bohme, ``Scientific Method Questioned''
Int. J. Occ. Env. Health 12: 292-293, 2006; and Exponent and Chemrisk
bills produced by in Sept. 2006, in Rebekah Price v. DaimlerChrysler
Corp. et al.). So, in addition to their technical shortcomings, such as
selectivity in what was included in these reviews and what was not, the
recent meta-analyses and commentaries of Exponent and Chemrisk authors
should be read with it in mind that they were solicited for the purpose
of fighting personal injury claims brought by mechanics and their
family members. These publications were part of a strategy of corporate
defense lawyers, approaching and generously supporting the scientist-
authors, most of whom had previously published little or nothing on
asbestos. These publications were created to provide evidence that
mechanics' asbestos exposures do not cause asbestos diseases. They were
to be published by the best scientists money could buy.
Current Sale in United States of New Asbestos-Containing Vehicles and
Brake Replacement Parts
After receiving Henshaw's threatening calls last August, OSHA
officials contacted major auto makers asking whether they still sold
any new vehicles with asbestos brakes. They were told by General Motors
and Ford that these firms were still selling some new vehicles with
asbestos brakes in the United States. This contradicted the reported
findings of a telephone survey that EPA had done in 2004, which EPA
reported as follows: ``All nine companies responded that they no longer
sold asbestos brakes in new vehicles or as replacement parts in the
United States.'' The companies accounted for 96 percent of light
vehicle sales in the United States (GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota,
Nissan, VW, BMW, Honda, Hyundai). http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/
2006/August/Day-24/t14057.htm
EPA was recently informed that replacement brakes bought in 2006
for a Chrysler vehicle were shown by lab testing to contain asbestos.
So it appears that some of the major auto makers are still selling
asbestos-containing new vehicles and replacement brakes in the United
States, even though they probably wouldn't dare try to sell that stuff
in European Union countries like Germany, Poland, Slovenia, and
Lithuania.
We thus have the very disturbing confirmation that new vehicles and
replacement parts with asbestos continue to be sold in the United
States. About $103 million worth of brake parts are imported annually
from countries that mine asbestos and manufacture asbestos products
(this includes Canada, India, and Peru). China is fast overtaking
Brazil as the leading country of origin of these automotive friction
materials. There is no official scrutiny to determine whether the
required OSHA cancer warning labels are on asbestos brake products from
these countries. There is no information about the working conditions
or pollution at the plants where these products are made. There is no
information about the business relationships that such manufacturers
have with the major auto makers.
Fly-by-night distributors have a virtual invitation to ship
asbestos brake and clutch parts to the United States and not even place
warning labels on them. OSHA seems content to post a factsheet on its
Website but does not make the effort to go out and warn mechanics or
provide credible enforcement of its standard to protect them.
Meanwhile, most mechanics think asbestos is banned in the United States
and take few precautions.
When I first began investigating the victimization of workers in
backward countries by companies exporting discredited, hazardous
technology, I never imagined I would ever see the United States treated
as such a dumping ground by U.S.-based and foreign corporations.
EPA has the power to summon information on the U.S. sale of
asbestos-containing automotive friction materials and gaskets as
replacement parts; EPA can also compel the auto makers to disclose the
new vehicle models with asbestos-containing friction materials and
gaskets sold in the United States in 2006 and this year. This authority
exists under Section 8a of the Toxic Substances Control Act, and it
should be put to immediate use.
EPA
The EPA ``Gold Book'' was written in 1986 after full review by EPA,
OSHA, NIOSH, and others, titled Guidance for Prevention Asbestos
Disease Among Auto Mechanics. This 16-page pamphlet with the gold cover
was uncontroversial at the time it was published. It warned that
mechanics grinding asbestos-containing brake and clutch parts urgently
needed to have dust controls on the grinding wheels. Compressed air
blow-out of brake drums, which would be forbidden by an OSHA standard
issued the same month the EPA pamphlet came out, was advised against,
unless it could be done inside a transparent glove-box enclosure
designed to draw away the dusty air to a high-efficiency air filter.
Significant exposures were otherwise going to occur and place people at
risk of dying from asbestosis and cancer, warned the Gold Book. It was
distributed to all of the vocational and technical schools in the
country, in an exemplary government public health information effort.
EPA published the Gold Book 11 years after NIOSH had put out a
national alert on the hazards of asbestos to mechanics. Even the
industry trade association, the Friction Materials Standards Institute,
accepted that mechanics could get cancer from the dust and needed to
employ dust controls and respirators, in a work practices guide
published in 1978. But a quarter century later, new doubts were raised
about whether mechanics' asbestos exposure caused asbestos disease. By
2003, there were still copies of the Gold Book available from EPA, but
they were just gathering dust on the shelves.
Suddenly receiving much more attention in the courts than in the
1990s, brake manufacturers sought some official recognition of the
``controversy'' they had attempted to create by sponsoring a flurry of
articles re-analyzing the earlier literature. As luck would have it,
business interests had slipped a rider into an appropriations bill in
2001, later anointed the ``Data Quality Act.'' So, in August of 2003,
one of the big corporate defense law firms, Morgan Lewis and Bockius,
moved to have EPA withdraw the Gold Book as based on out-of-date
science and government regulations. The lawyers refused to disclose
whom they represented to Members of Congress and the media. But an
article in Corporate Counsel, ``Who Represents America's Biggest
Companies,'' credited major services by Morgan Lewis to Honeywell. GM
was another client of the vast law firm. (Last year, I met the lawyer
who signed the Morgan Lewis letter to EPA, representing another
defendant at my deposition in an asbestos case, and I showed him where
I had named him in the latest edition of my book on the public health
history of asbestos. He just asked me how I knew about General Motors.)
Four Exponent bills to General Motors, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler
under the heading, ``Technical Support--Asbestos Litigation'' contained
charges for the line item, ``Prepare Materials to Challenge 1986 EPA''
in the last half of 2003. This is science for sale in the service of
business interests willing to endanger another generation of mechanics.
The Gold Book wasn't crucial in proving that mechanics were endangered
by asbestos. But the official withdrawal of the Gold Book by EPA would
have provided the basis for national publicity and motions to dismiss
damage suits in courts across the country, while providing a new
defense in cases that went to trial.
Fortunately, people in EPA got the word out about this attack on
the Gold Book, and scientists sent comments in to EPA providing
evidence that brake asbestos exposures still did cause asbestos
diseases. EPA responded in November 2003 that a revised draft version
of the Gold Book would be presented for public comment in spring of
2004. I called EPA as time wore on, and in 2005 was told that EPA was
not going to revise the Gold Book after all, they would defer to OSHA,
where a factsheet was being prepared about the brake mechanic section
of the OSHA asbestos standard. That's how I heard about the OSHA
factsheet, which had been started in 2000 and was undergoing
considerable delays of its own by 2005. And on July 21, 2005, the
Office of Management and Budget held the first of 3 or 4 conferences
with EPA and OSHA about what if anything to tell the public about
asbestos hazards from brake work. On May 3, 2006, journalist Andrew
Schneider reported (``Asbestos Concerns Resurface/ Brake imports using
fibers surge, imperiling mechanics,'' Baltimore Sun) that OSHA was not
going to publish the factsheet, but EPA was going to revise the Gold
Book after all.
Senator Murray placed a hold on the nomination of Stephen McMillin
as OMB Deputy Director, and OSHA got the factsheet out on July 26,
2006. The next month, EPA put out a proposed revision of its brake
warning document for public comment. The revised document is expected
to be issued in March or April of 2007. I salute the dedicated civil
servants at EPA and OSHA for persisting against great pressures to
produce relatively good materials up to this point. But how many people
were consigned to get cancer some future day, because the Federal
agencies delayed for several years, playing ping-pong with their
responsibility to protect workers and the public?
On May 4, 2006, Representatives David Wu and Major Owens asked the
GAO to investigate the EPA's delays and OMB's role in handling the Gold
Book revision. This investigation was delayed by lack of cooperation by
EPA, and at the end of 2006 the GAO investigation was expanded to also
examine OSHA's handling of the factsheet on brake asbestos hazards. I
hope that OSHA cooperates with GAO. But OSHA's response (Dec. 14, 2006)
to an inquiry by House Committee on Education and the Workforce
Chairman George Miller was absolutely insulting; Henshaw's successor,
Edwin Foulke, Jr., brazenly withheld documents from Congress ``because
of the strong and long-recognized executive branch interest in
protecting the integrity of the deliberative process.'' It's pretty
obvious that the integrity of the process would be better served by
sunlight and oversight, not stonewalling.
Contaminant Asbestos
Aside from the recognized products using commercial asbestos as an
ingredient, there are products that use other minerals that naturally
occur with asbestos contamination in them. These include the notorious
vermiculite mined for decades in Libby, Montana by W.R. Grace and talc
mined in northern New York State. By the time the Libby operation was
closed in 1990, asbestos-contaminated attic insulation had been
installed in millions of homes in the United States and Canada. The
Canadian government is considering what to do in the face of news
reports about Raven Thundersky and several of her family members, who
have been stricken with mesothelioma from living in such a dwelling.
The talc mines in New York have been notorious for occupational
lung diseases since the early 1940s, at which time it was realized that
asbestos fibers occur naturally in these deposits of talc and in many
other talc mining areas. This talc is mined by R.T. Vanderbilt Company.
For over 30 years, Vanderbilt has denied that there is asbestos in its
talc, making mineralogical arguments to distinguish the contents of its
talc from the definitions of asbestos in government regulations.
When asbestos was banned in consumer patching compounds in 1977,
Bondex International reformulated a spackling compound after being told
by Dr. Selikoff's laboratory that there was asbestos in the product
from the talc they had used, which was Vanderbilt talc. So I was amazed
to learn last year that a widely used product, Durham's Water Putty,
contained asbestos because it is still made using Vanderbilt talc. I
learned about this because I was an expert witness in three cases where
workers who had used this product and developed mesothelioma were suing
Durham Company and R.T. Vanderbilt. Along with other experts in the
case, a pathologist and a microscopist who had analyzed the Durham
product, I drafted and hand-delivered a letter Jan. 29, 2007, to the
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
We asked the CPSC to enforce its ban on asbestos in consumer
patching compounds by taking action against Durham, Vanderbilt, and Ace
Hardware (whose retail outlets sell the product all over the country).
We also told CPSC about the long history of denial by Vanderbilt that
its talc contains fibers that cause asbestos disease, and we asked CPSC
to find out what other products Vanderbilt talc is used in. My co-
petitioner, pathologist Jerrold Abraham of Syracuse, has seen cases of
asbestosis, mesothelioma, and lung cancer in individuals whose only
exposure to asbestos came from the New York State talc mines. He and
other doctors have published a report in the literature of 5 cases of
mesothelioma in New York State talc miners in addition to 8 cases
identified in previous studies as having mesothelioma.
This is an example of how contaminant asbestos can endanger large
numbers of people's lives in this country. Another source of concern is
Virginia Vermiculite, where Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) officials were concerned about asbestos exposure of workers at
this site and at plants receiving and processing this material.
Vermiculite has been used in such products as potting soil, insulation,
and cat litter. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/uncivilaction/asb04.shtml
MSHA hearings on asbestos hazards of mining and stone quarrying
were held on October 20, 2005, and I brought these concerns up at that
time. MSHA action is needed to better protect workers mining talc in
New York and vermiculite in Louisa, Virginia.
This danger can extend to basic stone used in construction. In
2005, research was published linking residence in areas of California
with naturally occurring asbestos outcrops and increased risk of
mesothelioma (Pan et al., Am. J. Resp. Crit. Care Med. Oct. 2005). Dr.
Marc Schenker, one author of this study, expressed concern about the
health hazard faced by people with environmental exposure in areas
where development was proceeding in El Dorado County, California, and
other areas where asbestos minerals are known to be present in the soil
in significant amounts. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/
medicalnews.php?newsid=32149
In El Dorado County, California, there is a considerable amount of
land development and construction, and soils have been found to contain
up to several percent of tremolite asbestos. Pathologists Jerrold
Abraham and Bruce Case have separately determined asbestos fiber
burdens in lung tissues of deceased pets from the area. Lung tissue
burdens of tremolite and actinolite asbestos increased with the number
of years the animals had lived in the area. No such fibers were found
in the lungs of a cat that had not lived in the area. The fiber burden
in the pets' lungs was higher than found in the lungs of goats in an
area of Corsica, where environmental exposure to tremolite asbestos is
clearly associated with human mesothelioma occurrence. http://
www.upstate.edu/pathenvi/NOTES%20VIEW%20FINAL.pdf
Testing conducted by the EPA showed that children and adults
participating in sports activities in areas where asbestos occurs
naturally in surface soils are exposed to asbestos fibers at up to 62
times the reference levels. EPA Region 9 has worked with State and
local authorities in California to map, monitor, control, and regulate
exposures from naturally occurring asbestos.
What is needed is a process whereby the EPA does surveillance of
possible sources of contaminant asbestos around the country, starting
with Vanderbilt talc and Virginia Vermiculite, using USGS mineral
survey maps to help identify hot spots. Then, as operations of concern
are discovered, there needs to be a process of investigation, first for
EPA to realistically sample the products of these operations and do
bulk sample analysis. Then, if there is any concern over public and
worker exposure, the company should have to disclose its commercial
customer list to EPA. EPA could then contact the customers to see how
the material is handled, ask what products it is used to make, and
assess what asbestos exposures result for workers, consumers, and
people living where the stuff is shipped, processed, and put to end
use. In annual reports, EPA should disclose what operations it has
under investigation, and summarize the state of these investigations,
describing the commercial uses of the suspect materials. And of course,
the EPA needs the authority to close operations and stop the sale of
products that are deemed a threat to public health.
Conclusion: Ban Asbestos
The problem of asbestos in automotive friction materials well
illustrates the need to ban asbestos in this country. While traditional
public health information and regulation can reach some people, there
will be many more who never see an OSHA Website or inspector or receive
guidance from the EPA. There are hundreds of thousands who do regular
brake and clutch repairs in their jobs, and another 2,000,000 brake
jobs are done each year by people working on their own vehicles.
Similarly, the importation of asbestos-cement building panels from
Mexico is a serious and unnecessary hazard to construction workers and
the general public. There is simply no reason to tolerate the import of
asbestos products that are not even manufactured in this country.
Modern industry has no need of asbestos. Global corporations (Dow,
ICI, Unilever) have worldwide codes of practice for avoiding the use of
asbestos-containing materials in new construction and treating them
with great care in existing infrastructure. The auto makers serve major
markets in Europe and elsewhere, without using asbestos in new cars and
trucks or replacement parts. There are no multinational asbestos
corporations left in the world.
What remains of the asbestos industry are separate national
companies, owned by the bottom dwellers of the corporate food chain.
These companies' profitability is based on minimizing the costs of
prevention and compensation, primarily selling asbestos-cement
construction materials. The asbestos industry is a quasi-criminal
industry in much of the world today, using its power to corrupt
political processes and control the media when challenged. The asbestos
industry is still expanding in such countries as India and China,
they're still building new asbestos factories over there. And the local
Lords of Asbestos smile and point to the United States if anyone talks
about banning asbestos, saying it's still legal over here.
But this isn't India, we don't have an asbestos industry in the
United States. The asbestos trade group vanished from K Street long
ago. The U.S. Government has taken a stand in support of national
asbestos bans. When asbestos exporter Canada challenged the French
asbestos ban at the World Trade Organization in 1999-2001, the United
States supported France's (successful) defense. U.S. asbestos
consumption is down to 2,000 tons per year, from 800,000 in 1973. There
are no more operating asbestos mines in the United States. The economic
impact of banning asbestos and asbestos products in the United States
would be trivial. And if Congress doesn't allow for a protracted
rulemaking process, we should be able to match South Korea by having a
total asbestos product ban in effect by the end of next year.
I urge that the legislation require EPA to issue proposals within 6
months to set criteria to establish what products contain asbestos (the
``ban rule'') and then promptly hold hearings to consider exemptions
applied for by business interests. EPA should be directed to consider
in exemption applications the availability of safer, asbestos-free
alternative products and processes, and the potential health impacts on
workers, consumers, and the general public. The ban should take effect
starting 1 year after enactment for all commercial uses of asbestos for
which substantive requests for exemption have not been made. The EPA
``ban rule'' should also be issued within 1 year after enactment,
defining the criteria for establishing whether products are covered by
the ban. Other agencies, such as NIOSH, may be able to help on this.
EPA should complete evaluation of all applications for exemption within
1 year after holding hearings after publishing the proposed ``ban
rule.'' Exemptions should lapse if not renewed 3 years later. This
should be relatively straightforward for products made with commercial
asbestos, less so for products and processes involving contaminant-
asbestos.
The widespread distribution of asbestos-contaminated talc and
vermiculite in consumer products urgently needs to be investigated and
regulated. Public and worker asbestos exposure is most insidious when
it is concealed, and there should be criminal penalties for selling
such products while concealing that they have asbestos in them. The Ban
Asbestos statute should cover contaminant-asbestos articles in commerce
and provide EPA with the means to fully investigate and regulate all
such public health hazards. The EPA ban rule should define what is
meant by an asbestos product, for products including those containing
contaminant-asbestos, including methods of analysis as well as other
considerations for conducting evaluations (e.g., have people developed
asbestos disease from exposure to it, has it shown this potential in
experimental animal studies, how similar is it to materials about which
such data exist, are studies to resolve such questions presently being
conducted by independent researchers).
To the extent that there are more complex issues involved with
contaminant-asbestos, the resolution of these should not be structured
in a way that will delay the less controversial banning of products
made with commercial asbestos as an ingredient.
Banning asbestos in the United States would have an important
effect on the rest of the world. Today, most people in the world still
live in countries where there is still a lot of asbestos consumed--we
will also help them by our example, I assure you, even as we help the
people of our own country.
I have not been paid by anyone for my preparation and testimony
here today. Nor do I represent anyone today but myself, a public health
worker. Thank you for inviting me to speak.
The Chairman. We do have all of your prepared statements,
thank you.
Dr. Wilson, we'll turn to you.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD WILSON, D.Phil., PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS,
HARVARD UNIVERSITY, BOSTON, MA
Mr. Wilson. Madame Chairman and members of the committee
and ladies and gentlemen, about 1972 I first began careful
comparative studies of various risks, both occupational and
environmental. I've written many papers on this and
comprehensive approaches in my book with benefit analysis is
here and I've got some copies for the members of the committee.
I was immediately concerned about asbestos. I was appalled
that the industry and U.S. Government position that the
threshold exists or at least, according to the Consumer Product
Safety Commission, it was a nonlinear dose response
relationship. I was therefore delighted when Professor Julian
Peto of the United Kingdom, following his brother, Sir Richard
Peto's advice to the EPA, challenged this at the meeting of the
New York Academy of Sciences in 1978 and since then, everybody
has assumed that no threshold exists and I believe correct.
I was also challenged--the measurements of best form or
asbestos concentrations in the environment because often, they
are measured in calm periods of wind when actually the uptake
of asbestos will be as good as cube of the wind velocity.
I note that in my personal experience, my father died of
lung cancer caused by cigarette smoking. My grandmother died of
lung cancer caused by the air pollution in Halifax, United
Kingdom. You probably know the prayer Hell, Hull, and Halifax,
Good Lord Deliver Us. One of my wife's relations was an
executive of Johns Mansville, who died of asbestos lung cancer.
So I'm well aware of those issues.
In the 1980s, everyone became more cautious. Occupational
limits were reduced over a hundred fold and several hundred
fold less than the exposures of which gave the enormous numbers
of cancers of which there is the epidemiology.
The proposal is to ban asbestos in the United States, which
might have been sensible in 1979 but now it's been--although
it's been banned in about 50 countries around the world, not in
the U.S.A.
We argue the time for an absolute ban is past. We have used
more sophisticated regulatory tools with much success. In 1971,
asbestos consumption was 500,000 tons per year and permissible
exposures were 100 times what they are now. Now that the sums
are 250,000 tons less and exposure limit 100 fold less--we
certainly will have far fewer cancers.
Now, so we don't have the time of the bad old days. In the
late 1970s, in my belief and early 1980s, Federal organizations
went overboard. In 1978, an incorrect report predicted asbestos
related cancers caused over 70,000 cancers a year in the United
States. That was discredited within a couple of weeks by the
Buenos Aires Conference, by the world epidemiologists.
The prediction by various Federal agencies over the years
of the numbers who will develop cancer has continually lowered.
The proposed number of 10,000--I believe that is high. I think
the number is between 1,700 and 4,000 and moreover, since the
exposure limits have been reduced, all of those are due to past
exposures from the bad old days and almost none since exposure
since 1980.
So in 1979, there was a proposal for an absolute ban on
asbestos, which didn't actually come--put forward by the EPA
until 1989. Now, in 1991 we've heard, the Court of Appeals
overturned it and said the agency had failed to supply
substantial evidence to support the rule and the Chairman of
the EPA to provide it. They haven't and we believe it doesn't
exist for chrysotile asbestos.
If the EPA had initiated a ban, for example, on asbestos
shingles, it would cost 25 million dollars and save 0.32
statistical lives, about 100 million dollars for a statistical
life. This high cost is in contrast with the uncontested EPA
rule of 2000, suggesting that statistical lives of this sort--
just calculated, you understand--would be regulated if they
exceed--if they are less 5.6 million dollars per life. So
according to the EPA's present rule, they would not be applying
to all cancers that would not be regulated, an uncontested
rule, by the way.
The Court remanded the matter back to EPA and it's
important to realize the Court of Appeal's procedure. It is an
important part of our democracy and we believe exists nowhere
else in the world and if you object to the Court of Appeal's
procedure, do exactly what the EPA--what they suggested, go
back and provide the substantial evidence.
In the intervening years, there has been controlled use of
asbestos in many parts of the world and the dangerous amosite
and chrysotile asbestos has left commerce worldwide--no one
uses it, ever. That started its decline in the 1960s and the
U.S. incidence of mesothelioma declined since the 1990s.
Remember, mesothelioma has a 40-plus years of latency period.
So any mesothelioma now is exposure from at least 40 years ago.
This decline is consistent with the idea that mesothelioma
is caused by the past exposures and also by the time we had
dangerous amphibole elements and there is no evidence
mesothelioma is caused by chrysotile to any appreciable extent.
Less than 17 percent of the countries around the world have
chosen to ban asbestos and many of their bans are not absolute.
But we've heard we can do something about that, of course.
I point out asbestos is not a manufactured material
although mining and manufacturing processes are used to make it
useful. But a ban on these processes will not address the real
risk caused by asbestos outcroppings in many parts of the
country with a much greater risk right now.
For example, asbestos exposures in Libby, Montana was from
dangerous amphibole asbestos, not from the much safer
chrysotile asbestos. And EPA is currently reviewing its posture
on this and they haven't yet done a proper risk assessment.
The Ban Asbestos bill calls for banning materials of
asbestos, which contains asbestos in any concentration. A
fundamental principle, I'm against such--zero and absolute
bans. I think if we don't have any knowledge, they may be
appropriate. They may have been appropriate in the 1970s but
they are not, in my view, appropriate now. They are obsolete
and not appropriate to a developed society.
Modern methods can identify very low concentrations of
minerals all over and they can be coped with and controlled.
The Chairman. Dr. Wilson, if you could summarize real
quickly, we want to make sure everybody has a chance to speak.
Mr. Wilson. Now the commercial asbestos minerals have been
moved from commerce--and the asbestos consumption has been
reduced by 250 times and it is chrysotile only and the exposure
levels of the workplace have been controlled 100 times better
than there were in the 1970s. I think there is no particular
use. Complete banning of asbestos--gaskets, o-rings,
diaphragms, roof coatings and such, would be still useful and
they could be controlled and there is no reason not to do it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Wilson, D.Phil.
These comments are submitted in order to summarize and in some
places expand on the letter of February 13th submitted by Dr. Robert P.
Nolan and myself.
Mme. Chairman, Senators, ladies and gentlemen, about 1972 I began
careful comparative studies of various risks, both occupational and
environmental. I have written many papers on this and a comprehensive
approach to the subject is in my book ``Risk Benefit Analysis,'' copies
of which I have here. I was immediately appalled at the situation about
asbestos. It worried me that the industry position was that a threshold
exists, and the U.S. Government, Consumer Product Safety Commission,
assumed there is a non-linear dose response relationship. There are
fundamental theoretical reasons, enunciated in 1976 by Sir Richard Peto
and others, (Crump et al. 1976) that a linear dose response should be
the default for almost all carcinogens, depending only on the fact that
most of these agents (chemical, radiation, or otherwise) cause cancers,
or other medical outcome, indistinguishable from those occurring
naturally. Then Taylor's theorem in mathematics applies. I was
therefore delighted when his brother Julian Peto of the UK challenged
the threshold concept for asbestos at a meeting of the New York Academy
of Sciences in 1978. I was also concerned that measurements of airborne
asbestos concentrations were often taken in a calm period, whereas the
uptake from surface concentrations will rise as the cube of the wind
velocity. I was also delighted by the action of Sir Richard Doll of the
UK, who in response to Julian Peto's criticism asked Julian to join him
in an important report to the UK government in the early 1980s which
influenced much of the ensuing policy.
I emphasize that I yield to no one in concern for the victims of
the high exposures of the ``Bad Old Days.'' My father died in 1986 of
lung cancer. Sir Richard Doll and I went over the numbers carefully and
agreed that it was due to cigarette smoking--although he had stopped 41
years before. My grandmother died of lung cancer also--caused I believe
in her case by air pollution in the town of Halifax in UK. Some of you
will remember the old non-conformist prayer: ``From Hell, Hull, and
Halifax, Good Lord Deliver Us.'' One of my wife's cousins, an executive
at Johns Manville, died of lung cancer--caused no doubt by high
asbestos exposures.
In the 1980s everyone became more cautious. The occupational
exposure limits were reduced a hundred fold and asbestos was removed
from hundreds of locations. There were proposals in the United States
to ban the use of asbestos entirely which might have been justifiable
in the ignorance of 1975. Asbestos has been banned in over 40 countries
around the world, but not in the U.S.A. We argue that the time for an
absolute asbestos ban has passed. We have used more sophisticated
regulatory tools with much success. In 1971 all the commercial asbestos
fiber-types were being used in the United States, asbestos consumption
was above 500,000 tons per year and the permissible asbestos exposure
level was 12 fibers/ml (equal to or greater than 5 microns in length)
an asbestos ban may have been justifiable as the simplest solution to a
huge problem. Since the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration began to regulate asbestos in 1971, we would like to
point out the events that have occurred to eliminate any need for an
asbestos ban in the United States.
The permissible occupational exposure limit has been reduced to 0.1
fibers/ml over a hundred fold lower than the 1971 asbestos standard and
hundreds of times lower than the historical high asbestos exposure
levels of the ``bad old days'' associated with asbestos-related
disease. The current U.S. permissible exposure level for asbestos is as
low as any in the world. We strongly disagree with statements in the
Ban Asbestos Bill indicating the current U.S. permissible exposure
level is not safe.
In the late 1970s Federal organizations who had been insufficiently
cautious before went overboard. The predictions by various Federal
agencies over the years about the number of Americans who would develop
asbestos-related cancers have been consistently lowered. In 1978 Mr.
Joseph Califano released a report from the National Cancer Institute
and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (completely
discredited within a couple of weeks by epidemiologists at a conference
in Buenos Aires, although the Council of Environmental Quality still
referred to it 18 months later) suggesting that occupational exposures,
were the major cause of cancer with asbestos causing 17 percent. They
predicted that 2 million premature asbestos-related cancer deaths would
occur over the next 30 years--70,000 per year. The false assumption was
made that any worker exposed to asbestos--even to a small extent--had
the same cancer risk as the highest exposed asbestos worker. They also
forgot to say that these would almost all be from past exposures (Efron
1984, Wilson and Crouch 2001).
From the 70,000 asbestos-related cancers predicted annually from
1978 to 2008 the proposed legislation reports ``that as many as 10,000
American citizens will die each year from mesothelioma and other
asbestos-related diseases.'' This, we believe, is high. Before the
asbestos use there were 400 mesotheliomas a year among men and a
comparable number among women. The number went up and peaked at 2,000
in men in the year 1990, and is now falling. These are almost certainly
due to the high exposures starting in the 1940s till the drop in
amphibole asbestos that began in 1980. Since there is a long latency
period, often 40+ years for mesothelioma, this makes sense. This makes
a total of about 1,700 asbestos related mesotheliomas, falling slowly
to zero in about the year 2030 or 2040. Lung cancer has a shorter
latency period, and has many other causes, so it is unsure whether
there are still many lung cancers caused by past exposures. Perhaps a
maximum of 1,000 per year, making a total of 1,700-3,000 cancers per
year.
The move to ban all forms of asbestos is not new. In 1979 there was
a move for an absolute ban on asbestos. An advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency appeared on
October 17, 1979. That year the total U.S. consumption of asbestos was
560,000 tons compared to 2,000 tons now. Moreover about 6.6 percent was
the very toxic amosite asbestos and crocidolite asbestos. The balance
was the less toxic chrysotile asbestos. The final rule prohibiting most
asbestos containing products because it ``constituted an unreasonable
risk to health and the environment'' did not appear until 1989 by which
time the amphibole asbestos minerals were leaving commerce. And
exposure limits were much reduced.
On October 18, 1991 the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal vacated EPA's
proposed ban because the agency had ``failed to muster substantial
evidence'' to support the rule. In 1986 the EPA estimated that a ban on
asbestos shingles would ``cost $23-34 million to save 0.32 statistic
lives ($72-106 million per life).'' I note that in about the year 2000
EPA instituted (uncontested) a rule suggesting regulation if the cost
is less than $5.6 million per statistical life. The 5th Circuit went on
to query why EPA would consider asbestos so dangerous if for example
``. . . over the next 13 years, we can expect more than a dozen deaths
from ingested toothpicks--a death toll more than twice what the EPA
predicts will flow from the quarter billion-dollar bans on asbestos
pipe, shingles and roof coatings.''
The Court of Appeal's decision remanded the matter back to EPA to
muster further evidence to support their claim that asbestos exposure
constitutes an ``unreasonable risk.'' Such additional evidence has
never been provided by EPA and we would argue that for chrysotile
asbestos it does not exist. The Ban Asbestos Bill has not addressed any
of the Court of Appeal's concerns about mustering substantial evidence.
In the intervening time it has been shown that controlled use of
chrysotile asbestos is feasible and it is happening in many parts of
the world (Nolan et al. 2001). The ``substantial evidence'' the 5th
Circuit asked for to show that controlled asbestos exposure presents an
``unreasonable risk'' is not available and we argue that such evidence
does not exist (Wilson et al. 2001).
Has anything changed to justify the U.S. Senate's bill to ban
asbestos now?
As we re-visit the ban issue 28 years after the first proposal and
16 years after the Court shot it down, much has happened to make a
complete ban of asbestos in the United States an even less sensible
public health policy. One involves the definition of asbestos. The
original etymology of the word is from the Greek. It does not burn.
That was, of course the most important first use of commercial
asbestos. One cannot have a simple chemical definition, because the
same chemical appears in two distinct forms. One ``asbestiform'' has a
thin fibrous structure and another a bulk form. There are also cleavage
fragments that have not been regulated as asbestos and are almost
certainly less toxic. It is generally agreed that only the first--
asbestiform--are legitimately called ``asbestos'' and it is the form
that is extremely toxic and that has been regulated. There is more
controversy about whether to treat all the forms common in 1970 as
having the same toxicity because we could not at the time prove that
they were different or to consider them differently because they could
not be proved to be the same! Regulators chose the former, but in the
intervening time an increasing number of scientists believe that
chrysotile is less likely to cause lung cancer than the amphibole
asbestos minerals (amosite and crocidolite). For example a quantitative
risk assessment by Hodgson and Darnton of the UK Health and Safety
Executive appeared in 2000 found a difference of over a factor of 5,
although I personally have problems with their modeling because they
have a non linear dose response for one of them.
There is even more agreement that chrysotile is much less likely to
cause mesothelioma--if indeed it causes it at all. Julian Peto's work
on mesothelioma among a cohort in Lancashire UK, exposed to pure
chrysotile found none that could be attributed to the chrysotile, and
put an upper limit on the potency one fifth of that caused by
amphiboles. The most recent estimate based on modeling by Yarborough in
2006 which I do not necessarily support, is that the difference in
potency between crocidolite asbestos and chrysotile asbestos for
mesothelioma is 500 to 1. Yarborough concluded that the ``risk of
chrysotile for mesothelioma in most regulatory context reflects public
policies, not the application of the scientific method as applied to
epidemiology studies.'' Yarborough clearly would not support the claim
in the Ban Asbestos bill that the current asbestos permissible exposure
limit does not protect workers. Crocidolite asbestos and high exposure
to amosite asbestos are probably the major etiological agents in this
disease.
I am concerned about the definitions of asbestos used in the Ban
Asbestos bill. They are not specific enough and could be interpreted to
include other ``non-asbestiform'' materials mentioned above. For
example acicular is not a characteristic unique to asbestiform
materials. Non-asbestos amphibole fibers can be described as acicular
and are not regulated as asbestos by the U.S. Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA). Three minerals are included in the ban
which have never been regulated as asbestos--richterite, winchite and
erionite. Fibrous erionite, which has been found in natural
outcroppings in Turkey and used by the local villagers for a variety of
purposes which involved high exposure has designated by the
International Agency for Research on Cancer as a human carcinogen
(Group 1) but there has never been an erionite related mesothelioma
reported in the United States. The two other ``durable fibers''
mentioned are richterite and winchite which have been described in the
vermiculite deposit at Libby, Montana. Neither of these two fiber-types
has ever been regulated as asbestos by OSHA. The predominant fiber in
Libby is tremolite asbestos. I and others recommend that
``asbestiform'' be added to the description of both these minerals to
increase the precision and that the word acicular be deleted as a
characteristic of asbestos. Only then could the definitions in Ban
Asbestos bill be adequate for regulatory purposes.
Consumption of these two amphibole asbestos fiber-types, amosite
and crocidolite, started to decline in the 1960s and the U.S. incidence
of mesothelioma has been declining since the 1990s (Weill et al. 2004).
This updates earlier reports including one by Price and myself (Price
and Wilson 2001). This decline is consistent with the idea that the
mesotheliomas are caused by past (40 years and more) exposure to these
dangerous amphibole asbestos minerals. It is also consistent with the
idea, also suggested by epidemiology, that chrysotile asbestos is not
known to cause mesothelioma.
U.S. consumption of asbestos has fallen to 2,000 tons of chrysotile
asbestos in 2006 which is about \1/4\ percent of the consumption in the
mid-1970s. Exposures are much better controlled. Ninety percent of the
chrysotile asbestos is used in asphalt roofing products which are not
regulated by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration as
an asbestos-containing product because there is no evidence of asbestos
release from this matrix.
Less than 17 percent of the countries around the world have chosen
to ban asbestos (most after the EPA ban was vacated in 1991) but
worldwide consumption has remained in excess of 2,000,000 tons per
annum. Most of the asbestos bans were not total but were to ban certain
uses of asbestos while other critical uses such as gaskets to contain
corrosive gases in rocket engines and diaphragms for production of
chlorine, are allowed. The U.S. Court of Appeal review is unique in
that the openness of the U.S. Judicial process allowed for an impartial
review of a government led asbestos ban. To our knowledge the issues
raised by the 5th Circuit have never been addressed in any country
where asbestos has been banned.
Asbestos is not a manufactured material although mining and
manufacturing processes are used to make it useful. A ban on these
processes will not address the risks caused by asbestos outcropping in
many areas of the country. These natural risks are orders of magnitude
greater than the residual risks of processed asbestos. For example the
asbestos exposures in Libby, Montana are to dangerous amphibole
asbestos. There has been no risk and toxicity assessment for these to
determine the safe human exposure, although it is reported that the EPA
is making one. The remediation measures in Libby taken to date are not
based on a health standard.
The Ban Asbestos bill calls for banning minerals or products which
contain asbestos ``in any concentration.'' This search for zero is an
old fashioned and obsolete procedure. It may be appropriate when one
has no knowledge, as in primitive societies, or our society in 1975.
Modern analytical methods can identify very low concentrations of
mineral fiber present in ore deposits, or even in the general urban
environment, which may or may not be asbestos. Modern analytical
methods and modeling are capable of reliable predictions--particularly
of upper limits to risk. Nor should we insist on zero risk--which is
theoretically not achievable and the search for which is usually
counterproductive. Now that the use has been much reduced, and
exposures curtailed even more, we can demonstrate that there is a
``negligible risk,'' a procedure now used in other hazardous
situations. The Ban Asbestos bill as written may cause the presence of
asbestos at low concentrations to be claimed where it is not present
(Langer et al. 1991).
The U.S. asbestos policy proposed in this draft bill, is not based
on a modern understanding of the cancer risk from various asbestos
fiber-types. Another consequence of this is that after the expenditure
of $100 million in Libby, Montana the evidence of a benefit remains
elusive as stated by the EPA Inspector General in his December, 2006
report.
Now that the commercial amphibole asbestos have been removed from
commerce by economic forces and the asbestos consumption in the United
States has been reduced 250 times and is consumption only of chrysotile
asbestos, and the exposure levels in the workplace reduced by many
hundred fold, it can be demonstrated that there is a ``negligible
risk'' in the sense now being used for many other hazardous situations.
There is therefore no justification for banning the controlled use of
chrysotile asbestos. The use of asbestos in gaskets, O rings and the
like pose negligible risk to anyone and to curtail them without reason
is counterproductive to the economy and well being of the United States
as a whole.
Of course, as well as reducing the exposures, which we have done,
society must treat the victims of the past high exposures and learn
what one can from their suffering. In this testimony I do not address
any details of this necessity.
REFERENCES
Califano J: Draft Summary: Estimate of the fraction of Cancer Incidence
in the United States attributable to Occupational Factors. With 8
``contributors'' but, interestingly, no authors. Presented to the
AFL/CIO September 11th 1978.
Crump, K.S., Hoel, D.G., Langley, C.H., and Peto, R. (1976)
``Fundamental Carcinogenic Processes and their Implications for Low
Dose Risk Assessment'' Cancer Research 36:2973.
Efron E: The Apocalyptics, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984.
Hodgson JT, and Darnton A: The quantitative risk of mesothelioma and
lung cancer in relationship to asbestos exposure. Annals of Occup
Hyg; 44: 565-601, 2000.
Langer AM, Nolan RP, Addison J: Distinguishing between amphibole
asbestos fibers and elongate cleavage fragments of their non-
asbestos analogues. In: NATO Advanced Research Workshop on
Mechanisms in Fibre Carcinogenesis. R.C. Brown, J. Hoskins, N.
Johnson, (eds), pp. 253-267, 1991.
Nolan RP, Langer AM, Ross M, Wicks FJ, and Martin RF (eds): Health
Effects of Chrysotile-Asbestos: Contribution of Science to Risk
Management Decisions. Canadian Mineralogist Special Publication 5,
1-304, 2001.
Office of the Inspector General: EPA Need to Plan and Complete a
Toxicity Assessment for the Libby Asbestos Cleanup, Report N0
2007-P-00002, December 5, 2006.
B. Price and R. Wilson, ``Trends in Mesothelioma Incidence and Asbestos
Exposure Evaluation,'' Canadian Mineralogist Special publication 5
``The Health Effects of Chrysotile Asbestos'' Eds. Nolan, Langer,
Ross, Wicks and Martin, pp. 53-61 (2001).
Weill H, Hughes JM, and Churg AM: Changing Trends in US Mesothelioma
Incidence. Occupational Environmental Medicine 61: 438-441, 2004.
Wilson R, Nolan RP, and Domnin SG: Letter to the Editor. The Debate on
Banning Asbestos. Canadian Medical Association Journal 165: 1190-1,
2001.
Wilson R and Crouch EAC: Risk-Benefit Analysis 2nd edition, Harvard
University Press, 2001. See in particular page 129, Table 4-6.
Yarborough CM: Chrysotile as a Cause of Mesothelioma: An Assessment
Based on Epidemiology. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 36:165-187,
2006.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Wilson.
Sue Vento.
STATEMENT OF MRS. SUSAN VENTO, WIDOW OF REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE
VENTO, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
Mrs. Vento. Good morning. Consider the irony, if you will,
of a hardworking science teacher who went on to become a
leading national advocate for workers and for the environment,
dying suddenly from work-related exposure to a natural
substance found in our environment. Consider if you will, the
possibility to reduce such life-threatening exposure and to
increase medical knowledge and the possibility of prolonging
lives.
He grew up in a large, Italian and German family on St.
Paul's East Side, the second oldest of eight children. He
learned the importance of hard work at an early age from his
parents and from delivering newspapers and bussing tables in a
hotel restaurant. He worked at factories and a brewery in order
to pay his college tuition to become a science teacher.
Bruce would want me to note that the brewery was his
favorite job because he had really good breaks there.
[Laughter.]
At 30, he was elected to the Minnesota House of
Representatives and 6 years later, he was elected to his first
of 12 terms in the U.S. House, where he served on the Natural
Resources and Banking Committees. He was Bruce Vento. He was my
husband and my best friend.
In mid-January 2000, Bruce was on a Congressional trip.
Early in the trip, he mentioned in one of our evening phone
calls that he wasn't feeling well. He noted a shortness of
breath and some back pain.
Immediately upon returning, he went to the House Physician
and was then taken out to Bethesda Naval Hospital. The
following day, Bruce was told he had lung cancer. He flew home
that evening and we spent the weekend talking about how best to
proceed. He decided he wanted to see specialists at the Mayo
Clinic. There, we were introduced to the term, mesothelioma.
Arrangements were made for further testing. On the morning of
January 29th, Bruce was told that he did not have lung cancer
but instead he was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma.
The diagnosis was puzzling. Bruce racked his brain to
determine where and how he could have been exposed to asbestos.
He later recalled those jobs at the factories and the brewery
during the early 1960s. His exposure to asbestos was no more
significant than that which so many Americans have experienced
in their work and home settings.
On Valentine's Day, surgeons removed Bruce's right lung,
the lining of the lung and half of his diaphragm. At the end of
March, he began chemotherapy followed by 6 weeks of radiation
therapy. Physicians, nurses, technicians and staff quickly came
to understand that Bruce was not their typical patient. With a
science background, he was quick to question them in great
detail about procedures, medications and side effects. Even
when in wrenching pain or when totally exhausted, he'd quiz
them before he would let them do anything.
Following the completion of the radiation, we were
confident that Bruce was through the worst of it but within a
few weeks, we were told that the cancer had spread to Bruce's
other lung. On September 25th, we were urged to arrange for
hospice care, which we did the next day. On the beautiful
autumn morning of October 10th, Bruce died at our home with his
family at his side.
Since Bruce's death, I have had the privilege of becoming
involved in advocacy organizations that represent mesothelioma
patients and their families. Let me tell you about just a few
of them that I've met.
Chris, a quiet, hardworking young man, was exposed to
asbestos while working as an airline mechanic. He battled
mesothelioma bravely for 7 years with his wife, Wendy and their
daughter, Taylor, at his side every step of the way. Chris lost
that battle this past December 21st. He was 44.
Klaus, a proud man fiercely determined to beat the odds
when it comes to mesothelioma. He was exposed to asbestos while
working a summer job with a construction crew putting up
drywall and while doing several renovation projects. He was
diagnosed in 2001. He and his family have explored every
possible treatment option. He is currently battling a
recurrence and struggling to prolong his life.
Mary, quiet, reflective, a pretty young mom who lives with
her husband, Sean and two darling daughters just north of the
Twin Cities. She also lives with the reality of a ticking time
bomb, mesothelioma, which she was diagnosed with in October
2002. She was exposed to asbestos as a little girl while
sitting on her dad's lap as he drank coffee at the end of his
workday. He was a construction carpenter. He suffers from
asbestosis and the brutal reality of knowing that he brought
those fibers home from work on his clothing.
Bev, a vibrant, joyful nurse who provided loving care and
endless support for cancer patients and their families,
including Bruce and me, during the summer of 2000. Just months
after Bruce's death, Bev was diagnosed with mesothelioma.
Despite extensive treatment, Bev died in November 2005. Her
exposure to asbestos occurred in one of her first work
settings, a Minneapolis hospital.
Mary and Bev never worked directly with asbestos and yet it
has forever impacted their lives and the lives of their
families and friends. Klaus's, Chris's, Bev's, Mary's and
Bruce's stories are just a few of the thousands of tragedies
that are occurring throughout this country every day.
Senator Murray, your bill will bring hope to all of us
whose lives have been touched by this disease. It will prohibit
the use of asbestos and will correct the mistaken belief held
by so many that asbestos was banned decades ago. It will
increase public awareness, which is needed to dispel the myth
that only intense and prolonged exposure is hazardous and
finally, it will provide desperately needed resources for
medical research, life-prolonging early detection and treatment
options and ultimately a cure for mesothelioma.
Thank you, Senator Murray. Thank you so much for your years
of tireless work on this issue. Thank you to each of you who
are here today, Senator Brown and Senator Isakson. We
appreciate your hearing our pleas for your support of this
important legislation. Please know that your efforts to help
secure passage of this bill will be deeply and forever
appreciated by mesothelioma patients and their families
throughout this country.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Vento follows:]
Prepared Statement of Susan Vento
Consider the irony, if you will, of a hard working science teacher
who went on to become a leading national advocate for workers and for
the environment dying suddenly from work-related exposure to a natural
substance found in the environment.
Consider, if you will, the possibility to reduce such life-
threatening exposure and to increase medical knowledge and the
possibility of prolonging lives.
He grew up in a large Italian & German family on St. Paul's
eastside, the second oldest of 8 children. He learned the importance of
hard work at an early age from his parents and from delivering
newspapers and bussing tables in a hotel restaurant. He worked at
factories and a brewery in order to pay his college tuition to become a
science teacher. At 30, he was elected to the MN House of
Representatives, and 6 years later, he was elected to his first of 12
terms in the U.S. House, where he served on the Natural Resources and
Banking Committees. He was Bruce Vento; he was my best friend and my
husband.
There was little that ever slowed down Bruce. He was a very active
person--traveling almost every weekend back to Minnesota's 4th
Congressional District to meet with constituents and to do his best as
their representative in the U.S. House.
Regardless of where he was, he'd typically start each day by
swimming, using the nautilus or bicycling on St. Paul's gorgeous
trails. In mid-January 2000, Bruce was on a congressional trip. Early
in the trip he mentioned in one of our evening phone calls that he
wasn't feeling well--he noted a shortness of breath and back pain.
Immediately upon returning he went to the House physician and was then
taken out to Bethesda Naval Hospital. The following day, Bruce was told
he had lung cancer.
He flew home that evening, and we spent the weekend talking about
how best to proceed. He decided he wanted to see specialists at the
Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. At Mayo, we were introduced to the term
``mesothelioma.'' Arrangements were made for further testing. On the
morning of January 29th, Bruce was told that he did not have lung
cancer, but instead he was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma.
The diagnosis was puzzling. Bruce wracked his brain to determine
where he could have been exposed to asbestos. He later recalled those
jobs at the factories and the brewery during the early 1960s. His
exposure to asbestos was no more significant than that which so many
Americans have experienced in their work and home settings.
On Valentine's Day, surgeons removed Bruce's right lung, the lining
of the lung, and half of his diaphragm. At the end of March he began
chemotherapy followed by 6 weeks of radiation therapy. Physicians,
nurses, technicians and staff quickly came to understand that Bruce was
not their typical patient. With his science background, he was quick to
question them in detail about procedures, medications, side effects.
Even when in wrenching pain or when totally exhausted, he'd quiz them
before he'd let them do anything.
For Bruce's family and friends, but most especially for Bruce, 2000
was a year focused on his well-being and doing everything we could to
beat this mysterious disease. The mantra was, ``If anyone can beat
this, it's Bruce,'' due to his tireless tenacity and passion.
Following the completion of the radiation, we were confident that
Bruce was through the worst of it. But within a few weeks, we were told
that the cancer had spread to Bruce's other lung. On September 25th, we
were urged to arrange for hospice care, which we did the next day. On
the beautiful, autumn morning of October 10, Bruce died at our home
with his family at his side.
Since Bruce's death I have had the privilege of becoming involved
in advocacy organizations that represent mesothelioma patients and
their families and have met many of them. Let me tell you about just a
few of them.
Chris. A quiet, hard-working young man was exposed to asbestos
while working as an airline mechanic. He battled mesothelioma so
bravely for 7 years with his wife Wendy and their daughter Taylor at
his side every step of the way. Chris lost that battle this past
December 21. Chris was 44.
Klaus. A proud man, fiercely determined to beat the odds when it
comes to mesothelioma. Klaus's quiet determination has made him a role
model to so many who have met him. He was exposed to asbestos working a
summer job with a construction crew putting up drywall as well as
during several renovation projects. He was diagnosed in 2001. He and
his family have explored every possible treatment option. He is
currently battling a reoccurrence and struggling to prolong his life.
Mary. Quiet, reflective, a pretty young mom who lives with her
husband and two darling daughters just north of the Twin Cities. She
also lives with the reality of a ticking time bomb--mesothelioma, which
she was diagnosed with in October 2002. She was exposed to asbestos as
a little girl while sitting on her dad's lap as he drank coffee at the
end of his work day. He was a construction carpenter. He suffers from
asbestosis and the brutal reality of knowing that he brought those
fibers home from work on his clothes.
Bev. A vibrant, joyful nurse who provided such loving care and
endless support for cancer patients and their families, including Bruce
and me during the summer of 2000. Just months after Bruce's death, Bev
was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Despite extensive treatment, Bev died
in November 2005. Her exposure to asbestos occurred in one of her first
work settings--a Minneapolis hospital.
Mary and Bev did not work directly with asbestos, and yet, it has
forever impacted their lives and the lives of their families and
friends.
Klaus's, Chris's, Bev's, Mary's, and Bruce's stories are just a few
of the thousands of tragedies that are occurring throughout this
country every day.
Senator Murray's bill will bring hope to all of us whose lives have
been touched by this disease:
It will prohibit the use of asbestos in products in this
country and will correct the mistaken belief held by so many that
asbestos was banned decades ago.
It will increase public awareness which is needed to
dispel the myth that only intense and prolonged exposure is hazardous.
Finally, it will provide desperately needed resources for
medical research, life prolonging early detection and treatment
options, and ultimately a cure.
Thank you, Senator Murray, for your years of tireless work on this
issue. Thank you to each of the members of this subcommittee who are
here today to hear our pleas for your support of this important
legislation. Please know that your efforts to help secure passage of
this bill will be deeply and forever appreciated by mesothelioma
patients and their families throughout this country.
The Chairman. Thank you so much, Mrs. Vento.
Dr. Pass.
STATEMENT OF DR. HARVEY PASS, PROFESSOR OF CARDIOTHORACIC
SURGERY, NEW YORK SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, NEW YORK, NY
Dr. Pass. Chairwoman Murray, Ranking Member Isakson,
Senator Brown, distinguished members of the U.S. Senate
Employment and Workplace Safety Committee, my name is Harvey
Pass. I am the Director of the Division of Thoracic Surgery at
the New York University School of Medicine in New York. When I
was the Head of Thoracic Oncology at the National Cancer
Institute in Bethesda, I was the first to make mesothelioma a
research priority and I have continued my mesothelioma clinical
and bench work investigations at the Karmonos Cancer Institute
in Detroit and now in New York. I'm also a board member and
Head of the Scientific Advisory Board for the Mesothelioma
Applied Research Foundation and I'm proud that my research in
mesothelioma has been funded by the National Cancer Institute,
the American Cancer Society and the Veteran's Administration.
Mesothelioma is a diffuse tumor of the lining of the lungs,
the abdomen and the heart, which kills close to 3,000 victims
in the United States. It relentlessly invades the tissues of
the chest and the abdomen, causing excruciating pain in most
afflicted patients at the end of their life. The average
survival for individuals with mesothelioma is 1 year. The cause
of mesothelioma is asbestos. Mesothelioma takes 30 years to
exhibit symptoms and roughly between 10 and 50 years from the
time of the initial exposure. The mesothelioma victims of today
built our country as pipe fitters, boilermakers, insulators,
electricians and ship builders, among others and a third of
today's mesothelioma victims served as United States people in
the Navy, on ships or in shipyards. Families have been
destroyed by second-hand fiber exposure when these heroes
brought asbestos into the household. It is estimated that there
is asbestos in 30 million homes in the United States as well as
in numerous products. Exposure to asbestos is unpredictably
dangerous. A minimum or a one-time exposure, as you've heard or
a very low exposure over time may be enough to trigger the
catastrophe leading to mesothelioma.
It is essential that we ban asbestos now and find
alternatives to asbestos use. Armed with mountains of evidence
about the profound risk of asbestos, it is our responsibility
to act by stopping the flow of asbestos into our environment
and protect future generations. By finally banning asbestos,
Senator Murray's bill will save lives, which without a doubt,
would otherwise be lost to this disease.
We also have to think about all those who have already been
exposed and who will continue to be exposed to asbestos already
in our environment. It is estimated that 23 million Americans
have been occupationally exposed over the past 50 years and are
now at risk. 9/11 and Katrina only emphasize this even more.
Asbestos is virtually omnipresent in all buildings built in the
late seventies and for those who could develop mesothelioma as
a result of these exposures, the only hope is effective
treatment.
Mesothelioma has been an orphan in medical research. Until
3 years ago, there wasn't even a standard therapy approved by
the FDA that did anything better than nothing at all. Even this
approved treatment, which is regarded as the new standard of
care, only prolongs life by 3 months. Hence, hand-in-hand with
prevention, must come funding for early detection and improved
treatment of the disease.
This is why research funding, a key component of the Murray
bill, is also critical. Mesothelioma investigators are learning
which genes and proteins can give a signature for the disease
and which of these also control the pathways for mesothelioma.
Since 1999, research and advocacy for mesothelioma has been
championed by the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation and
4 million dollars in seed money has been given to the brightest
investigators in the world.
But we now need to have the Federal government help us in
order to make sure that these promising findings will hold true
in conducting expensive, challenging but necessary validation
trials in the United States.
Senator Murray's bill will do this by establishing 10
centers of excellence across the United States for mesothelioma
and help to accrue patients in sufficient numbers to run
clinical trials. Senator Murray's bill would also mandate
collaboration, not only among these centers but with the
Intramural Program of the NCI and with the Department of
Veteran's Affairs. The bill also will establish, through the
National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety, efforts
to establish this mesothelioma registry so we'll even know how
many mesotheliomas there actually are out there so we can know
the extent of the epidemic.
Three years ago, I was invited to the Senate to advocate
for mesothelioma victims by endorsing Senator Murray's bill.
Since that time, I've treated and operated on too many new
patients, new patients who were diagnosed, treated,
subsequently recurred and have already died, leaving behind
families that only wanted to have longer time with their loved
ones. Despite these tragedies, we are no closer to banning the
cause of this cancer than we were in 2004.
The time has come for a war on mesothelioma, first by
eliminating the use of asbestos and then by arming the soldiers
with sufficient resources to find the disease in its early
stages so that newer therapies can prolong their lives.
We owe this to our heroes.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pass follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harvey I. Pass, M.D.
Chairwoman Murray, Ranking Member Isakson, and distinguished
members of the U.S. Senate Employment and Workplace Safety
Subcommittee, my name is Harvey Pass and I am the Director of the
Division of Thoracic Surgery at the NYU School of Medicine in New York.
When I was Head of Thoracic Oncology at the National Cancer Institute
(NCI) in Bethesda, I was the first to make mesothelioma a research
priority, and I have continued my mesothelioma clinical and bench work
investigations at the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit and now in
New York. I am also a board member and head of the Scientific Advisors
for the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation. I am proud that my
research in mesothelioma has been funded by the NCI, American Cancer
Society and the Veterans Administration.
Mesothelioma is a diffuse tumor of the linings of the lungs,
abdomen or heart which kills close to 3,000 victims in the United
States. It relentlessly invades the tissues of the chest and abdomen,
causing excruciating pain in most afflicted patients at the end of
their life. The average survival for individuals with mesothelioma is 1
year.
The cause of mesothelioma is exposure to asbestos.
Mesothelioma takes 30 years to exhibit symptoms, or roughly between
10 and 50 years from the time of the asbestos exposure. The
mesothelioma victims of today built our country as pipe fitters,
insulators, boilermakers, electricians and shipbuilders, among others
and a third of today's mesothelioma victims served the United States on
Navy ships or in shipyards. Families have been destroyed by second hand
fiber exposure when these heroes brought asbestos from their livelihood
into their home. It is estimated that asbestos is in 30 million U.S.
homes as well as in thousands of products. Exposure to asbestos is
unpredictably dangerous: a minimum or one-time exposure or a very low
exposure over time may be enough to trigger the catastrophic events
leading to mesothelioma.
It is essential that we ban asbestos now and find alternatives to
asbestos use. Armed with mountains of evidence about the profound risk
of asbestos, it is our responsibility to act by stopping the flow of
asbestos into our environment and protect future generations. By
finally banning asbestos, Senator Murray's bill will save lives which
without doubt, would otherwise be lost to this disease.
We also have to think about all who have already been exposed, and
who will continue to be exposed to the asbestos already in our
environment. It is estimated that 23 million Americans have been
occupationally exposed over the past 50 years and are now at risk. 9/11
and Katrina have potentially exposed countless more. Asbestos is
virtually omnipresent in all the buildings built before the late 70s.
For those who could develop mesothelioma as a result of these
exposures, the only hope is effective treatment.
Mesothelioma has been an orphan in medical research. Until 3 years
ago, there was not even one treatment for mesothelioma approved by the
FDA as better than doing nothing at all. Even this approved treatment,
which is regarded as the new standard of care, is associated with only
a 3 month survival advantage in the majority of cases which are
detected in an advanced state. Hence, hand in hand with prevention must
come funding for early detection and improved treatment of the disease.
This is why the research funding component of Senator Murray's bill
is also so critical. Mesothelioma investigators are learning which
genes and proteins can give a signature for the disease, and which of
these also control the pathways that will turn a normal cell into a
mesothelioma. Since 1999, research and advocacy for mesothelioma has
been championed by the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, which
has awarded over $4 million in seed money grants to the brightest
investigators around the world. But we now need the Federal Government
to partner with us in order to make sure that the promising findings
will hold true by conducting expensive, challenging, but necessary
trials across the United States in order to get these promising
approaches from the lab to the patients' bedsides.
Senator Murray's bill will do this by establishing 10 centers of
excellence across the United States for mesothelioma, and help to
accrue patients in sufficient numbers to run meaningful clinical
trials. Senator Murray's bill would mandate collaboration not only
among the 10 centers, but with the NCI's own intramural programs, and
the Department of Veterans Affairs. The bill will also support the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) efforts
to establish a mesothelioma registry and tissue bank so that we can
come to grips with the magnitude of the epidemic and provide valuable
resources to be shared among investigators.
Three years ago, I was invited to the Senate to advocate for
mesothelioma victims by endorsing Senator Murray's bill. Since that
time, I have treated too many new patients who were diagnosed, treated
and subsequently recurred, and died, leaving behind families that only
wanted to enjoy more time with their loved ones. Despite these
tragedies, we are no closer to banning the cause of this cancer than we
were in 2004. The time has come for a war on mesothelioma, first by
eliminating the use of asbestos, and then by arming the soldiers with
sufficient resources to find the disease in its early stages so that
newer therapies can prolong their lives. We owe this to our heroes.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Pass.
John Thayer.
STATEMENT OF JOHN THAYER, PIPEFITTER AND SUPERVISOR, OFFICE OF
THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Thayer. Good morning. Before I start my testimony, I'd
like to be able to introduce the guys that I'm going to be
talking about, which are these 10 guys right here, just so
everybody can be aware of who they are.
My name is John Thayer. I'm a Supervisor of the Capitol
Power Plant Tunnel Crew that I just introduced. We work for the
Architect of the Capitol. There are 10 of us in the tunnel
crew. We maintain the five miles of underground utility tunnels
that supply heat and cooling to all of Congress and some 20
other Federal buildings on Capitol Hill. Some of us have worked
in the tunnels for well over 20 years. If you are comfortable
sitting in this room, it's because the team of pipefitters,
welders and electricians and insulators--they're all doing
their job.
The tunnels are a tough place to work. Temperatures get up
to 160 degrees. Big slabs of concrete fall from the ceilings
and the cramped passages are thick with welding fumes,
pulverized asbestos and concrete dust. The Capitol Police
refuse to patrol the tunnels out of concern for their officers
and for the safety of their dogs. The Fire Department--the DC
Fire Department--will not attempt an emergency rescue in the
tunnels but will only come as a body recovery because there are
no communication systems and access is extremely limited.
On behalf of the entire crew, I want to express our support
for your initiative, Senator Murray, in holding this hearing on
banning asbestos. We know from personal experience the lethal
danger that asbestos presents because we have worked in and
breathed asbestos for decades and unfortunately are now
beginning to suffer the health consequences.
And if workers at the heart of the U.S. Government are
being put at risk, then imagine what it must be like for the
millions of unseen workers in private industry. Just over a
year ago, we found out the AOC had been misleading us for years
about the extent of our workplace exposure to asbestos. The
Architect knew but didn't tell us that the concentration of
air-borne asbestos in the tunnels was extremely toxic, 30 to 40
times over the legal limit.
We discovered this when the Office of Compliance filed an
unprecedented complaint against the Architect for not fixing
the safety problems that the Office of Compliance had
identified 7 years earlier.
So we asked to see the medical records from our annual
employment physicals conducted by the Office of Attending
Physician. My own records stated that I had severe scarring of
my lower lung fields and that my lung age interpretation was
118 years old. I was 33 years old at the time. No one ever told
me this. On the contrary, every year the doctor gave me a piece
of paper saying that I was cleared to work in the tunnels. We
all got those pieces of paper.
We needed to find out the truth. Three of us drove all the
way to Detroit in July of 2006 to see Dr. Michael Harbut, a
nationally renowned expert at the Karmonos Cancer Institute,
who has diagnosed and treated thousands of patients with
asbestos-related diseases.
We learned that we all had signs of asbestos exposure. Let
me tell you, that was a long, quiet drive home. Three
relatively young, otherwise healthy guys who don't smoke, who
live pretty simple lives, learning that we had caught something
at work that might kill us or probably going to and that we
could die a lot earlier than normal.
Even worse, the Architect had let us carry this deadly
asbestos home with our clothes every day for years, without
telling us this posed a risk to our wives and children.
Banning asbestos is important, not only for the safety of
the workers who handle it but also for their families. We all
have now been examined by Dr. Harbut, traveling at our own
expense, to get the standard of care recommended by the
American Thoracic Society under Dr. Harbut's leadership, the
care denied to us by the AOC.
Preliminary results showed that we all have symptoms of
asbestos exposure, not to mention the elevated risks of lung
cancer, colon cancer and mesothelioma. We are essentially
ticking time bombs.
Last spring, we sat in hearings held by Senator Allard and
heard the Architect lie to Congress about the hazards we face
on the job. We were not allowed or invited to speak. AOC
management claimed that they had just learned about the
asbestos problem when in fact, they had known about it for
years. They blamed us for our own medical conditions by
claiming that we would not follow safety rules, when in fact,
they had never provided us or mandated respirators or
decontamination until April of 2006.
The AOC continues to misrepresent working conditions in the
tunnels. It has tried to sweep the problem under the rug by
hiring contractors to turn power washers on the asbestos in
some of the tunnels. Contractors that regularly violate OSHA
procedures have been reported to the Office of Compliance.
Contractors that endanger the public by allowing asbestos to be
released through the air and through the grates in the
sidewalks. As a matter of fact, asbestos has been blowing
through these grates for years but it has gotten worse.
I have tried in vain to stop them from running the exhaust
fans. Recently, they restarted the fans that I said to secure,
along the street along the Hart Building.
It's been a year since we wrote to several Members of
Congress pleading for help but neither the Architect or
Congress has effectively addressed the problem. In fact, just 2
days ago, personal exposure monitors for two of my men showed
six times the allowable exposure.
We have also been retaliated against for blowing the
whistle on our unsafe working conditions and have filed a
complaint with the Office of Compliance. Unfortunately, we are
now preparing to take that to Federal Court. We should not have
to go to court to be compensated for our injuries and defend
our right to speak out for a safe workplace.
We call on you, the Members of Congress for whom we work,
to do what you can do to see that we are all compensated for
irreparable harm that we have suffered and we especially call
on you to ban asbestos from all workplaces so that no one has
to risk their own welfare and that of their families just to
earn a living.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Thayer. Thank you to
all of your workers for being here today as well.
I'm just going to ask one or two questions and turn it to
Senator Isakson. I know that Senator Brown needs to get to the
floor to preside so I want to get to you quickly here.
But Mr. Thayer, I just wanted to ask you, to your
knowledge, has OSHA inspected the tunnels that you work in?
Mr. Thayer. No, they have not. We actually asked for a
NIOSH inspection but they are going through the AOC because of
what they call security reasons. They'll probably have to
subpoena them to get down there.
The Chairman. OK. I understand when somebody works around
asbestos, there are some pretty clear rules that they are
supposed to follow and in fact, I think people are supposed to
get certified in asbestos abatement. Do the contractors that
worked on removing asbestos in the Capitol tunnels use asbestos
abatement procedures, like walling the area off with plastic
sheeting or wearing personal protective gear?
Mr. Thayer. They do but they don't--they're not following
the standards and that's what some of these pictures are.
That's an actual removal since we complained. If you notice,
that grate that is right there?
The Chairman. Right.
Mr. Thayer. That grate is inside the containment and right
above that grate is the stoplight--they are actually physically
removing asbestos inside that tunnel at the same time that
people are walking by over the tunnel. They didn't follow
proper containment. Their containments are all broken down.
The Chairman. When was that picture taken?
Mr. Thayer. These were taken probably in August.
The Chairman. Of this year?
Mr. Thayer. 2006.
The Chairman. OK. Thank you, Mr. Thayer. I'm going to turn
to Senator Isakson and then Senator Brown.
Senator Isakson. I'd be happy for Sherrod to--do you want
to go ahead, Sherrod? I'd be happy to yield to you and then
I'll take----
Senator Brown. Thank you very much, Senator Isakson and
Madame Chair, thank you very much and thank you for this panel.
I appreciate especially Mr. Thayer being here and your service
and your courage and the men and women that you work--that you
supervise and you work with. Too often around here, we don't
pay attention to people who make these buildings run and people
who serve the meals and people who clean the rooms and thank
you very much for what you do to make this government work
better and we owe you way more than an apology for the
treatment of workers around this institution.
Mrs. Vento, thank you. I served with Bruce for 8 years and
there is no better advocate, stronger voice for workers in this
country than Bruce Vento, well beyond the confines of St. Paul
and your part of Minnesota for what he did and the courage and
the outspokenness and the advocacy that he played.
Where I live in Lorraine, Ohio, a county just west of
Cleveland, is the home of ship builders and the home of
steelworkers and the home of defense workers, especially during
World War II and the number of asbestos cases and related--the
lung diseases and others are way too high and we've done way
too little and I so much applaud, as a cosponsor, so much
applaud the legislation that Senator Murray has worked on and
like you, Dr. Castleman--I'm sorry I missed the first part of
your testimony but I read it and like you, I assume that
asbestos manufacturing use had been banned in this country and
it should be.
I have to go and preside on the floor but I appreciate so
much what all of you have done, being here and especially the
legislation, so thank you, Madame Chair.
The Chairman. Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Thank you very much. Dr. Pass, can you--is
there a difference between chrysotile and amphibole asbestos in
terms of the exposure and mesothelioma.
Dr. Pass. Well, Senator, that's a great question and I
would--and there are certain things which I'm an expert at and
I wouldn't presume to give testimony on something that would
not be absolutely 100 percent correct.
Senator Isakson. I respect that.
Dr. Pass. So I will not answer that question but defer that
to experts that I could refer this panel to so that there will
be no confusion about it.
Senator Isakson. Dr. Castleman, I'll ask you the same
question. I know you're not a medical doctor but you have a
doctorate in public health, I think.
Mr. Castleman. Yes. The U.S. regulatory agencies have been
prevailed upon time and again to set a different standard for
chrysotile asbestos than for the amphibole varieties and they
have always declined to do that. This has been done with EPA,
with OSHA. In experimental animal studies, chrysotile asbestos
is just as deadly as the amphibole varieties and to the extent
that there may be a less, somewhat lesser hazard with
chrysotile on the issue of mesothelioma, any information on
that isn't perfectly clear. The chrysotile is still accepted by
everyone as a cause of lung cancer and asbestosis and the bans
in the European countries have all--most of them have been put
into place after the amphibole varieties of asbestos were no
longer mined and sold.
Senator Isakson. Well, I'm glad you mentioned that. That's
kind of the next question I was going to ask. You mentioned the
exception on the chlorine in some of the European Union
countries but is there any differentiation in those 40
countries that ban asbestos, between the chrysotile and the
amphibole?
Mr. Castleman. No. The ban is for all types of asbestos and
the only exception is the chlorine plants using the diaphragm
self-process.
Senator Isakson. One other question from your testimony. I
just--again, I've been reading and I'm kind of like a sponge. I
haven't absorbed everything I need to yet. You mentioned the
Durham's Water Putty and the talc component that contained the
asbestos, is that correct?
Mr. Castleman. Right.
Senator Isakson. I keep reading the term--the difference
between processed asbestos and naturally occurring so I'm just
asking this to learn. Does the asbestos naturally occur in the
talc and that's how it got in there or was the asbestos a
prescriptive part of the formula for the putty?
Mr. Castleman. It naturally occurs in the talc. That is
what I was trying to convey by talking about contaminant
asbestos. It occurs--asbestos is a mineral but it also occurs
as a contaminant of other minerals. So we find it in some talc
deposits.
Senator Isakson. The reason I ask that and I have deep
regard for Chairman Murray and what she is trying to
accomplish. I haven't read the case, but I would imagine when
the courts threw out the EPA's first ban of asbestos, it had
something to do with differentiating between chrysotile and the
other or some other differentiations. When something naturally
occurs in a mineral that is a part of a product, how do you
ban--how do you keep it out of there?
Mr. Castleman. Well, in the case of the talc that contains
asbestos from upstate New York, this was recognized as a hazard
by Dr. Selikoff, who analyzed a number of these drywall-
patching compounds and published his results in 1975. One of
the products that he analyzed and found asbestos in was a
product that used the talc from upstate New York and that
company stopped--the company is called Bond-X and they
reformulated their product to eliminate that type of talc. So
they're, as far as I know, still selling the product or at
least they went on selling the product after that and they were
simply able to reformulate it without using the asbestos
contaminated talc.
Senator Isakson. Thank you very much. Dr. Harvey--and my
time is about up but one quick question. You made a statement
with regard to that, you objected to the term, any
concentration, in the legislation? Dr. Wilson, I'm sorry.
Mr. Wilson. Yes, I made the statement.
Senator Isakson. I apologize. Dr. Wilson, I'll restate the
question. You made a comment with regard to any concentration
in the legislation. Would you elaborate on that for one second?
Mr. Wilson. Well, when I calculate risks of air pollution,
of cancers, of asbestos, of anything else, I believe firmly on
the basis of good understanding, particularly that of Sir
Richard Peto, that there is no threshold for almost anything
for causing trouble. And the EPA has recognized that for
cancers but it has not recognized that for noncancers like air
pollution, which they should.
Now then you cannot ban everything in any concentration. So
you've got to decide what concentration you're going to have.
To say zero or in any concentration is the first step in
understanding but we've been trying to understand asbestos now
for 30 years. We can go beyond that. We can do better. We can
say--we can allow it in a concentration of less than 0.015 per
milliliter for example. But just to say zero is displaying a
lack of understanding and knowledge.
Senator Isakson. Thank you and Madame Chairman, I apologize
that I asked you to provide for Senator Specter and he hasn't
showed so I will acknowledge and make sure everybody knows that
you were great in doing that. I'm sorry he didn't come.
The Chairman. All right and if he arrives, we will
certainly allow him to speak. Well, Dr. Pass, let me just
follow up. Dr. Wilson said that you have to have some kind of
threshold. Give us the medical background of how much exposure
can cause asbestosis or mesothelioma.
Dr. Pass. Senator Murray, I don't think we have an answer
to that question and I'll preface it because there are other
aspects to individuals that have to do with susceptibility. You
could have an individual that is exposed to an extraordinarily
low amount of asbestos and still develop mesothelioma and that
is the problem with why you need to just get rid of it because
it's so unpredictable. There are studies now that are being
done, not only in the United States but in foreign countries,
trying to figure out the genetic basis of susceptibility to
asbestos-related injury. So as long as we know that it may not
be a certain threshold but there may be certain individuals who
are more exposed. Our problem is to find those individuals who
are exposed and to protect them. But the first way to protect
everybody is to get rid of the inciting stimulus and that's why
I support your bill.
The Chairman. OK. Well, I appreciate that. So you're
basically telling us, we don't know how much--how many fibers
can cause some of these diseases, so----
Dr. Pass. In a human, correct.
The Chairman. So by setting a threshold, we may actually be
allowing people to be lethaly exposed because we don't know
what a safe level is. That is also why we need more research as
well as banning asbestos.
And let me ask you, too, do you know much about the
Mesothelioma Registry?
Dr. Pass. I do. I know that they are doing wonderful work
through Pittsburgh to set this up. They are struggling because
they are very concerned about whether this is going to be an
effort that is going to be funded so that they can continue a
second year. They have reached out to mesothelioma centers that
can provide them with information, to provide specimens as well
as information on patients that we--anonymously--that we have
seen so we can find out the magnitude of the problem. But this
is a difficult situation for this group. They don't know when
the funding is going to run out. Their mandate is to set up
this network among us, as mesothelioma and asbestos experts, to
help them to figure out how bad this problem is because again,
we say that it is between 1,400 and 4,000. We really haven't
looked at that and that's why we have to support them.
The Chairman. OK. And the registry is important because it
allows us to know who has been exposed and helps us track where
they've been exposed?
Dr. Pass. That is correct as well as to provide very, very
important information and specimens across centers that are not
available except at certain centers so that everybody is
sharing in a network so that we can use this material for
discovery and for treatment.
The Chairman. Thank you. Dr. Castleman, you emphasized the
need to immediately address the importation and sale of
asbestos brakes and construction panels in the United States,
in your testimony. Can you tell me what the Federal Government
actually needs to do to make that change happen?
Mr. Castleman. Well, you don't need to pass a new law to
accomplish some of these things. As you suggested, OSHA could
go to parts stores and pull some parts off of the shelves and
analyze them, the imported brake parts that are coming from
countries like China and Columbia and Mexico and Brazil.
The Chairman. I think this one here is from Australia.
Mr. Castleman. And the ones that don't say they have
asbestos, I wonder if some of them do. OSHA has never cited any
company for failing to put warning labels on its products, even
though they've had an asbestos standard requiring warning
labels since 1972 and we now know that, for example, Ford and
Chrysler didn't put warning labels on their brake parts until
the 1980s but they've never been subject to surveillance and
citation for this and this is something OSHA needs to do,
otherwise we're basically inviting people to sell us products
without putting the warning labels, bring them in from China
through some fly-by-night distributor.
The Chairman. Right.
Mr. Castleman. Another thing that we can do--the EPA has
the authority to summon from the automobile companies the
information on whether they are still selling asbestos
containing brakes as replacement parts, whether they are still
selling new models of cars with asbestos containing friction
materials or gaskets. The U.S. Customs Service has the means to
provide us the names of the foreign exporters and the U.S.
importers of these products so that these companies can be
directly questioned about whether these materials that they are
bringing in are made with asbestos. And finally, the
International Trade Commission can change its import
classification so that we can have a separate classification
for imported brakes that contain asbestos and for imported
brakes that don't. So we can see from which countries we might
be importing a public health hazard. At this time, the import
commodity classifications are old classifications from the days
that these were all asbestos products.
The Chairman. Right. In your testimony, you talked about
the EPA revising a guidance document for mechanics and
particularly for the mechanics who work on brakes that have
asbestos. Even if we ban asbestos immediately, we're going to
have a lot of cars out there, for a long time that, have brakes
with asbestos in them. This is a copy of the so-called Gold
Book. We're waiting for EPA to issue their new guidlines for
the public, but it's not out yet. I'd like you to comment on
when they do get it out, how long will it take for us to deal
with this problem? How do we deal with the fact that for a long
time to come, we're going to have brakes out there that have
asbestos in them?
Mr. Castleman. Well, that's right. When people are
servicing cars, they don't know what the brakes were that were
in the cars and there could be asbestos in the brake drum dust
that they have to remove when they do the servicing so the
mechanics need to be warned about these things. The original
Gold Book is now being revised and has been sent up to the
Office of Management and Budget for its final review. The
people at the EPA are hoping to have that out in the next month
or so. I don't know what changes the Office of Management and
Budget is asking the EPA to make in the Gold Book.
The Chairman. Is 1986 the last time the EPA issued any
warning to mechanics, and guidance for preventing asbestos
exposure?
Mr. Castleman. Right. Twenty years, more than 20 years ago.
The Chairman. And nothing has been released since, warning
mechanics?
Mr. Castleman. That's correct. But when this was originally
put out, it was done in a really big way. They sent copies of
this to all the vocational and technical schools in the country
and they really did a lot to get the word out to people about
the dangers of asbestos and doing brake repair and clutch
repair. So this is something--if the document that comes back
from the EPA this time around is good, then a similar type of
outreach would be warranted.
The Chairman. This needs to be done right.
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Real quickly just two things. And this is
really to anybody that knows the answer to this question.
Today--now, 2007, the asbestos that is in the chlorine filters,
that is in the brake linings, which are the two things that
have been mentioned. Do we know whether it is chrysotile or
amphibole? Or is it all just chrysotile now?
Mr. Castleman. The only type that is used anywhere now is
chrysotile.
Senator Isakson. That's the only type?
Mr. Castleman. There is no commercial amphibole mining and
sales anywhere since the 1990s.
Senator Isakson. I just want to be sure that was on the
record.
Mr. Castleman. The contaminants tend to be amphiboles, the
contaminants of vermiculite and talc are amphiboles.
Senator Isakson. Which gives me the second technical
question. I'm just trying to make sure I'm right for Dr.
Wilson. You stated in this range of potency that the ratio was
5--I thought I heard you say 500 to 1 in terms of the range of
potency between the two. Is that what you said?
Mr. Wilson. That is the question under dispute. One
particular office says its 500 to 1. Now, the real data comes
from a study from Lancashire, which Julie and Peter talked
about. He thinks--that was about 1975--and on that study, the
number of mesotheliomas from pure chrysotile was at least five
times less. He didn't see any than it would be if it were like
amphibole. This has not been brought into any of the EPA
studies and in all my work, I automatically do two
calculations. One by EPA and then divide by 5 to say it's at
least less than this, as Julie and Peter says. And there is no
real evidence that chrysotile causes mesothelioma to any
appreciable extent. It's almost always been--it's always been
amphiboles involved in it as well. So that's--and that's an
interesting point. I just want to correct one thing. I want to
say, I do not believe there is a threshold below which things
cannot cause cancer. And I do believe that's almost any
substance and for good, theoretical reasons about what we call
perturbation theory. And it's outlined by Sir Richard Peto in
1975. So any thought--when one talks about a limit, that's a
limit, a practical limit and one accepts it to get a negligible
risk and a risk as low as in other parts of society.
Senator Isakson. I just want to acknowledge, Madame
Chairman, it's so refreshing. Dr. Pass and Dr. Wilson both have
qualified their answers by saying they are in dispute or they
couldn't testify precisely. We hear so many people who testify
absolutely. It's wonderful to see professionals who qualify
their remarks for us when we're trying to learn a very
technical subject and I appreciate all your testimony and Sue,
it is terrific to see you again.
The Chairman. Well, thanks, Senator Isakson. This is
precisely why I put research into this bill, many of the rules
and regulations we see coming from the government right now,
are developed with 1960s technology. Yet, we are seeing people
diagnosed every single day, who have been exposed to asbestos
and we don't know how much exposure--maybe just a tiny amount
and that's why I believe we need to ban asbestos. Another
important part of this bill is research and Dr. Pass, maybe you
could comment on why that is needed.
Dr. Pass. When I was at the NCI in the 1990s, there was
very little to do for mesothelioma. Now, very frankly, 2007, we
have publications on at least two biomarkers that are now going
into validation, to try and see whether these are markers of
asbestos-induced injury that may particularly go to
mesothelioma. That's a huge thing. I mean, there aren't markers
for lung cancer but for mesothelioma, we may have good markers.
There is now a consortium of individuals that have gotten
together. They've given up this idea of silos and universities
and are working as a program project to study these
carcinogenic questions and also to extend this not only
nationally in hot spots like Libby but also internationally in
Turkey. This is a moment to seize for mesothelioma research.
It's a moment to seize for asbestos-related research and
therefore, anything which can promote collaborative research
with very talented investigators. There may be PhD's,
scientists, genomic experts--now is the time to get these
people together to concentrate on this one disease,
mesothelioma but also we will learn so much about the
carcinogenicity of asbestosis, also lung cancer, that we must
seize the moment and the money needs to be there for these
individuals to have it and that's why the bill that mandates
collaborative interactions is so important. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. And Mrs. Vento, I'm going to end
with you. You've done a lot of work on the Mesothelioma Applied
Research Foundation. Can you tell us a little bit about what
you're doing?
Mrs. Vento. Well, the Mesothelioma Applied Research
Foundation is an organization that includes several folks whose
lives have been personally touched. Mary Cosentino, a mom and
an attorney and a great woman from Illinois as well as several
of us who have lost loved ones and physicians--Dr. Pass is a
member of our board as well. Our Foundation is doing what it
can to secure and fund research grants, to most especially help
the patients and their families to reach out to them and to do
everything that we can to increase the awareness and most
definitely to help you pass this bill. So thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you. I want to thank all of our
witnesses for being here today. Senator Isakson, I want to work
with you on a bipartisan basis. I want to see this signed by
the President. We're going to keep working until we get this
done. I really appreciate everybody's input and John, I
especially want to thank you and your workers who are here
today for talking to us about a very real issue that all of us
need to focus our attention on. I appreciate each one of you
for having the courage to be here today. To all of our
witnesses, thank you again for your testimony and I am going to
ask unanimous consent that the hearing record remain open 7
days for additional relevant materials to be submitted. And we
will adjourn, subject to the call of the Chair.
Thank you.
[Additional material follows.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statement of Senator Specter
Chairwoman Murray, thank you for the opportunity to address
the subcommittee today.
I share your concern about protecting American workers and
their families from the deadly effects of asbestos exposure in
the workplace. Indeed, I have spent much of the last several
years in the Senate fighting for the people sickened by this
deadly substance by crafting legislation to guarantee them
timely and fair compensation.
I led this fight with the help of Senator Leahy and many
other members from both sides of the aisle who believe strongly
in enacting a comprehensive legislative solution that would put
an end to an irrational and unfair tort system that has failed
truly sick asbestos victims. And I must note the extraordinary
time and energy invested by the late Judge Edward Becker, my
friend of 56 years, in bridging differences and crafting
solutions on extraordinarily complex legislation. Judge Becker
made countless trips to Washington from his home in
Philadelphia to testify at asbestos hearings before the
Judiciary Committee; to meet with stakeholders: and to speak
individually with Senators to enlist their support in having
Congress fulfill its responsibility on this issue.
Judge Becker's devotion to finding a Federal solution to
the asbestos problem, and his concern for those affected by the
broken system, continued through his last days.
As I address the subcommittee this morning, I do so as a
Senator who not only has been, but continues to be, committed
to passing Federal asbestos legislation for our country's
workers and their families.
The Nation's courts for years have implored Congress to
address the asbestos litigation crisis. The Supreme Court has
stated that the current flawed system ``defies customary
judicial administration.'' In 1997 the Supreme Court observed:
The most objectionable aspects of this asbestos
litigation can be briefly summarized: dockets in both
Federal and State courts continue to grow; long delays
are routine; trials are too long; the same issues are
litigated over and over; transaction costs exceed the
victims' recovery by nearly two to one; exhaustion of
assets threatens and distorts the process; and future
claimants may lose altogether. Amchem Products v.
Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997).
The issues are extraordinarily complex. It took years to
build consensus among some of the most powerful interests in
Washington--trial lawyers, organized labor, manufacturers,
employers, and insurers, just to name a few. Working with Judge
Becker, my colleagues and I provided a forum for frank
discussion among the parties affected by various proposals.
Above all, we sought fairness, practicality and sound policy.
We held 48 large ``roundtable'' meetings; Judge Becker alone
held 65 separate meetings with individual stakeholders; there
were hundreds of other meetings and thousands of hours of work.
In fact, your staff was present at some of these roundtable
meetings. I cannot think of any other legislative undertaking
that involved more time, more effort, or more commitment to
understanding and addressing the issues.
At the beginning of the last Congress, in 2005, Senator
Leahy and I introduced S. 852, a comprehensive bill to resolve
the crisis in our civil justice system. We built upon the
significant effort to resolve the asbestos problem of then-
Chairman Hatch, who in 2003 introduced a bill establishing a
proposed trust fund and an administrative no-fault process. The
Senate undertook significant action on S. 852 in 2005, despite
calls from skeptics who said that moving the bill from the
Judiciary Committee was nearly impossible. On May 26, 2005, the
committee reported S. 852 favorably on a strong bipartisan vote
of 13-5 following a grueling 6-day mark-up that involved late
nights and several hundred amendments. When Majority Leader
Frist brought the bill to the floor, the Senate voted
overwhelmingly (98-1) to invoke cloture on the motion to
proceed. We fell one vote shy of the 60 votes needed to
overcome a budget point of order, a procedural hurdle thrown in
the way. The bill was sent back to the Judiciary Committee,
where we continued our work.
On May 26, 2006, Senator Leahy and I introduced S. 3274
``The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2006,''
(the FAIR Act), which incorporated many amendments filed during
the floor debate on S. 852, including an alternative allocation
system for small and medium-sized business proposed by Senator
Kyl, and Senator Landrieu's amendment relating to filing
procedures for individuals exposed to asbestos as a result of
natural disaster.
During this process, even you Senator Murray, presented
compelling testimony before the Judiciary Committee during the
108th Congress about the need for enacting Federal legislation
aimed at banning the distribution of asbestos containing
products in the stream of commerce. As a result, the Judiciary
Committee worked closely with your office in crafting a
bipartisan solution that became part of the broader asbestos
trust fund bill. As you move ahead on your asbestos ban
legislation, I trust that the compromises we reached will be
honored. These compromises included (among other things): (i)
carefully negotiated DOD exemption language adopted during
committee markup last Congress; (ii) exemptions for roof
coatings and diaphragms used in the production of chlorine; and
(iii) a specific definition of asbestos.
While the most recent FAIR Act of 2006 was not considered
by the full Senate, I remain committed to finding a solution to
this litigation crisis that leaves victims with serious
disability without compensation. I want to ensure justice for
the tens of thousands of Americans who already have developed
debilitating or deadly asbestos-related diseases, and those who
will become ill in the coming years. I applaud your continued
efforts to protect our Nation's current and future workers from
asbestos exposure, but I believe a more comprehensive solution
is necessary.
Today, asbestos victims filing tort claims receive an
average of 42 cents of every dollar spent on asbestos
litigation. Sadly, the other 58 cents are swallowed by the high
transaction costs of litigation, where 31 cents of every dollar
go to defense costs, and 27 go to plaintiffs' attorneys and
other related costs.
We don't want more companies to go bankrupt. We don't want
asbestos victims suffering without the help they need and
deserve. I will continue to fight for a fair and bi-partisan
bill that will do right by victims and businesses across the
country. The sheer number of claims continues to clog both
State and Federal courts. Claims by unimpaired individuals have
delayed payments and reduced the money available for the truly
sick. Asbestos claims have driven many defendants into
bankruptcy, leaving some victims without payment altogether and
other victims diverted to bankruptcy trusts that offer, in some
cases, cents on the dollar as a result of asset depletion. Wall
Street continues to punish solvent companies for the
unpredictability of their asbestos liability, preventing
business growth and the creation of new jobs. Very recently--
this year--there have been court rulings and media reports
about conflicts of interest, multiple recoveries (``double
dipping''), and fraud related to asbestos bankruptcy trusts--
the result of which is that, even where there are assets
available for payment, fair and just compensation still is not
going to those who are impaired.
And in this time of talk about support for our troops, many
of our Nation's veterans who were exposed to asbestos during
their military service suffer from asbestos-related diseases,
including one of the deadliest cancers--mesothelioma. Because
many of the companies that supplied asbestos to the military
went bankrupt long ago, and because the Federal Government is
immune from suit, sick veterans are often left with little or
no compensation. Let me be clear about this tragedy. Our
veterans gave years of their lives in service to our country,
but when they contract deadly and painful illnesses caused by
asbestos exposure during their service, we tell them ``sorry,
there is nothing we can do for you.'' This is wrong. Congress
owes our veterans a solution.
Today you have Capitol Hill Tunnel employee John Thayer
testify as to his and other tunnel workers exposure to asbestos
while working on the utility tunnels below the Capitol. Our
bill would allow our tunnel workers fair and just compensation
for any injuries they may contract due to this exposure.
While we did not enact an asbestos trust fund bill last
Congress, our efforts were not in vain. Through hearings,
Senate floor action, markups and meetings, we did shine light
on fraudulent mass screening programs that generate falsified
x-ray readings for unimpaired claimants, and medical
certifications by doctors who never examined the ``patients.''
These programs drove the alarming rise earlier this decade of
unimpaired asbestos claims that flooded the tort system to the
detriment of the truly sick. Judges and prosecutors took notice
and cracked down on these abuses. As a result of heightened
awareness and enforcement, claims of the unimpaired have
declined.
But many problems remain. Our veterans still have no
relief. Families of other workers are left with medical bills
and no compensation. The residents of Libby, Montana, where
W.R. Grace operated an asbestos-contaminated mine until 1990,
leaving residents and workers sick from asbestos exposure, have
no hope of recovering adequate compensation; W.R. Grace is
bankrupt.
I continue to work with Chairman Leahy and my colleagues to
ensure that comprehensive asbestos reform remains a priority
for the Senate. I have instructed my staff to continue
assessing the underlying asbestos litigation problem and to
focus on ways to help our veterans and those suffering from
mesothelioma, as well as putting an end to abusive litigation
tactics in our civil justice system. Last fall, I had
discussions with Senator McConnell about scheduling floor
action on asbestos early this Congress. I have had recent
discussions with Majority Leader Reid who, while noting
admitted difficulties in scheduling floor time for this matter,
said that he would try to find time for an asbestos bill this
Congress.
We have a moral obligation to do more than criticize or
even wash our hands of this problem. We must find a solution.
Chairwoman, Murray, I thank you for this opportunity to
speak about an issue that is so important to so many and I look
forward to continue working with you on this matter.
Prepared Statement of Linda Reinstein
On behalf of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), I
represent thousands of victims and their families around the world who
have become sick or died as a result of exposure to asbestos.
My name is Linda Reinstein, Executive Director of the Asbestos
Disease Awareness Organization and now a mesothelioma widow. My husband
lost his 3 year battle with mesothelioma on May 22, 2006. I am neither
a lobbyist nor an attorney, only a volunteer.
We face an enormous public health crisis. As early as 1898,
asbestos exposure was linked to disease. The stress and trauma is life
altering for those Americans with known asbestos exposure waiting for
time to reveal their medical fate.
The simple truth is--asbestos kills. Every year in the United
States, 10,000 men, women and children die from asbestos-caused
diseases. Asbestos diseases are incurable; preventing exposure is the
only way to eliminate disabilities, diseases and deaths. Asbestos is
the largest single cause of occupational cancer. Every year, 1 in every
125 men over the age of 50 dies from an asbestos caused disease.
Inhaling and swallowing asbestos fibers can cause malignant and
nonmalignant diseases, such as, but not limited to, Mesothelioma,
Asbestosis, Chronic Pulmonary Respiratory Disorders, Lung Cancer,
Larynx, Esophagus, Stomach Cancer, Kidney and Bowel problems. A recent
asbestos disease study sited, 65 percent of the victims suffer from
cancer and the remainder 35 percent suffer from nonmalignant diseases.
Although mesothelioma annually claims the lives of an estimated
2,000 Americans, other cancers and respiratory diseases kill 8,000 more
Americans. Many victims feel like they are breathing through a pinched
straw, for every breath, every minute, every day. When the victims'
oxygen levels become critically low, they are tethered to supplemental
oxygen to prolong life. Lack of oxygen causes death by respiratory
failure and/or cardiac arrest.
Early diagnoses can increase the treatment options for the patient
and improve their quality of life. Patients initially diagnosed with
asbestosis now live long enough to be diagnosed with mesothelioma at
the end of their life.
Asbestos was widely used in the construction and attic insulation
in millions of homes in the United States and Canada built before 1975.
In 1976, Congress passed the Toxic Substance Control Act and named
asbestos as a toxic mineral.
In 1977 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
classified asbestos as a Category 1 Human Carcinogen, the highest
cancer hazard classification for a substance.
In 1986 President Reagan signed into law the Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act (AHERA). This law and the regulations to enforce
it were designed to prevent children or staff from being exposed to
asbestos in the schools, but they have not been updated or revised
since 1987.
In 1989 the EPA promulgated an asbestos ban, but within 2 years,
the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit overturned
portions of the regulations and the Federal Government did not appeal
the decision to the Supreme Court.
In 2002, the collapse of the World Trade Center towers led to the
release of hundreds of tons of asbestos from the towers. An estimated
20,000 responders, workers, volunteers and residents suffer from
respiratory diseases. The annual direct treatment costs are $140
million dollars. We can only extrapolate the cost of human tragedy and
treatment expenses from the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
In 2006, the World Health Organization and the International Labor
Organization in a policy paper issued in and a resolution adopted
respectively agreed that: all forms of asbestos are classified as human
carcinogens, no threshold for ``safe'' exposure exists, and the
elimination of asbestos use is essential to stop the global epidemic of
asbestos-related disease.
And now, younger victims are dying from diseases. Recently, a 9-
year-old child was diagnosed with mesothelioma and died 3 years later.
Victims of asbestos related diseases are completely innocent. They are
firefighters and veterans, construction workers and engineers. They are
the women who became exposed washing their husbands' work clothes. They
are children whose loving hug turned deadly.
Our data shows the common patient profile to be a 51 year old with
no known occupational exposure.
Leigh, mesothelioma victim, 27, believes she developed
mesothelioma after walking to primary school through a factory yard
where asbestos was cut.
June, 53, mesothelioma victim, had no known occupational
exposure.
Adam, mesothelioma victim, dead at 33, had no known
occupational exposure.
Alan, mesothelioma victim, dead at 67, was briefly exposed
to asbestos as a submarine engineer and while doing home repairs.
Thomas, 57, asbestosis victim, worked for 27 years as a
railroad electrician.
Asbestos diseases are difficult to diagnose and treat; many deaths
are inaccurately recorded. Our statistics primarily report occupational
exposures which is only one of six types of exposures that cause
painful and often deadly diseases.
Types of Occupational and Non-Occupational Asbestos Exposure
Occupational
Take-home and Secondary
Environmental (Naturally Occurring Asbestos)
Consumer Products
Deconstruction, Renovation or Implosions of Contaminated
Buildings
Unknown
Asbestos continues to be mined and exported from Canada. The United
States and Canada remain the only two industrialized nations that have
not yet banned the use of asbestos in common products while more than
40 countries have banned asbestos. Consumers are at risk with imported
asbestos contaminated products such as brakes.
Most Americans assume their air, soil and water are safe from toxic
contaminants--but as victims, we know the truth. Just walk the streets
of Libby or New York City--they know all too well about irreversible
effects of asbestos poisoning.
The asbestos ban will only be as effective as the laws are
enforced. Presently, minimal fines and lack of enforcement make our
existing laws weak and deadly asbestos exposure continues.
It is time to eliminate all asbestos caused diseases with education
and prevention, while simultaneously investing in research for a cure.
These terrible facts ensure that there will be asbestos victims in
America for decades to come. An immediate worldwide ban on the
production and use of asbestos is long overdue, fully justified and
absolutely necessary. Congress needs to ban asbestos and increase
funding for research and education--laws we need and can agree upon
today.
My testimony is dedicated to my late husband, Alan Reinstein,
President of ADAO, who lost his mesothelioma battle on May 22nd 2006.
Our daughter is just 14 years old.
Prepared Statement of Jennifer Joy Wilson
The National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA) appreciates
the opportunity to submit a statement for the record of the hearing on
the ``Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007.'' NSSGA supports rigorous
regulation of harmful exposure to asbestos, which has long been
regulated as a carcinogen. NSSGA, however, cautions that regulation and
legislation addressing asbestos must have definitions and analytical
methods that are based on sound science. Additionally, definitions and
methods must be sufficiently accurate and precise to differentiate
regulated asbestiform minerals and exclude prismatic, rock-forming
minerals, which have never been found to cause health effects like
those associated with asbestos. Current analytical methods for defining
asbestos were designed to measure commercial asbestos in environments
known to contain it, and therefore are inappropriate for the natural
environment because they are incapable of distinguishing between
asbestiform and prismatic, rock-forming minerals.
Based near the Nation's capital, NSSGA is the world's largest
mining association by product volume. Its member companies represent
more than 90 percent of the crushed stone and 70 percent of the sand
and gravel produced annually in the United States and approximately
117,000 working men and women in the aggregates industry. During 2005,
a total of about 3.2 billion tons of crushed stone, sand and gravel,
valued at $17.4 billion, were produced and sold in the United States.
Without these important commodities, the Nation's infrastructure could
not be built or maintained and the commerce and quality of life
American's enjoy would be severely reduced. With over 11,000 operations
nationwide approximately 70 percent of the Nation's counties house an
aggregates operation, many with multiple operations.
Of considerable concern is that any legislation dealing with
asbestos must define it accurately. Asbestos is a commercial term for
six naturally occurring minerals that are composed of long, thin,
flexible fibers that easily separate and become airborne. The six
regulated asbestos minerals also exist in a fundamentally different
structure as prismatic, rock-forming minerals, in prismatic crystal
forms. These prismatic minerals are common rock-forming components of
many igneous and metamorphic rock types found along the east and west
coasts of the United States, in the Midwest and in Alaska. The problem
is that the definitions and analytical methods that have been used to
define and measure asbestos in air and bulk samples are not able to
distinguish between the harmful forms of the minerals and those forms
that pose no health effects.
In 1986, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
passed a regulation that tightened existing rules on the six asbestos
minerals while expanding its rules to include three prismatic, rock-
forming minerals. The mining industry, including the aggregates sector,
challenged this action. In 1992, after public hearings, OSHA recognized
the problem and concluded that exposure to these prismatic, rock-
forming minerals does not cause the adverse health effects associated
with asbestos.
The issue emerged again in the wake of asbestos contamination found
at a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana that has resulted in serious
asbestos related illnesses occurring among miners there and with the
Libby community. Several Federal agencies, including the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA), are currently examining the need for additional regulation of
naturally occurring asbestos. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the
National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH), non-
regulatory agencies, are providing scientific information to help
resolve these issues.
Federal asbestos trust fund legislation that died in the 109th
Congress accurately defined asbestos minerals as follows:
ASBESTOS--The term ``asbestos'' includes--
(A) chrysotile;
(B) amosite;
(C) crocidolite;
(D) tremolitc asbestos;
(E) winchite asbestos;
(F) richterite asbestos
(G) anthophyllite asbestos;
(H) actinolite asbestos; and
(I) asbestiform amphibole minerals.
Differences between the asbestiform and prismatic mineral varieties
are evident in their physical form and not in their chemical
composition. The challenge then becomes to differentiate between the
two. This can be done through carefully drawn definitions and
discriminate analytical methods. Currently analytical methods and fiber
definitions for asbestos were designed for settings where commercial
asbestos is expected to be present. They are not useful, however, in
the natural environment, where asbestos is not usually present, because
they cannot distinguish between asbestiform and prismatic, rock-forming
minerals. Current analytical methods falsely identify many prismatic
cleavage fragments as asbestos.
Federal legislation, if passed, without the proper definitions,
could result in unjustified regulation of prismatic, rock-forming
minerals as if they were asbestos. Confusing these minerals with
asbestos will likely alarm miners, the public and the investment
community unnecessarily and spur frivolous lawsuits. Companies in the
construction materials industry could become targets of asbestos
litigation, which has already forced many companies in other industries
into bankruptcy.
Most importantly, failure to define asbestos correctly in
legislation could result in ordinary prismatic rock-forming minerals
being included in asbestos health risk assessments, diluting the
asbestos health risk assessment, and potentially resulting in
occupational and public health overexposure to asbestos.
In addition to accurately defining asbestos, NSSGA believes new
test methods are needed to measure the lower concentrations of asbestos
that can occur in the natural environment. A voluntary laboratory
accreditation program, similar to the National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program, is needed to help assure local testing
laboratories produce accurate results.
The American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) published a new
consensus test protocol in July 2006, D 7200-06, for measuring asbestos
in the natural environment.
The logical entity to develop a national laboratory accreditation
program based on the new ASTM protocol is the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) in the U.S. Department of Commerce.
NIST has worked for over 100 years with U.S. companies, universities,
governmental agencies and other organizations to build the
infrastructure--the technical support system--vital to the Nation's
technological capabilities and its long-term economic competitiveness.
NIST has the necessary scientific expertise and experience to undertake
such a project, and its Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory is
the Nation's primary reference laboratory.
Finally, NSSGA supports an independent study of naturally occurring
asbestos to ensure consistency of effort in determining what actually
is asbestos. Currently, so many agencies are involved in studying the
issue including MSHA, EPA, USGA, NIST, and NIOSH, that NSSGA believes
the result could be more confusion and a panoply of testing
methodologies. NSSGA supports an independent study by the National
Academy of Sciences or the Health Effects Institute, both well regarded
scientific agencies with experience in studying this issue.
In conclusion, NSSGA supports efforts to ban asbestos in America,
but urges caution and a recognition that asbestos exists naturally in
the environment. Therefore, it is imperative that any legislation
accurately defines asbestos in order to distinguish prismatic rock-
forming minerals that are not harmful to human health from true
asbestos. Also, due to the fact that previous testing methodologies
were created for determining asbestos in commercial environments, NSSGA
supports development of a laboratory accreditation program, based on
the new ASTM test protocol for determining naturally occurring
asbestos, to be done by NIST, as well as an independent third-party
study to be undertaken by either the National Academy of Sciences or
the Health Effects Institute.
Prepared Statement of Kerry Swift
In 2002, after several years of complaints regarding deficiencies
in the Asbestos Management Plans, and major contamination by asbestos
floor tiles, all four of Brookfield Connecticut Public Schools were
extensively cleaned of asbestos fibers by professional contractors.
It was decided that in order to open schools on time in September,
abatement would be delayed until a future date. Instead, a Monitoring
Plan consisting of periodic air/dust sampling would be conducted to
monitor the environment for any continued accumulation of asbestos
fibers.
During this testing, continued chrysotile contamination from the
remaining floor tiles was a problem, but in Whisconier Middle School,
the routine air testing discovered anthophylite asbestos in the art
room, this type of asbestos was also found in microvac dust testing of
the room. For several months, the source of this ongoing contamination
remained a mystery. Extensive bulk testing of the art materials in the
room was conducted. Finally, by using Transmission Electron Microscopy
(TEM), traces, under 1 percent, of anthophylite asbestos, which had
been undetectable using Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM), were found in
clay containing talc. The clay had been purchased from Sheffield
Pottery in Massachusetts. The Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) from
Sheffield, for this clay, indicated talc from R.T. Vanderbilt
containing ``non-asbestiform'' anthophylite and ``non-asbestiform''
tremolite as one of the ingredients. Once the clay was replaced with a
clay that did not contain talc, no anthophylite asbestos was detected
in air and dust tests.
However, several months later, the anthophylite contamination
reappeared. Bulk testing again found the source to be talc clay, this
time from Amherst Pottery Supply. The school had inadvertently bought
asbestos-talc-containing clay again.
According to the lab reports of the air testing, using the AHERA
counting standard, structures, which met the criteria for the
definition of an asbestos fiber, were found in the air, as high as
0.0184 structures/cubic centimeter (s/cc), which is almost double the
0.01 s/cc standard most public health regulations allow for public
occupancy.
We've been told by the Connecticut Department of Public Health that
``many'' schools in Connecticut are using the same talc clay from
Sheffield Pottery. If Brookfield hadn't had the Monitoring Program,
which we are not aware of ever being done in any other school system,
Brookfield's children would still be using this asbestos-talc clay as
well, and be working in this unseen contamination every school day.
Does R.T. Vanderbilt's talc contain asbestos, or non-asbestiform
anthophylite and tremolite fibers? Frankly, as a parent, I don't care
how it's classified. I don't want it in my child's lungs. R.T.
Vanderbilt can continue to quibble with the regulators over the precise
definition of an asbestos fiber, but while this argument drags on,
children in art rooms everywhere are using clay containing this talc.
Can't we say enough is enough and protect our children?
We urge you to support the complete ban on asbestos.
(Brookfield Parents, Kerry Swift, Brookfield, CT 06804 and Kathleen
Rossland, Brookfield, CT 06804.)
______
Richard A. Lemen, Ph.D., M.S.P.H.,
Canton, GA 30115,
March 18, 2007.
Hon. Patty Murray,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20501.
Dear Senator Murray: I am writing to respond to the comments of
Professor Richard Wilson of Harvard University's Department of Physics
and Center for Risk Analysis. In Professor Wilson's comments to the
Senate Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee on March 1, 2007,
he made reference to the safety of the current Occupational Safety and
Health Administration's (OSHA's) standard for asbestos, which is 0.1
fiber/cc as a time-weighted average over an 8 hour workday.\1\ Several
of Wilson's contentions are misleading. I will address many of his
incorrect assertions below. However, as co-author of the 1976
recommendation to adopt the current asbestos standard, I'd first like
to provide some background on the genesis of today's standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Wilson R, 2007. Comments of Professor Richard Wilson,
Department of Physics & Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard University on
the Proposed Asbestos Ban, Senate Employment and Workplace Safety
Subcommittee under the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee, March 1, 2007, Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 430,
Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background on the Existing Asbestos Standard
The current standard of 0.1 fiber/cc as a time-weighted average
over an 8 hour workday was first proposed in 1976 by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in a Revised
Recommended Asbestos Standard.\2\ Previously, in 1972, NIOSH had
recommended a standard of 2 fibers/cc based on data supporting the
British Occupational Hygiene Society's (BOHS') standard on asbestos.
The data came from a study conducted on a Turner and Newell asbestos
textile facility in the UK, which was first studied by Dr. Richard Doll
in 1955.\3\ In 1965 Knox et al.\4\ reported on additional lung cancers
from the Doll cohort (Doll had asserted that all of his lung cancer
cases had exposures prior to the 1931 government-industry regulations).
The 1965 study and another by Knox et al. in 1968 \5\ formed the basis
for the 2 fiber/cc recommendation of NIOSH in 1972. Knox said of his
study that it should be noted that, ``In this factory chrysotile is
predominantly used, but it cannot be affirmed that workers have not
been exposed to crocidolite at all. It is certain, however, that none
have worked with crocidolite for any considerable part of their working
life.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NIOSH, 1976. Revised Recommended Asbestos Standard. U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health. Primary responsibility for development of this document was
shared by Richard A. Lemen and John M. Dement, with technical
consultation provided by Dr. Joseph K. Wagoner. December, DHEW (NIOSH)
Publication No. 77-169.
\3\ Doll R, 1955. Mortality from lung cancer in asbestos workers.
Br J Ind Med, 12: 81-86.
\4\ Knox JF, Doll RS, Hill ID, 1965. Cohort analysis of changes in
incidence of bronchial carcinoma in a textile factory. Ann NY Acad Sci,
132: 526-535.
\5\ Knox JF, Holms S, Doll R, Hill ID, 1968. Mortality from lung
cancer and other causes among workers in an asbestos textile factory.
Br J Ind Med 25: 293-303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same year as NIOSH proposed its 2 fiber/cc recommended
standard, Lewinsohn published a reanalysis of the Knox cohort, which
showed that a greater prevalence of abnormalities existed than earlier
reported, including in individuals employed after 1950.\6\ For these
reasons, as outlined in the 1976 Revised Recommended Asbestos Standard,
NIOSH maintained that the original 1972 NIOSH-recommended standard be
revised because it was not protective. NIOSH wrote, ``The BOHS-
recommended standard of 2 fibers/cc was based on data related only to
asbestosis and the Society clearly cautioned that, since a quantitative
relationship between asbestos exposure and cancer risk was not known,
it was not possible at that time to specify an air concentration which
was known to be free of increased cancer risk. (BOHS 1968)'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Lewinsohn HC, 1972. The medical surveillance of asbestos
workers. Soc Health, 92: 69.
\7\ NIOSH, 1976. Revised Recommended Asbestos Standard. U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health. Primary responsibility for development of this document was
shared by Richard A. Lemen and John M. Dement, with technical
consultation provided by Dr. Joseph K. Wagoner. December, DHEW (NIOSH)
Publication No. 77-169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, based on this emerging scientific data on asbestos
health risks, NIOSH recommended, for the first time in the United
States, that the only way to eliminate asbestos-related disease in the
workplace was to ban asbestos use.\8\ Additionally, to protect against
the non-carcinogenic effects of asbestos, NIOSH recommended an
analytical method within the workplace that at that time used the most
reliable, reproducible, and available method to both industry and
official agencies. That methodology was the phase-contrast microscope
technique, which could adequately analyze particles down to a
concentration of 0.1 fiber/cc, the lowest statistically reliable
quantification limit.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ibid.
\9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As history shows, in 1976 OSHA did not adopt this NIOSH Revised
Recommended Asbestos Standard, despite scientific evidence that the
OSHA standard of 5 fibers/cc and the NIOSH recommended standard of 2
fibers/cc were both inadequate for protecting workers from the
deleterious effects from exposure to asbestos. In 1979, the directors
of both OSHA and NIOSH appointed me as chairperson of a committee to
evaluate the effectiveness of and risks posed by the OSHA standard of 2
fibers/cc. This committee evaluated the most recent asbestos data
available at the time and again concluded this standard was not
protective and needed revision.\10\ The committee again recommended
lowering the standard to its lowest measurable concentration, utilizing
the phase contrast methodology, because there was no known safe
concentration of exposure to asbestos.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Lemen RA, Groth DH, Dement JM, Wagoner JK, Lloyd JW, Kang HK,
Jennings RL (Jr.), 1980. Workplace Exposure to Asbestos Review and
Recommendations. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 81-103. U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
and U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This recommendation, however, was not implemented until 1994, 8
years after OSHA had lowered its standard to 0.2 fibers/cc. Even at the
current standard of 0.1 fiber/cc, OSHA projected a risk of about 3.4
excess deaths per 1,000 workers and a 20 year exposure risk to 2.3 per
1,000 workers.\11\ OSHA's linear extrapolation risk analysis is
criticized because of its reliance only on high exposure measurements,
which then projects risks on a linear curve downward. When OSHA
conducted this risk analysis, it asked for other analyses at lower
concentrations, however, none were forthcoming. This was mainly because
no one had done such studies utilizing accurately lower exposure
concentrations. Does this matter and if not, why not? These questions,
and the answers to them, bring me to Wilson's misleading assertions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Department of Labor, 29 CFR
Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926, RIN: 1218-AB25, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure to Asbestos at the Current OSHA Standard Can Still Cause
Asbestos Disease--There is No Threshold of ``Safe'' Exposure
In his testimony, Wilson said, ``We strongly disagree with
statements in the Ban Asbestos bill indicating the current U.S.
permissible exposure level is not safe.'' To support his claim, Wilson
asserted that both Dr. Richard Doll and Julian Peto, researchers in the
UK, questioned such low thresholds and went even further to critique
their validity through supposedly scientific analysis. These included
several reports to both the UK and U.S. governments concluding
differing findings. While Dr. Doll never changed his conclusions that
asbestos could be used safely at low enough concentrations, Julian Peto
has revised his stance multiple times.\12\ A 2007 paper by Geoffrey
Tweedale validates many of the problems that Dr. Barry Castleman found
upon close examination of Dr. Doll's first analysis of lung cancers
among asbestos workers, and thus raises questions concerning
protections for asbestos-exposed workers.\13\ Both the Tweedale and
Castleman papers shed light on the inadequate and misleading science of
the Doll and Peto analyses. Peto now predicts his earlier estimates of
asbestos-related deaths in the UK to have been low; he now predicts the
risks to be at least three to four times higher than his earlier
projections and now expects some 150,000 or more deaths from this man-
made epidemic in the UK.\14\ At the subcommittee hearing, Wilson failed
to disclose the extent to which history has proven Peto to have been
wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Tweedale G, 2007. The Rochdale asbestos cancer studies and the
politics of epidemiology: What you see depends on where you sit. Int J
Occup Environ Health, 13: 70-79.
\13\ Castleman B, 2001. Re: Dolls 1955 study on cancer from
workers. Am J Indust Med, 39: 237-240.
\14\ Peto J, Hodgson JT, Matthews RE, Jones JR, 1995. Continuing
increase in mesothelioma mortality in Britain. Lancet, 4 March, 345:
535-539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Six Types of Asbestos, Including Chrysotile, Are Dangerous, Not
Only the Amphiboles
Wilson also asserts that the major epidemic of asbestos related
disease is a result of amphibole asbestos use, which is virtually non-
existent today. He suggests, therefore, that a ban affecting only
chrysotile is not necessary. The science does not support his argument,
and the fact that most studies of asbestos have evaluated mixed
exposures to both amphibole and serpentine asbestos bring this
conclusion into further contention. (Also, serpentine asbestos
[chrysotile] is rarely found without being contaminated with amphibole
forms of asbestos, such as tremolite). Studies of pure chrysotile
asbestos in animals and laboratories refute his assertion and
findings,\15\ while human epidemiology support a role of synergetic
action when both types of asbestos are found together.\16\ The fact
that 95 percent of asbestos used commercially was chrysotile does not
support an only amphibole role in asbestos-related neoplasms,\17\ nor
does the ``amphibole hypothesis,'' which purports the causative role of
disease to be related only to amphiboles in the risk of asbestosis,
lung cancer and mesothelioma.\18\ That all asbestos fiber types cause
asbestos-related diseases is supported by every major scientific
organization in the world, and it is only the exact potency of
chrysotile, per dose to cause mesothelioma, when compared to that for
amphiboles, which remains controversial. However, even when potency (on
a dose by dose basis) is considered, the fact remains that chrysotile
alone (or in its most common configuration, which is contaminated with
an amphibole such as tremolite), is capable of causing asbestos-related
diseases; no safe dose has been identified below which there is zero
risk of developing both lung cancer and mesothelioma.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Frank AL, Dodson RF, Williams MG, 1998. Carcinogenic
implications of the lack of tremolite in UICC reference chrysotile Am J
Indust Med, 34(4): 314-417; Kohyana, N, Shinohara, Y, & Suzuki, Yl.
Mineral Plants and Some Reexamined Characteristics of the International
Union Against Cancer Standard Asbestos Samples. Am J. Indus. Med. 1996;
30: 515-528; Craighead JE, Mossman BT, 1982. The pathogenesis of
asbestos-related disease. NEJM, 306 (21): 1416-1456.
\16\ Acheson ED, Gardner MJ, Mesothelioma and exposure to mixtures
of chrysotile and amphibole asbestos, Arch Environ Health. 34(4): 240-
242 (1979).
\17\ Smith AH, Wright CC, 1996. Chrysotile asbestos is the main
cause of pleural mesothelioma. Am J Indust Med. 30: 252-266.
\18\ Stayner LT, Dankovic DA, Lemen RA, 1996. Occupational exposure
to chrysotile asbestos and cancer risk: A review of the amphibole
hypothesis. American Journal of Public Health, February, Vol. 86; (2);
179; Lemen RA, 2004. Chrysotile Asbestos as a Cause of Mesothelioma;
Application of the Hill causation model. Int J Occup Environ Health.
Vol. 10; 233-239.
\19\ Stayner LT, Dankovic DA, Lemen RA, 1996. Occupational exposure
to chrysotile asbestos and cancer risk: A review of the amphibole
hypothesis. American Journal of Public Health, February, Vol. 86; (2);
179; Lemen RA, 2004. Chrysotile Asbestos as a Cause of Mesothelioma;
Application of the Hill causation model. Int J Occup Environ Health.
Vol. 10; 233-239. Hodgson JT, Darnton A, 2000, The quantitative risks
of mesothelioma and lung cancer in relation to asbestos exposure. Ann
Occup Hyg, 44(8): 565-601; Landrigan, PJ, Nicholson, WJ, Suzuki, Y, &
Ladou, J. The hazards of chrysotile asbestos: a critical review. Ind
Health. 1999; Jul: 37: 3: 271-80; IARC. IARC Monographs on the
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man--Asbestos Volume
14. International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health
Organization, Lyon, 1977; IPCS. Environmental Health Criteria 203:
Chrysotile Asbestos, International Program on Chemical Safety, World
Health Organization. 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most Developed Countries and Their Scientists Support Banning Asbestos
Wilson's conclusion that there is no need for a ban on asbestos is
based on his comparative risk analysis, suggesting what he refers to as
``negligible risk,'' something he does not define. His contention that
risks are a necessary part of life for normal human activities must be
judged against the overwhelming evidence of the risks posed by
asbestos, combined with the fact that eliminating it would have no
residual effect on society. Furthermore, his assertion that only 17
percent of the countries around the world have chosen to ban asbestos
is very misleading when these 17 percent represent the countries with
the most highly advanced scientific communities and the strongest
public health protections. His arguments do not comport to the
scientific opinions of the world's major scientific bodies, but rely on
a small selected group of papers by authors, only a few of which have
conducted research or contributed to the valid scientific research on
the health effects of asbestos. Some of Wilson's cited publications
appear as commentaries in publications of dubious distinction, i.e.,
The Apocalyptics, some are not even scientifically peer reviewed
publications, and some represent his own commentaries, while the rest
are selected because they support Wilson's own arguments. While I
respect Wilson's right to express his opinions, I feel it important
that your record reflect the prevailing scientific opinions of
scientists engaged in the actual research that has contributed to our
knowledge concerning the health consequences from exposure to asbestos.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos Is Not the Bill's Focus, Nor Should It Be
Wilson goes on to assert that because asbestos is a naturally
occurring mineral, its outcroppings will still cause exposures, even
after a ban. This has limited validity because what he doesn't point
out is that until the commercial exploitation and use of asbestos in
man-made products, background concentrations were essentially nil (to
the best of our knowledge). Nor does Wilson provide any supporting
documentation or evidence for his claim that the ``natural risks are
much greater than the residual risks of processed asbestos.'' While he
then mentions the infamous example of the asbestos contamination in
Libby, he ignores the fact that the town was contaminated as a result
of the industrial processing of asbestos-contaminated vermiculite; it
is not as if the people of Libby were harmed merely by living near
naturally occurring asbestos. It is obvious that a ban will not
eliminate the risks posed by naturally occurring asbestos or by the
millions of asbestos containing products already in place in homes,
businesses, factories and vehicles. Wilson's argument is a red herring.
Conclusions
Wilson's call for a broader definition of asbestos is something the
bill should and can do. NIOSH is also proposing an expanded definition
in its recently released draft report, ``Asbestos and Other Mineral
Fibers: A Roadmap for Scientific Research.'' \20\ However, because such
a massive research project can be misused, it is imperative that your
bill require strict oversight of the NIOSH research. This could be
accomplished by the appointment of an unbiased congressional committee
to review the progress of this research, which should be conducted
through a transparent, unbiased, scientifically valid process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Middendorf P, Zumwalde R, Castellal R, 2007. Asbestos and
Other Mineral Fibers: A Roadmap for Scientific Research. February,
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also point out the need for more research into the
substitutes for asbestos to assure that they pose no harm. One review
of such an approach to substitutes can be found in the 1999 Commentary
by Harrison et al., in which the authors examine the European
perspective for substitutes for chrysotile asbestos.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Harrison PCT, Levy LS, Patrick,G, Pigott GH, Smith LL, 1999.
Commentary: Comparative Hazards of Chrysotile Asbestos and Its
Substitutes: A European Perspective. Environl Health Persp, 107 (8):
607-611, August.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I propose you weigh the scientific record documenting the dangers
of asbestos, evaluate the public health merits of ending its use,
consider what other advanced nations have chosen, and take the proper
action to further eliminate the risks of continued asbestos use in the
United States. By banning asbestos, the United States will continue its
role in helping those less scientifically developed nations make sound
scientific and public health decisions, while taking a major step to
prevent further asbestos-related disease and death many Americans would
otherwise experience from the continued use of asbestos.
If I can be of any assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.
I enjoyed working with you in the early stages of drafting this
legislation, and I offer my professional experience and technical
expertise to you and your staff. Thank you for your longstanding
commitment to ensuring that asbestos is banned in the United States
once and for all.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Lemen, Ph.D.,
Assistant Surgeon General, USPHS (ret),
Former Deputy and Acting Director,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Center for Applied Studies of the Environment,
New York, NY 10016-4309,
March 8, 2007.
Hon. Patty Murray,
Chairperson,
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510-4701.
Hon. Johnny Isakson,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510-4701.
Re: Senate Bill (S. 742) to Ban Asbestos in America Now
Dear Senators Murray and Isakson: First, we appreciate the
opportunity for submission of post-hearing comments regarding a
proposed bill to asbestos in the United States. Attached please find
our post-hearing comments which provide supplemental and related
information to the presentations and comments made during the March 1,
2007 hearing. We respectfully request your thorough consideration of
our comments and scientific references. For your convenience, we list
below the primary issues that are covered in our comments:
1. There is no global consensus that chrysotile asbestos should be
banned. The majority of countries have a controlled use policy. The
United States consumes less than a 0.1 percent of the world chrysotile
asbestos production using it to fabricate products which have not been
shown to release measurable amounts of airborne asbestos.
2. Risk assessment from the controlled use of chrysotile asbestos
indicates the lifetime risk from asbestos related diseases would be
about 75-fold below the upper limit EPA claims to regulate. We did not
do risk assessments for the more dangerous amphibole asbestos fiber-
types as they are no longer used in commerce.
3. The definition of asbestos used in the ban asbestos bill is not
specific for asbestos but includes types of mineral fibers which are
not asbestos and commonly occur. The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration have already made a finding that these ``new asbestos
minerals'' should not be regulated as asbestos. The bill calls for
banning mineral ores if these ``new asbestos minerals'' are present at
any concentration. These would create an asbestos problem in a
significant percentage of U.S. mining operations for no rational public
health purpose.
If you have any questions or need additional information please
feel free to contact me.
Cordially,
Robert P. Nolan, Ph.D.,
Deputy Director.
______
Post-Hearing Comments of R.P. Nolan, Ph.D., A.M. Langer, Ph.D, and M.
Ross, Ph.D., J Dunnigan, Ph.D., and J. Addision
We appreciate Senators Murray and Isakson's willingness to have the
record remain open for an additional week to allow for the submission
of post-hearing comments.
specific comment on issues discussed at the senate hearings
There is no global consensus that asbestos must go. We have
reviewed the information available and there exists a scientific basis
for a public policy that allows for the controlled use of chrysotile
asbestos to continue. The asbestos ban in the European Union did not
provide the substantial evidence that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
felt was missing when it remanded the EPA's proposed asbestos ban in
1991. Nor did we see such evidence offered at the March 1st Senate
hearings and we continue to believe the available evidence does not
support claiming that an unreasonable risk of injury is associated with
the controlled use of chrysotile asbestos.
The European Union has a population of 475,000,000 people living in
25 countries representing about 7 percent of the world's population. In
excess of 2,000,000 tons of chrysotile asbestos continues to be used in
the countries which have chosen not to ban asbestos. Without
considering the views of just five such countries--China, India,
Mexico, Brazil and Russia--representing about 2.7 billion people (40
percent of the world's population) a consensus cannot be formed and
their decision not to ban is consistent with that of the United States
5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
There is much in the record about the use of asbestos-containing
friction products and cement building materials. During the March 1st
hearing, it was stated that the United States currently imports ``over
$120 million worth a year'' of brake linings and pads that are made
with asbestos along with other asbestos-containing products. These
assertions simply were not proven. The import statistics, as developed
by the U.S. Census Bureau, and published by the U.S. Geological Survey
(Table 1), ``U.S. Imports of Products with Basis of Asbestos,
Cellulose, or Other Minerals in 2006'' only actually show the amount of
chrysotile asbestos imported from Canada into the United States (2,230
metric tons).
All of the other categories of imported products are identified as
may or may not contain asbestos. A variety of minerals and not just
asbestos are included in Table 1 as imported products. And, the source
of the products listed for import includes a number of countries that
have banned asbestos, e.g., Australia, Finland, Denmark, Chile, United
Kingdom, France, and Germany among them, further indicating these are
likely to be non-asbestos products.
Another significant issue is that some of these products that may
contain asbestos, are imported into the United States and trans-shipped
to other countries for use. Hence, any ban asbestos legislation should
examine the potential impact on international trade.
The information available about the extent to which asbestos
continues to be used in friction products and cements is anecdotal and
we should focus on the asbestos-containing products that we know are
used in commerce. We can address concerns about the products of unknown
composition when and if such information becomes available. Issues rose
at the hearings (about the use of asbestos-containing friction products
and cement building materials) that can be addressed by the current
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) asbestos
regulations.
If these imported asbestos-containing products do not have warning
labels concerning asbestos content as are currently required then this
matter needs to be addressed by the appropriate government agency. If
the asbestos permissible exposure limits (PEL) are being exceeded (as
Mr. Thayer has alleged for the Capitol tunnel workers), these
situations can be remedied immediately within the current laws. A ban
on asbestos will not remedy these situations. The 5th Circuit commented
that poor enforcement of the existing asbestos regulations cannot be
used as a justification for an asbestos ban, a position placed in the
record at the hearings.
We do not believe the record supports arguing for an asbestos ban
on the basis of asbestos-containing brake shoes and lining and
asbestos-cement sheet which might be coming into this country unlabeled
and improperly used. When asbestos is added to these products in the
21st Century it is certain to be chrysotile asbestos as the amphibole
asbestos fiber-types have left commerce. We believe that the controlled
use of chrysotile asbestos does not present an unreasonable risk of
injury. We urge your close attention to the attached annotated
bibliography of scientific evidence regarding the issue of asbestos in
automotive products (Appendix I).
We find the World Bank's effort to avoid the use of asbestos-cement
materials in the post-tsunami reconstruction of Indonesia to be without
a compelling foundation. Many substitute materials have been referred
to in these hearings and in other places as safe (and safer) than using
chrysotile asbestos. No evidence has been offered to support this
assumption. Is there medical and scientific evidence to indicate that
the asbestos substitutes (at the levels of exposure which are likely to
occur) are safer than exposure to chrysotile asbestos at the current
U.S. permissible exposure level? If such information is available it
should be provided. We do not believe such evidence exists.
The 5th Circuit also commented that there are carcinogenic risks
associated with the substitutes for asbestos cement pipe such as vinyl
chloride and ductile iron but the EPA refused to assess the risks of
substitutes for asbestos cement pipe. When addressing friction products
the Court noted unanswered questions about the safety of non-asbestos
friction products when retro fixed to vehicles designed for asbestos
friction products. In addition, they were concerned about the lack of
toxicology testing for the substitute materials. We would argue that
the health effects associated with the controlled use of chrysotile
asbestos are very well understood making the use of untested
substitutes problematic as exposure to the substitutes may present
unknown health hazards.
It is without question that asbestos-related diseases and
mesothelioma in particular are life threatening at best and painfully
fatal at worst. The record does not reflect the point that all the
diseases commonly associated with excess asbestos exposure (asbestosis
(pulmonary fibrosis), mesothelioma and lung cancer) also occur in those
with little background asbestos exposure. However, asbestos exposure
does increase the frequency with which the malignant diseases occur but
is not the only recognized cause of these diseases.
First the background. There is a natural background level for
asbestos in the ambient which is predominantly chrysotile asbestos. It
has been found in the air on remote Pacific islands where no naturally
occurring asbestos is present and in ice cores collected from both the
Artic and Antarctic ice caps. Analysis of deep ice cores indicates
chrysotile asbestos was airborne in both hemispheres prior to the
commercial use of these minerals in the late 19th Century (Nolan et al.
2007).
Exposure to low levels of airborne asbestos is an unavoidable
consequence of living on the Earth. We know of no one who has argued
that these background levels of chrysotile asbestos from environmental
exposure are associated with increases in asbestos-related disease.
However, some environmental exposures to airborne amphibole asbestos
(in certain geological locales) have caused mesothelioma and other
asbestos-related diseases (Browne and Wagner 2001). Because these
exposures are environmental do not assume they are associated with low
cumulative asbestos exposures.
We would argue that background levels of airborne chrysotile
asbestos are clearly safe rather than the more pessimistic view in ``no
known safe level for asbestos'' given as a finding in the draft bill.
There are background rates and other causes for all the diseases
associated with the inhalation of asbestos, but we are all exposed to
asbestos and will continue to be even if a ban is implemented. Only
certain types of exposure (often to specific asbestos fiber-types) have
been epidemiologically associated with an increased risk of developing
an asbestos-related disease (Hodgson and Darnton 2000, Browne and
Wagner 2001, Nolan et al. 2001, Price and Ware 2004). These for the
most part have involved exposure to amphibole asbestos fiber-types.
Secondly, when the diffuse interstitial fibrosis usually associated
with asbestosis occurs in the absence of excess asbestos exposure, it
is called idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The word idiopathic means
arising spontaneously or from an obscure or unknown cause. Asbestosis
and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis are pathologically so similar that
the presence of asbestos (or asbestos bodies) in the pulmonary tissue
is often the only differentiating feature. Idiopathic fibrosis may well
have been the cause of New York City Police Officer Cesar A. Borja's
death earlier this year on January 23rd.
Although Officer Borja may have had some asbestos exposure due to
the events of 9/11 his pulmonary fibrosis is more likely to have been a
pre-existing idiopathic fibrosis (New York Times, 2007, Nolan et al.
2005). The cause of this officer's death was widely mischaracterized in
the electronic and print media as clearly 9/11-related and illustrates
how poorly significant details concerning these types of cases are
communicated to the general public by the media and taken up by the
highest levels of government.
BANNING NON-ASBESTOS MINERALS ALONG WITH THE REGULATED ASBESTOS
MINERALS
The definitions used in the bill are problematic in that it bans
asbestos in any concentration from any material. Commercially viable
deposits of amphibole asbestos minerals are very rare with only about 5
geological locales (South Africa, Australia, India, Finland and
Bolivia) in the world where significant mining has taken place. All of
these commercial amphibole asbestos mining operations are now closed.
However, amphiboles are one of the most common silicates with an
abundance of 5 percent by volume in the earth's crustal rocks
(Wedepohl, 1971).
Crushing non-asbestos amphibole minerals gives rise to prismatic
cleavage fragments that morphologically resemble asbestos (Langer et
al. 1991). Some have claimed exposure to these fragments present a risk
of developing asbestos-related diseases. Because of the frequency of
the occurrence of amphibole minerals virtually every crushed
crystallized rock will yield cleavage fragments that might be
mischaracterized as asbestos.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration held rulemaking
hearings on whether cleavage fragments and other non-asbestos fibers
should be included in the asbestos standard based mainly on their
morphological similarity to asbestos. The results of that rulemaking
were published in the Federal Register in 1992. OSHA concluded that
sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that the non-asbestos
amphibole fibers (cleavage fragments) present less of a health hazard
than asbestos and did not belong in the asbestos standard (Nolan et al.
1991). OSHA further concluded that the bulk concentrations of such
fibers are generally very low as are their airborne concentrations.
The language in the proposed ban bill defines non-asbestos fibers
as asbestos; this error could potentially lead to regulatory action
that carries no public health benefit. Furthermore two amphiboles
(richterite, winchite) and a zeolite mineral (erionite) are
specifically listed as if they were asbestos minerals. These three
minerals, as defined, are not asbestos and do not belong in a bill
banning asbestos. Richterite and winchite, both amphiboles, can occur
as massive non-asbestos minerals, only in Libby, Montana and in some
deposits in Texas have these minerals occurred in asbestiform and the
distinction is critical. The desire to re-define non-asbestos minerals
as asbestos with the goal of regulating them as asbestos is not an
acceptable scientific approach to regulatory policy that OSHA
specifically noted in their rulemaking. Interestingly for some reason,
chrysotile asbestos is not specifically mentioned in this part of the
bill.
The definition used in the ban asbestos bill for a mineral fiber
fails to take note of the fact that although all asbestos particles are
fibers the converse is not true. All fibers are not asbestos. Fibers
occur in nature with 3 to 1 aspect ratios which are not asbestos. The
bill calls for the banning of acicular fibers which are not asbestos
and commonly occur in ore deposits. The fiber definition is poorly
crafted. It does not include the criterion that the banned fibers
should be respirable and of a specified length (5 microns or greater)
but simply gives just an aspect ratio of length to width.
If passed with the current definition the bill would create an
entire new class of asbestos minerals and ban them at the same time.
The bill should restrict itself to the 6 minerals currently regulated
as asbestos and conform to the accepted mineralogical definition of
asbestos and abandon the ``make it up as you go approach'' (Ross et al.
1984, Langer et al. 1991). It should also reflect the current OSHA
definitions and counting strategy employed for characterizing the
occupational environment.
BANNING THE USE OF ORE DEPOSITS WHICH CONTAIN TRACES OF ASBESTOS
MINERALS
Commercial ore deposits do occur in the United States which contain
limited horizons where regulated asbestos minerals occur. By following
the Mine Safety and Health Administration asbestos regulations these
areas can currently be mined if the asbestos exposures are controlled.
The seams of asbestos which occur in folded and dilated rock can be
surprisingly limited but have been reported (Ross and Nolan 2003).
A risk assessment was undertaken for just such a case where
grunerite asbestos (an amphibole also called amosite) was present in a
limited area of a non-asbestos ore body (Nolan et al. 1999). The
lifetime risk for the miners of developing an asbestos-related disease
was equivalent to smoking a few cigarettes over their entire lifetime.
Banning the controlled use of asbestos may very well limit our Nation's
ability to operate many U.S. mining operations and limit or halt the
development of new projects. Some of these involve strategic materials.
PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM
If asbestos is banned the call for a public education program would
seem to be moot. If we banned cigarettes would we need to have a
program to tell people not to smoke? The dangers of asbestos are widely
known to the general public and with a ban; exposure to asbestos in
place would seem the only remaining issue. This would involve mainly
the building trades which are already aware of the hazards of asbestos,
and asbestos abatement practices are already highly developed. Many of
the issues raised in this part of the bill either no longer occur or
would be eliminated by the ban. The public education program requires
re-thinking.
PROGRAM FOR ASBESTOS-CAUSED DISEASE
The bill calls for the annual expenditure of $10 million for
creating 10 research centers focusing on the treatment of diseases
caused by asbestos. We recommend the inclusion of a basic science
center among the 10 proposed, to focus on the properties of minerals
which impart biological activity. A laboratory should include the
collection and study of mineral content within the lung and other
tissues. And the inclusion of epidemiologist and biostatisticians to
critically evaluate patterns of morbidity and mortality among defined
cohort.
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ASBESTOS-RELATED CANCER AT THE CURRENT OSHA
PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMIT FOR CHRYSOTILE ASBESTOS
Lung cancer and mesothelioma--both occur in the absence of asbestos
exposure (Price and Ware, 2004). The most common cause of lung cancer
is cigarette smoking and the risk of lung cancer can be increased by
asbestos exposure.
Risk assessment can be used to understand the extent of asbestos-
related disease we should expect with controlled use of chrysotile
asbestos.
We will start by calculating the asbestos-related lung cancer
deaths in the United States from controlled use of chrysotile asbestos.
There are approximately 2.5 million deaths in the United States
annually and let us assume they are all non-smokers. We wish to
discourage smoking as it is an important public health problem (Table
2).
Our goal is to calculate the increase in the observed number of
lung cancers (ObsL). Approximately 2.5 million people die
each year in the United States and we will assume that 5 percent (or
125,000) were exposed for 25 years at the current asbestos exposure
standard of 0.1 f/ml.
ExpL--Expected background of lung cancer deaths in the
125,000 deaths among non-smokers would be 0.8 percent or 1,000 non-
smoking related lung cancers.
RL--Risk of lung cancer expressed as a percentage of
lung cancer deaths per f/mL x years of asbestos exposure. The RL used
is 0.062 obtained from Hodgson and Darnton (2000) (their Table 2) and
is specific for chrysotile asbestos.
ECA--The cumulative asbestos exposure is 2.5f/ml x years
from 25 years of chrysotile asbestos exposure at the current asbestos
PEL of 0.1f/ml x years.
Using these values the ObsL for 125,000 deaths of non-
smokers with 25 years of controlled chrysotile asbestos exposure is
1,001.5 where 1,000 lung cancers are background among non-smokers and
1.5 asbestos-related lung cancers. We will assume 2 asbestos-related
lung cancers in this group and 1,000 background cases of unknown
cause(s). If the entire population smoked the asbestos-related lung
cancers would increase by 10-fold greater to 15 asbestos-related lung
cancer cases while the number of smoking related lung cancers would be
10-fold above background or 10,000 cases, making the total observed
10,015 lung cancer cases. Even among smokers the increase in lung
cancer risk from small cumulative asbestos exposures over a working
lifetime of 25 years is small (Figure 1).
The number of mesotheliomas from the controlled use of chrysotile
asbestos in the 2.5 million deaths each year can also be calculated.
The number of asbestos-related mesotheliomas (OM) depends on
the type of asbestos one is exposed to, the cumulative exposure and the
age at which exposure first occurs (mesothelioma is independent of
smoking) and can be calculated by:
Where:
RMRisk of mesothelioma as a percentage of the total
expected mortality (rather than the relative risk used in asbestos-
related lung cancer). The RM used, 0.001 is obtained from
Hodgson and Darnton (2000) (their Table 1) (adjusted to 30 years of age
at first exposure) and over estimates the chrysotile asbestos risk as
some exposure to amphibole asbestos occurred in the cohorts used to
determine the value of RM.
ECA--The cumulative exposure to chrysotile asbestos is
2.5 f/ml x years obtained by assuming 25 years of occupational asbestos
exposure at the current OSHA PEL of 0.lf/ml, identical to what we
assume for the lung cancer calculation given above.
Tpop--Here we will assume 5 percent of the 2.5 million deaths each
year are exposed at the cumulative asbestos exposure of 2.5 f/ml x
years making the total population at risk 125,000.
Solving for OM:
OM=3.1 mesothelioma cases or approximately 3 additional
mesothelioma deaths from the controlled use of chrysotile asbestos
among 2.5 million deaths each year.
If we assume that 5 percent of the 2.5 million deaths which occur
in the United States each year are exposed for 25 years at the current
asbestos exposure standard there would be 2 additional lung cancer
deaths (in the absence of smoking) and 3 asbestos-related mesotheliomas
from the controlled use of chrysotile asbestos at the current
Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible exposure
level. It is important to note that these asbestos-related cancers are
based on mathematical calculations and may not actually occur. The
linear no threshold model is the most pessimistic (predicting greater
disease incidence) in that it is designed to be the most protective for
the workers. We know of no scientist who has expressed an opinion to
the contrary. No one knows if there is a threshold and at these low
cumulative asbestos exposures there may be no increased cancer risk our
calculation represents a worst case scenario.
The five asbestos-related cancers would occur in 2.5 million deaths
or 0.2 asbestos-related cancer deaths per 100,000 lifetimes (see Table
1 for a list of comparative risks). The available scientific evidence
does not support the claim that controlled use of chrysotile asbestos
presents an unreasonable risk of injury. With good industrial hygiene
practices the risk of injury from a controlled use of asbestos policy
compares favorably, or is lower by orders of magnitude, with other
risks that society accepts (Nolan et al. 2001).
Currently there are approximately 2,500 mesothelioma deaths in the
United States. Among the 2.5 million deaths each year the 2,500
mesotheliomas account for 0.1 percent of the mortality (Price and Ware
2004). The 2,500 mesotheliomas currently occurring each year in the
United States does not occur equally among males and females but rather
about 2,000 occur in males and 500 in females. The difference indicates
that males are exposed in occupational environments where females work
less frequently and where exposures leading to mesothelioma occur more
commonly. The three mesotheliomas related to the controlled use of
chrysotile would increase the total number of mesotheliomas to 2,503 an
increase of about 0.1 percent of the mesothelioma mortality.
We do not know if all the difference in mesothelioma incidence
between the sexes is asbestos-related but let us assume the 1,500
mesothelioma differences is all asbestos exposure related for our
analysis and none of the female mesotheliomas are asbestos-related. The
background for mesothelioma in the United States would be about 1,000
cases per year or 0.04 percent (1,000 mesotheliomas in 2.5 million
deaths) once the incidence among the sexes becomes equal eliminating
the asbestos-related mesotheliomas (which is happening, Weill et al.
2004). The three additional mesothelioma cases from the controlled use
of chrysotile asbestos would be 0.00012 percent (3 mesotheliomas in 2.5
million deaths) 300-fold lower than background. Such results could
never be observed but only calculated using risk assessment.
The increased mortality for asbestos-related cancer at the current
permissible exposure level of asbestos would be less than 5 deaths per
year among the 2.5 million Americans who die each year or about 2
asbestos-related cancers per million deaths. This number is so low that
these deaths can never be observed using epidemiological methods but
can only be calculated using risk assessment. We reject the claim that
``asbestos is unpredictably dangerous'' some individuals may not
understand how to describe the risk but asbestos-related cancers are
among the most predictable of all the forms of human cancer (Hodgson
and Darnton 2000, Yarborough 2006). Comparison with other risks is
often useful in understanding if 2 asbestos-related cancers per million
is an unreasonable risk of injury (see Table 2 for a list of
comparisons).
Also assuming 5 percent of the population will be exposed to
sufficient asbestos throughout their lives to have a cumulative
exposure of 2.5f/ml x years is pessimistic and the actual number of
people with exposure this high is most likely to be much lower. And,
conversely we expect few scientists would argue that more than 5
percent of the population has a higher exposure.
The alleged 10,000 asbestos-related deaths per year reported as a
finding in the bill is questionable and the 1,700-3,000 cancers per
year in Professor Wilson's testimony is largely related to the past
high exposure and to the use of the much more dangerous commercial
amphibole asbestos minerals.
Do not let the small number of Asbestos-Related Cancer expected
from the Controlled use of Chrysotile Asbestos conceal the Problems
Uncontrolled Asbestos Exposure can Cause.
If the 2.5f/ml years were to crocidolite asbestos the expected
number of mesotheliomas would be 500-fold higher or 1,550 cases which
is approximately the current number of excess mesotheliomas among males
in the United States. Assuming the risk of lung cancer increases
linearly with exposure, the very high historical exposure led to very
high increase in the risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma. Twenty-five
years of asbestos exposure at the 1971 asbestos exposure limit of 12f/
ml would lead to a cumulative exposure of 300 f/ml x years compared
with 2.5 f/ml x years by the current standard making the lung cancer
risk 120-fold higher. Historical chrysotile asbestos exposures could be
50f/ml or greater and the work week much longer than today leading to
very high increases in lung cancer mortality far beyond what would be
expected from smoking alone (Figure 1 & 2). The regulations controlling
asbestos exposure were designed to reduce these risks and we would
argue that they have been successful.
The Federal regulatory and research agencies in the United States
have not developed risk assessments for the specific asbestos fiber-
types and often calculate the risk for the asbestos-related cancer as a
single risk including both lung cancer and mesothelioma. This does not
reveal the important role cigarette smoking has in asbestos-related
lung cancer and averages the mesothelioma potency of the various
asbestos fiber-types. The departure of the amphibole asbestos minerals
from commerce made this approach obsolete. There are also similarities
between Hodgson and Darnton (2000) and the Federal asbestos risk
assessments. A linear no threshold exposure response assumes any
exposure, no matter how small, increases the risk of developing
asbestos-related cancer. However, very small exposures cause very small
increases in asbestos-related cancer risk, a risk comparison table and
exposure-response curve can enhance our understanding of this (Table 2,
Figure 1).
Now that commercial amphibole asbestos is no longer in the
marketplace, we can find no scientific basis to justify a public policy
banning the controlled use of chrysotile asbestos.
R.P. Nolan, Ph.D., A.M. Langer, Ph.D. & M. Ross Ph.D.,
Earth and Environmental Sciences,
Graduate and University Center,
The City University of New York, New York, NY
J. Dunnigan, Ph.D.,
Professor Titulaire,
Faculte des Sciences,
Universite de Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
J. Addison,
John Addison Consultancy Ltd.,
Cottingham, Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
References
Browne K, Wagner JC. Environmental Exposure to Amphibole-Asbestos and
Mesothelioma. In: RP Nolan, AM Langer, M Ross, FJ Wicks & RF
Martin, editors. The Health Effects of Chrysotile Asbestos:
Contribution of Science to Risk-Management Decision. Canadian
Mineralogist Special Publication 5 5:21-28, 2001.
Federal Register 57: 24310, June 8, 1992.
Hodgson JT, Darnton A. The quantitative risk of mesothelioma and lung
cancer in relationship to asbestos exposure. Annals of Occup Hyg;
44: 565-601, 2000.
Langer AM, Nolan RP, Addison J: Distinguishing between amphibole
asbestos fibers and elongate cleavage fragments of their non-
asbestos analogues. In: NATO Advanced Research Workshop on
Mechanisms in Fibre Carcinogenesis. R.C. Brown, J. Hoskins, N.
Johnson (eds) (Plenum, New York), pp. 253-267, 1991.
New York Times; Weeks After a Death, Twist in Some 9/11 Details. Chan
S, Baker A, February 13, 2007.
Nolan RP, Langer AM, Oechsle GW, Addison J, Colflesh DE: Association of
Tremolite Habit with Biological Potential: Preliminary Report. In:
Mechanism of Fibre Carcinogenesis. Brown RC, Hoskins JA, Johnson NF
(eds) (Plenum, New York), pp 213-251, 1991.
Nolan RP, Langer AM, Wilson R: A Risk Assessment for Exposure to
Grunerite Asbestos (amosite) in an Iron Ore Mine. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 96: 3412-3419, 1999.
Nolan RP, Langer AM, Ross M, Wicks FJ, Martin RF (eds): Health Effects
of Chrysotile-Asbestos: Contribution of Science to Risk Management
Decisions. Canadian Mineralogist Special Publication 5, pp. 1-304,
2001.
Nolan RP, Ross M, Nord GL, Axten CW, Osleeb JP, Domnin SG, Price B,
Wilson R. Risk Assessment for Asbestos-Related Cancer from the 9/11
Attack on the World Trade Center. J Occup Environ Med 47: 817-825,
2005.
Nolan RP, Langer AM, Ross M, Addison J, Gee JBL. Non-Occupational
Exposure to Commercial Amphibole Asbestos and Asbestos-Related
Disease: Is there a Role for Grunerite Asbestos (Amosite)?
Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 118:117-127, 2007.
Price B, Ware A. Mesothelioma Trends in the United States: An Update
based on SEER data for 1973 through 2003. Amer JEpidem 159: 107-
112, 2004.
Ross M, Kuntze RA, Clifton RA: A Definition for Asbestos. Special
Technical Publication 834. American Society for Testing Materials,
pp. 139-147, 1984.
Ross M, Nolan, RP: History of Asbestos Discovery and Use and Asbestos-
Related Disease in Context with the Occurrence of Asbestos within
Ophiolite Complexes. Geological Society of America, Special Paper
373: 447-470, 2003.
Wedepohl KH (1971) Geochemistry, Holt, Reinhart and Winston, New York.
Weill H, Hughes JM, Churg AM: Changing Trends in US Mesothelioma
Incidence. Occupational Environmental Medicine 61: 438-441, 2004.
Yarborough CM: Chrysotile as a Cause of Mesothelioma: An Assessment
Based on Epidemiology. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 36:165-187,
2006.
Table 1.--From U.S. Geological Survey (2006) Annual Asbestos Commodity
Report
Table 2.--Risk of Death in a Lifetime for Some Selected Environmental
ExposuresSec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifetime
Risk per
100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cigarette Smoking (lung Cancer only)....................... 8,000
U.S. air pollution (calculated deaths from Assumed 2,000
correlation)..............................................
U.S. Motor Vehicle accidents:
All Deaths............................................. 1,200
Pedestrian Deaths...................................... 100
U.S. home deaths:
All.................................................... 600
Falls (mostly over age 65):............................ 200
U.S. Natural Radiation background at sea level: (cancers) 200
excluding radon gas.......................................
Person living with a smoker................................ 100
Drowning deaths (non-transport caused)..................... 80
Person living in a brick building (added natural radiation) 70
One transcontinental round-trip flight per year:
Accident............................................... 15
Cosmic Rays............................................ 15
Upper Limit EPA Claims to Regulate......................... 15
Falling Meteorite.......................................... 15
Struck by a Failing Airplane Part.......................... 0.4
Smoking three cigarettes in a lifetime..................... 0.3
U.S. population risk from controlled use of chrysotile 0.02
Mining a limited seam of amphibole asbestos in a non- 0.05Sec.
asbestos mine.............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. Adopted from Nolan RP, Langer AM, Wilson R: A Risk Assessment for
Exposure to Grunerite Asbestos (amosite) in an Iron Ore Mine.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96: 3412-3419, 1999.
For the chrysotile asbestos exposed sub-population (of 5
percent) this risk would be 20-fold higher.
appendix i
issue of asbestos in automotive products
Nowhere in the hearing record is there a distinction between
chrysotile asbestos-containing automotive products and those containing
amphibole types of asbestos.
This particular absence blatantly rejects the credibility of meta-
analysis reviews on the health risks to workers manufacturing friction
materials and to workers employed in brake servicing (Paustenbach et
al. Environmental and occupational health hazards associated with the
presence of asbestos in brake linings and pads (1900 to present): A
``state-of-the-art'' review. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Health--Part B--Critical Reviews 7: 33-110). In this review, the
authors concluded that no increase in risk was detected, except in
those workers that have been exposed to mixtures containing amphiboles.
The following peer-reviewed studies from other sources are
relevant, such as:
Blake, CL Dotson, GS Harbison RD: Assessment of airborne asbestos
exposure during the servicing and handling of automobile asbestos-
containing gaskets. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 45: 214-222
2006.
In this paper, the authors state that--The mean PCM and phase
contrast microscopy equivalent (PCME) 8-h time weighted average
(TWA) concentrations for these samples were 0.0031 fibers/cubic
milliter (/ml) and 0.0017 f/ml, respectively. Based on these
findings, automobile mechanics who worked with asbestos-
containing gaskets may have been exposed to concentrations of
airborne asbestos concentrations approximately 100-fold lower
than the current Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEI) of 0.1 f/ml.
Newhouse, ML, Sullivan KR: A mortality study of workers
manufacturing friction materials: 1941-86. British Journal of
Industrial Medicine 46(3): 176-179, 1989.
The study referred to in 5898 has been extended by 7 years. The
authors confirm that there was no excess of deaths from lung cancer or
other asbestos related tumors, or from chronic respiratory disease.
After 1950, hygienic control was progressively improved at this
factory, and from 1970, levels of asbestos have not exceeded 0.5-1.0 f/
ml. The authors conclude: ``It is concluded that with good
environmental control, chrysotile asbestos may be used in manufacture
without causing excess mortality.''
Berry G, Newhouse, M.L: Mortality of workers manufacturing friction
materials using asbestos. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 40(1):
1-7, 1983.
A mortality (1942-80) study carried out in a factory producing
friction materials, using almost exclusively chrysotile.
Compared with national death rates, there were no detectable
excess of deaths due to lung cancer, gastrointestinal cancer,
or other cancers. The exposure levels were low, with only 5
percent of men accumulating 100 fibre-years/ml. The authors'
state: ``The experience at this factory over a 40-year period
showed that chrysotile asbestos was processed with no
detectable excess mortality.''
To our knowledge, none of these publications have ever been
challenged through the normal accepted channel used in peer-reviewed
journals by the scientific community, that is: by submitting opposing
views or critique in a commentary under Letter to the Editor.
______
Never Again Consulting, Inc.,
Attleboro, Massachusetts 02703,
March 8, 2007.
Ms. Janice Camp,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C. 20510.
Re: Comments on Hearing On Banning Asbestos In America
Dear Ms. Camp: I am submitting the following comments to be added
to the record of the hearing on asbestos, held on March 1, 2007.
I am primarily responding to the testimony of physicist Dr. Richard
Wilson. There are some crucial points that must be made in response to
the question Dr. Wilson posed, ``What has changed [since 1991] to
justify the U.S. Senate's bill to ban asbestos now?'' He argues that
since amphibole asbestos use has decreased dramatically, the necessity
to ban all asbestos products is no longer present. There are two
fundamental flaws to this argument.
1. Amphibole asbestos that was used in the United State has not
disappeared. Much of this asbestos remains on pipes (as in the Capitol
tunnels) and in building structures (it was often sprayed on structural
steel). As such, workers and members of the public are continuously
exposed to this form of asbestos.
2. Chrysotile asbestos causes mesothelioma and when combined with
amphibole exposure, it is as equally potent as amphiboles as a cause of
mesothelioma.
Chrysotile asbestos is an undisputed cause of asbestosis and lung
cancer.\1\ \2\ \3\ Chrysotile fibers are the most common fiber found at
the proverbial scene of the crime--the pleura or the lining of the
lung. These fibers are concentrated within the pleura of mesothelioma
patients.\4\ \5\ In fact, many mesothelioma patients have documented
exposure to chrysotile only, as evidenced by tissue burden analysis.\4\
\5\ \6\ Furthermore, those with exposure to chrysotile and amphiboles
have double the rate of mesothelioma than those exposed to amphiboles
alone.\7\ \9\ This information is especially important because
scientists have long recognized the fact that chrysotile utilized
within the United States contains the tremolite form of amphibole
fiber.\6\ Processing does not remove tremolite from chrysotile. Dr.
William Longo has examined a variety of finished chrysotile products
and found that all of them contain some measure of tremolite
contamination.\10\ \12\
While it is certainly true that occupational safety procedures have
decreased the threat that asbestos once posed, it is misleading to
think that the threat has passed completely. There is no documented
threshold limit below which asbestos exposure is not known to cause
cancer. OSHA limits can only be so effective, and many subcontractors
and small businesses are not adequately protected by occupational
safety measures. In discussing the historical decrease in asbestos use,
Dr. Wilson has, in fact, answered his own question. When the courts
overruled the EPA ban on asbestos, the reasoning was based upon the
projected cost of replacing asbestos use. Since today's usage is
significantly lower than 16 years ago, the costs of banning asbestos
are also much lower. Replacements for asbestos products exist. The
economic strain predicted by the courts is no longer a great threat
when compared to the costs of healthcare for asbestos-related diseases
and the immeasurable price of lives saved.
I serve as a consultant to victims of asbestos exposure and to
companies that have sold asbestos products.
Sincerely yours,
David S. Egilman, M.D., M.P.H.,
Clinical Associate Professor,
Brown University.
REFERENCE LIST
1. Becklake M, Fournier-Massey G, Rossiter C, McDonald J. Lung function
in chrysotile mine and mill workers of Quebec. Arch Environ Health.
24:401-9.1972.
2. Lidell D, Eyssen G, Thomas D, McDonald C. Radiological changes over
20 years in relation to chrysotile exposure in Quebec. Inhaled
Part.4 (Part 2):799-813.1975.
3. Rossiter C, Bristol L, Cartier P, et al. Radiographic changes in
chrysotile asbestos mine and mill workers of Quebec. Arch Environ
Health.24:388-400.1972.
4. Suzuki Y, Yuen SR. Asbestos tissue burden study on malignant
mesothelioma. Ind Health.39(150):160.2001.
5. Suzuki Y, Yuen SR, Ashley R. Short, thin asbestos fibers contribute
to the development of human malignant mesothelioma: pathological
evidence. Int J Hyg Environ Health.208(3):201-10.2005.
6. Sebastian P, McDonald J, McDonald A, Case B, Harley R. Respiratory
cancer in chrysotile textile and mining industries: exposure
inferences from lung analysis. Br J Ind Med.46:180-7.1989.
7. Acheson E, Gardner M. Mesothelioma and exposure to mixtures of
chrysotile and amphibole asbestos. Arch Environ Health.34:240-
2.1979.
8. Seidman H, Seilokoff I, Gelb S. Mortality experience of amosite
asbestos factory workers: dose-response relationships 5 to 40 years
after onset of short term work exposure. Am J Ind Med.10:479-
514.1986.
9. Seilokoff I, Hammond EC, Seidman H. Mortality experience of
insulation workers in the United States and Canada, 1943-1976. Ann
NY Acad Sci.330:91-116.1979.
10. Hubbard JL, Longo WE. Detection of Amphibole Asbestos in Chrysotile
Sheet Gaskets. Raleigh: Material Analytical Services, Inc.; 2002
Apr.
11. Longo WE. Detection of Amphobile Asbestos in Chrysotile Brake
Linings. Materials Analytical Services, Inc.; 2000.
12. Longo W. Oral deposition. District Court, Harris County, Texas 11th
Judicial District in re: Asbestos Litigation Chrysotile Hearing. 5-
23-2005.
______
Government of Canada,
Washington, DC 20001,
March 8, 2007.
Hon. Patty Murray,
Chair, Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety,
Committee on Health, Education, Labour, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Murray: Canada noted with interest the hearing of the
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labour, and Pensions
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety on Asbestos: Still
Lethal/Still Legal: The Need to Better Protect the Health of American
Workers and Their Families, held March l, 2007. Attached please find a
number of observations regarding Canada's policy on asbestos use and
the distinction between amphibole asbestos and chrysotile asbestos.
Yours sincerely,
Claude Carriere,
Charge d' Affaires, a.i.
Government of Canada Comments to the Subcommittee on Employment and
Workplace Safety
Canada welcomes the deliberations of the Subcommittee on Employment
and Workplace Safety on this important subject. Canada would like to
take the opportunity to share a number of observations with the
subcommittee. These comments principally focus on Canada's Safe Use
Principle for minerals and metals, on Canada's controlled use approach
and on our views with regards to asbestos, in particular the important
distinction between amphibole asbestos and chrysotile asbestos.
THE MINERALS AND METALS POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
The Safe Use Principle promoted by the Government of Canada in its
Minerals and Metals Policy (1996) is important in the context of the
sustainable development of natural resources. This principle is an
extension of life-cycle management and incorporates risk assessment and
risk management principles. The Safe Use Principle, in building on the
Toxic Substances Management Policy of the Government of Canada,
recognizes that:
minerals, metals and their products can be produced, used,
re-used, recycled and returned to the environment in a manner that is
consistent with sustainable development;
society enjoys important benefits from the use of these
natural resources, in conjunction with their sound management;
certain mineral- and metal-containing products may pose
risks to human health or the environment and, as a consequence, need to
be managed throughout their entire life cycle;
naturally occurring inorganic substances, such as minerals
and metals, behave differently than synthetic organic chemicals and, as
a consequence, require different risk-management approaches; and,
minerals and metals, in and of themselves, are not
candidates for bans, phase-outs or virtual elimination.
The Minerals and Metals Policy of the Government of Canada, and its
integrated Safe Use Principle, conforms to World Trade Organisation
(WTO) principles such as not creating unnecessary barriers to trade or
market access and basing regulations on sound science supported by an
appropriate risk assessment that accounts for the prevailing conditions
in the country of interest.
For more information on Canada's Minerals and Metals Policy, please
see http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mms/policy/policy_e.htm.
THE CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE ON ASBESTOS-RELATED ILLNESSES, AND IN
PARTICULAR, THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN AMPHIBOLE ASBESTOS AND
CHRYSOTILE
ASBESTOS
The Government of Canada recognizes that all forms of asbestos
fibres, including chrysotile, are carcinogenic. The main health risks
associated with all forms of asbestos are primarily occupational, and
relate to the inhalation of fibres that may lodge in the lungs in the
course of mining, manufacturing and construction and renovation
activities. However, contrary to amphibole asbestos, scientific studies
show that chrysotile is a less potent carcinogen and less persistent in
the lungs than the other forms of asbestos, and consequently poses a
lower health risk.
Further, the Government of Canada recognizes that asbestos-related
illnesses being observed now are occurring as a result of uncontrolled
exposures associated with past practices and uses that are now
unacceptable. It is well-known that there is a latency period between
heavy dose exposures to asbestos fibres and the development of health
effects. The illnesses we are currently seeing in countries that have
intensively used asbestos fibres, predominantly the amphibole asbestos
category, are linked in large part to past high-level exposures and to
inappropriate uses, such as sprayed insulation and high temperature
insulation products for pipes to prevent heat losses. In both cases, it
was generally amphibole asbestos that was used. These uses were
discontinued in the late 1970s.
The Government of Canada follows a controlled use approach to
strictly control exposure to chrysotile through Federal, provincial and
territorial workplace exposure limits and bans on some categories of
consumer and workplace products under Canada's Hazardous Products Act.
The Government of Canada is of the view that the occupational
health risks of chrysotile can be managed if regulations, programs and
practices are in place to limit exposure to airborne fibres and that
the risks would be no greater than posed by other occupational
activities. Low levels of exposure pose low risks.
The Government of Canada also believes that where exposures and
subsequent risks cannot be properly controlled, the specific use should
be discontinued or prohibited. Consistent with its Minerals and Metals
Policy, Canada targets its intervention at the product and use levels
instead of the substance itself.
All forms of asbestos are regulated extensively in Canada. Canada's
Department of Health has encouraged provincial occupational health
authorities to adopt stringent workplace exposure limits for asbestos.
The sale of friable products that were formerly available in Canada,
i.e., products that release asbestos fibres under normal use, and the
sale of pure asbestos to individuals have been banned under the
Hazardous Products Act. In addition, emissions of asbestos into the
environment from mining and milling operations are limited under the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Today's strict workplace standards, combined with the ban of most
uses of amphibole asbestos have reduced worker exposure levels to 1/10
to 1/1000 of the levels that existed in the past.
Today, chrysotile represents nearly 100 percent of the world
consumption of asbestos as amphibole asbestos has essentially
disappeared from the market and over 98 percent of world's the
consumption of chrysotile is utilized in chryso-cement or friction
products where the fibres are encapsulated and, in that form, do not
pose a risk to human health.
In conclusion, Canada would like to thank the Subcommittee on
Employment and Workplace Safety for the opportunity to share our
experience with the controlled use of chrysotile.
______
[Editor's Note: For more information on asbestos exposure
in Libby, Montana go to www.ephonline.org/docs/2007/948/
abstract.html to review the study entitled ``Vermiculite,
Respiratory Disease and Asbestos Exposure in Libby, Montana:
Update of a Cohort Mortality Study,'' (Environmental Health
Perspectives) by Patricia Sullivan, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, Field Studies Branch, Division
of Respiratory Disease Studies.
For more on efforts to ban asbestos go to www.ijoeh.com/
pfds/IJOEH_1301_Giannasi.pdf to review the article entitled
``Ban on Asbestos Diaphragms in the Chlorine-related Chemical
Industry and Efforts toward a Worldwide Ban'' by Fernanda
Giannasi.]
------
[Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]