Supporters Claim Watered Down Asbestos Bill
The U.S. Senate was lauded a month ago for its passage of the Ban Asbestos In America Act of 2007. The bill, which received widespread support and unanimous senate approval, will impose a total ban on the importation, manufacture, processing and distribution of asbestos-containing products in the U.S. (See Bill to Ban Asbestos Passes Senate, posted 10/5/07). Or so we thought.
An article in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that more and more original supporters of the bill, including public health officials, asbestos victim advocates, and the EPA are now speaking out in opposition to the highly touted bill. Apparently, they are alleging that the bill which ultimately passed the Senate vote was not the same bill they had testified in support of--that it had been watered down to appease the asbestos industry and its powerful lobby. Calling it a "limited asbestos ban act", they claim that the bill as passed, does not cover many asbestos-containing products that it was originally intended to cover.
The House Committe on Energy and Commerce is set to hold hearings on the recently-passed bill next month. In comments prepared for those upcoming hearings, the EPA reiterated an earlier statement in which it asserted that the ban should apply to "any product to which asbestos is deliberately added or used, or in which asbestos is otherwise present in any concentration." This definition of what products are to be covered by the ban was apparently deleted from the original bill at the urging of the asbestos industry. Instead the bill calls for a study to determine the cancer-causing hazard of those products not currently covered by the ban.
According to Dr. Aubrey Miller, a senior medical officer and toxicologist for the EPA, "the government knows that asbestos products not covered by the legislation can cause harm and would allow, and probably encourage, companies to continue selling contaminated products because they are exempt from the ban." For example, due to last-minute changes in the Senate bill, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the Libby, MT vermiculite mine from being reopened and the tainted vermiculite ore sold for use in household and construction products. (See EPA Failed to Warn Homeowners of the Dangers of Vermiculite Insulation, posted 10/5/07). Nor will the current legislation prevent Iron Range taconite mine owners from selling its waste product for use in public roads and bridges. (See University of Minn. to Study Link Between Taconite Mining and Mesothelioma, posted 8/10/07).
Despite the recent opposition, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and her staff, who worked tirelessly for the past six years to get this bill passed, are said to be fully in support of the bill as passed, including what they see as compromises that had to be made to get the bill this far. Moreover, staffers of both Murray and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) are none too happy about what they see as a "disinformation campaign" being mounted by these early supporters who are now raising opposition to the bill as passed. In fact, according to the Post-Intelligencer, nearly all of the witnesses and early supporters of the bill, including Dr. Miller and others who testified on behalf of its passage, were contacted by Murray and Boxer staffers repeatedly and told to cease discussing their views about the bill, insisting that the bill was not flawed. It remains to be seen how this will all play out at the House committee hearings on the bill next month.
Click here to read the full article.
