EPA wants to water down asbestos safety rules

Aug 6, 2008

A panel of the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s own scientific advisers has condemned the agency’s hurried plan to change the way it measures the cancer-causing risk of asbestos. The panel of 20 experts studied the EPA’s plan to change its position on the relative danger of six different types of asbestos regulated by government. Essentially, the EPA now wants to ignore a mountain of scientific evidence demonstrating the danger of all types of asbestos and to find instead that the most common type of asbestos — chrysotile – just isn’t that bad. The EPA has turned its attention solely to studies suggesting that chrysotile asbestos doesn’t cause mesothelioma, a fatal cancer caused by asbestos exposure. Lawyers representing corporations that made or used asbestos products say that such a change in position by the EPA would greatly increase their odds at persuading juries that the chrysotile asbestos used by their company wasn’t hazardous. But according to those who observed the scientific panel’s discussions, the proposed changes by the EPA would be rejected by the panel.

It is believed that the EPA’s change in position is motivated by the Bush White House’s rush to weaken the government’s regulation of hazardous substances, before leaving power. For years, President Bush openly fought for asbestos tort reform to put a stop to workers’ ability to sue asbestos companies in court, but failed. Senator Patty Murray, of Washington, long an advocate for banning asbestos use, comments: “I’d like the political appointees at the EPA to look into the eyes of a mesothelioma patient and say that asbestos isn’t dangerous. It appears that this administration is once again putting politics before public health.”

Even if the EPA’s own panel of advisors recommends against the change, however, the agency can still proceed to do as it likes. According to Dale Kemery, an EPA spokesman, “EPA will review the committee’s comments and take them into consideration as we decide how to proceed. But we can move ahead without future approval from OMB or the (Science Advisory Board).”

For the full story, go to http://seattlepi.nwsource.com.

Latest News Stories