Document 6BeaEqg2p4mxg9wOmXv4N2V41

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT Department ot Environmental Sciences M 0 Varr.er va-.a;e' 19,`1978 Mr. M. 0. Varner 3uildir.g REVIVED -lL*1211578 ! NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES SCIENCE KEEK Conference on Health Hazards of Asbestos Exposure __________June 24-27, 1978__________________________ : I L I attended this conference at the New York Hilton Hotel arid participated in the workshop at the Sloan-Kettering Cancezj hr^p Research Center entitled "Public Health Significance of *----------------Smoking-Asbestos Interactions." Accounts of the events of this conference as reported in the Occupational Safety and Health Reporter are attached. Basically, I came away with the impression that the conference was a carefully planned, highly biased, staged media event to politicize the asbestos health hazard issue. Selected observations and comments follow. Dr. L.M. Irwig of Johannesburg, South Africa, reported that 10 percent of all men over 40 years of age and who had never J / had any known asbestos exposure, demonstrate abnormal x-ray (- pleural plaques. (Note: this contrasts only slightly with the 16 percent abnormalities reported by the U.S. Navy for the San Diego shipyard workers.) He also showed extensive data which showed in general that parenchymal and pleural abnormalities cannot be predicted by fiber levels and, therefore, are inde- pendent of exposure. The data indicate that these abnormalities ( / and disease are associated with age. He also mentioned that / 53 alleged cases of mesothelioma in the tumor registry have not / been confirmed histologically but only via x-ray, which he considered to be less than an adequate diagnostic tool for mesothelioma. Dr. Margaret Turner-Narwick of London, England, indicated that / 17.6 to 22 percent of the x-rays showed progression of asbestosis ; following cassation of exposure. She observed that mesothelioma ; and lung cancer appear to occur primarily in lungs with the least serious x-ray changes and the lessor significant asbestos loadings or exposures. ASARCO incorporates 3*22 Scum 700 west Sait Lake City. Utan 8*119 (801) 2 ASARCO ELP 0005282 w Dr. Nickolson of Mount Sinai School of Medicine .claimed that most asbestos workers die of lung cancer and mesothelioma-after an average of 25 years of asbestos exposure before the age-wheri smoking might become a cofactor. Ke claimed that 74 percent of the asbestos workers die before their sixtieth birthday. Vivian Henderson indicated that 17 of_ the 58 mesothelioma_cases, with which they (apparently Dr. Enterline and associates) were aware, had had no known asbestos exposures. It appears that mesothelioma occurs earlier than lung cancer. The available data do not indicate a relationship between exposure and fibrosis. She did report only a 269 SMR for lung cancer among their cohort of asbestos workers but a ^ 578.9 SMR for lung cancer among cement asbestos pipe workers exposed \ to chrysotile and crocidolite fibers. --! Dr. Ruth Lilis admitted, when discussing the results of studies of asbestosis among maintenance workers in the chemical industry, that x-rays were not read "blind." This is most understandable because almost as many maintenance workers were found to have abnormalities as were found among the insulation workers. Apparently none of the Mt.Sinai ' studies have been conducted in a scientifically controlled manner to assure that investigator bias does not affect the results. Dr. Stumphius from the Netherlands claimed that of the 70 known cases j of mesothelioma, 26 were in patients not known to have ever been exposed to asbestos. ' Contrasting claims of lung disease prevalence were reported for ship yard workers on the west coast and San Diego. The Navy reported finding 16 percent abnormalities and Dr. Polakoff of Berkeley reported 57 percent. The latter percentage was derived from a broader population, which seems unlikely unless investigator bias was an influential factor. Dr. Anderson of Mt. Sinai claimed that a study of x-ray changes in asbestos workers' families showed that 18 percent demonstrated abnormali ties as compared to 3.4 percent for control families. Daughters appeared to be most adversely affected with 86 percent not having any obvious clinical problems. Dr. Hammond of the American Cancer Society presented data showing that mortality patterns in the immediate neighborhood of the Patterson plant are not different from those of a control community (Riverside). j< i| /j Dr. Newhouse of London presented data indicating a dose-response rela tionship between length of exposure and magnitude of exposure with lung cancer. The reported SMR's ranged up to 538 for the most severely exposed. She also presented data showing a group of women asbestos , j textile workers to have lung cancer SMR's ranging from 810 to 2592. j Dr. Clark Cooper induced her to admit that these women were all heavy smokers and that the multiplicative factor for nonsmokers is far less than unity and greater than 20.9 for smoking. ASARCO ELP 0005283 % -3- Dr. Newhouse implied that she believed that asbestos was_not. an etiological agent in the causation of lung cancer and pos-sibly "other cancers as well. Dr. Selikoff used a leading question in an attempt to force her to admit that asbestos is the only known cause of peritoneal mesothelioma. Dr. Newhouse replied that this might be so but that nobody has ever shown her any data, evidence, or given her a suitable explanation about how airborne asbestos exposures could even be conceivably associated with peritoneal mesothelioma. Dr. Selikoff presented, as usual, unreadable slides but did make several noteworthy comments. He admitted that they have not observed an increase in any cancer among insulation workers, with less than 20 years of exposure and he would- guess that their TWA exposures prcbabl average between 3-12 fibers/cc. He openly admitted that, review of histological specimens showed that many of the death .certificates had been incorrectly coded and that appropriate revisions in the entries had been made. Dr. Hammond presented the latest data on the relationship between cigarette smoking and asbestos-exposure. He presented data show ing 8 lung cancer deaths among the 180 nonsmokers who -have died. About 14.11 lung cancer deaths would have been expected had the Dorn data on nonsmokers (smoking specific) is used as the control group. Dr. Hadford challenged these control groups to which Dr. Hammond admitted that a proper control group does not exist for these highly examined ar.d tested asbestos workers. He felt only that these figures "mean 'little more than asbestos exposure has an associated risk for lung cancer for both smokers and nonsmokers." He felt these data were important to attack the myth that asbestos would not hurt a worker unless he smokes cigarettes. Vivian Henderson concurred with this view in a strongly worded extemporaneous speech. At the workshop on smoking and asbestos exposure, Mr. Seicman of the American Cancer Society presented data on the same population as Dr. Hammond (which was contradictory). He reported 8 lung cancer deaths among 180 nonsmoker deaths but claimed 8.8 deaths would have been expected had the general population been the control group and 1.2 would have been expected if based ip-poking-specific statistics. He also willingly admitted that "no 'perfect set of control data exist. Dr. MacDonald presented data which showed that chrysotile miners experience lung cancer SMR's of 126 after five years exposure and 150 after 20 years of exposure. He indicated that 12 cases of pleural mesothelioma have been observed among miners and 3 cases among mill workers. No cases of peritoneal mesothelioma have been reported among mine and mill workers. % ASARCO ELP 0005284- Dr. Meurman from Finland reported that 44 lung-cancers were found \ among 38'5 deceased anthophyllite ashes cos workers,. & study of 1 smoking habits and asbestos exposure among these men indicated that "it can be concluded that smoking alone may be sufficient to explain l 1 rhe common occurrence of lunc cancer among these asbestos workers." I discussed Dr. fleurman's findings with him and he told me that 90 percent of the_asbestos workers in Finland are heavy smokers. He--Used 5.5 percent as the expected lung cancer rate which is far more reasonable than the 1-2 percent used by Drs. Hammond and Selikoff as their control groups. He also indicated that mesothelioma has not been associated with anthophyllite asbesto.s exposure in Finland. i Dr. Samuel Epstein debated Dr. Paul Kotin as to the subject "There \ should be no preventable exposure to a confirmed occupational human \ carcinogen." Taking the affirmative position. Dr. Epstein commenced by refusing to debate the assigned subject, selecting instead to support the Delaney Amendment concept. In a most strident and scornful fashion, he repeatedly accused scientists associated with industry of being "harlots," of suppressing and falsifying data, of collaborating with management to deny workers their rights, and of conspiring to continue indefinitely the genocide of american workers. He advocated total government control of industry to force compliance with all procedures required to protect worker health and the environment. He demanded that "no exposure to even potential carcinogens" be permitted on "moral" grounds despite the implication that this would require the "banning" of these materials. He pointedly asserted that there is "absolutely" no evidence suggesting a threshold and that industry' deliberately offers to workers only the Faustian alternatives of jobs or cancer. Dr. Kotin spent most of his time complaining about the names which Epstein called industry and discussing in detail the roles of various groups such as industry, government, union, etc. as he perceived them. He stated'that thresholds have been shown repeatedly by dose response curves. 3ecause a negative cannot be proved, some level of risk must be accepted. Preventable exposures are rare due to the mass exposures to numerous natural carcinogens. Industry is in a "catch 22" situation and will not accept slogans as justification for stringent regulation. Dr. Epstein rebutted by attacking Dr. Kotin personally by referring to Dr. Kotin's change in view with regard to carcinogenisis, and indicting him as a participant in "unregulated human carnage." He further accused industry of playing games with economic statistics when control costs actually total only 0.2 percent of sales. Dr. Kotin rebutted by stating that Dr. Epstein does everyone a great cisserv^'-^by denigrating those who do not have the same opinions as he does. Smoking is the major environmental cause of disease and nothing else can approach its widespread health effects, even in combination. Dr. Kotin also said, "Sam, I wish yo^Jjnew something about the mechanisms of carcinogenisis so that we could debate this subject rationally." ~ ASARCO ELP 0005285 In summary, Dr. Kotin was the only industry scientist permitted on the agenda to defend industry's viewpoint and needs.- Pitted against scores of antagonists (definitely a stacked deck), he showed admirable courage, courtesy and candor. His last appearance on a panel was highlighted by the candid comment that "this rostrum has been used as a pulpit for the pressing of personal views." The rest of the sessions were highly politicized. Dr. Levinson (Ilo) and others demanded total government control of industry, revision of management structure, sharing of decision making powers with union committees, and the use of money to restructure all american institu tions. R. Sweeney (attorney) made sweeping charges of an industrial Watergate, charged that science must be cleaned up by removing all influence of industry from the realms of scientific research, and demanded that industry be stopped from continuing to force a health epidemic upon the public. Of course, TV cameras were commonplace during the most sensationalized speeches. And finally, Barbara Franklin of the CPSC stated that the next target of the commission is asbestos cement products. It is their goal to ban totally the intentional addition of asbestos to all consumer products. The basis for the ban is the assumption that there is no safe level for exposure to a carcinogen. LDW/bjs Attach. cc: KWNelson (w.attach) Lowell D. White, Ph.D. Environmental Scientist ASARCO ELP 0005286 102 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER agreed with the House and provided $167.5 million /or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and nearly $62 million for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Current Report, June IS, p. 64), The Senate subcommittee disagreed with the House and did not add an amendment to the measure to prohibit OSHA from issuing any regulations which would restrict recreational hunting, fishing, or sports shooting. But the subcommittee agreed with the House and voted to continue the restrictions on OSHA which were first included in Lie FY 77 budget. Those amendments to OSHA's budget exempt farms employing 10 or fewer persons from the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and prcnibit civil penalties for first-instance nonserious violations of the Act. unless 10 or more violations are cited during an inspection. When the House voted to continue those restrictions on OSHA. it decided to exclude farms which have a temporary labor camp from the exemption for farms employing 10 or fewer persons. These differences between the House and Senate versions will have to be resolved in a conference between the two houses, unless the full committee or the Senate voles to disagree with the subcommittee recommen dations and to agree with the House. Additional Inapactor* Senator Warren Magnuson (D-Wash), chairman of the Ap propriations Committee and of the Labor-HEW Subcom mittee. will propose before the full committee an amend ment to add $12.5 million to the OSHA budget to hire as many as 500 more inspectors. His amendment was not offered before the subcommittee. In a June 9 letter to Magnuson, Assistant Labor Secretary Euia 3ingham wrote that OSHA "can effectively utilize the additional compliance officers." She suggested that the agency could hire 225 industrial hygienists, 125 safety specialists, and 50 persons to conduct discrimination in vestigations. Bingham estimated that the 500 new inspectors would per mit OSHA to conduct S.500 additional health inspections, 10.000 additional safety inspections, and 2,500 more dis crimination investigations. She explained that health inspec tions usually take tnree to four times longer than safety in spections. which would account for the expected greater in crease in the number of safety inspections even though more new health specialists would be hired. Bingham wrote Magnuson that OSHA expects the annual number of its inspections to decrease because of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Barlow's Inc. case, but she could no: give "a precise estimate of the decrease as (OSHA does) not yet have sufficient data on denial of entry cases to indicate a trend" (Current Report, May 25, p. 1923). But 3ingham commented that an increase in the number of inspectors would allow OSHA to maintain its present in spection rate and to expand its coverage in such "high-hazard industries" as construction and grain eievators. Min* The Senate subcommittee did not approve an amendment offered by Senator Robert Byrd fD-WVa) to increase the XICSH budget to fund certain activities mandated by the Feceral Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. HEW previously had refused NIOSH requests for funding for certain activities required under the new mine safety law (Current Report. June IS. p. 64). The House also did not in crease NIOSH's funding for these activities. Black Lung Suppiamantal The Senate passed"on June 23 an increase of 3181.6 million -for the Labor Department's Employment Standards Ad ministration during the current fiscal year, which ends September 30. The increased funds, which were approved by the House on June 9, will be used to implement the black lung benefits legislation enacted by Congress earlier this year. The Senate agreed with the amount included in the House version (HJRes 945), but the joint resolution will have to be considered by a conference committee between the two Houses because of differences in aspects of it which have nothing to do with the black lung compensation benefits program (Current Report, June 15, p. 64). >----------SHORT-EXPOSURE RISK INDICATED IN STUDY OF-NEW JERSEY WORKERS,RESEARCHER SAYS NEW YORK CITY -- (By an OSHR staff correspondent) -- Workers employed for only a month or two at a Patterson, N.J.. asbestos plant during the period 1941-1954 showed "a dear mortality excess" from lung cancer and all forms of asbestos disease, Herbert Seidman, American Cancer Socie ty, reported June 24. Seidman appeared at the June 21 through June 30 Inter national Conference on Health Hazards of Asbestos Ex posure, sponsored by the New York Academy of Sciences. In a survey of some 821 workers, Seidman reported, six deaths from lung cancer were found among those who had worked at the plant for only one month, as compared with 2.47 deaths expected based on mortality patterns for the Patterson area. There also were.eight deaths from all forms of asbestos disease, induding mesothelioma, as contrasted with the 4.84 deaths expected. Seidman termed the excess "important," and added that the risk of lung cancer and asbestos disease became even greater for workers exposed to asbestos for longer periods. For example, among workers wbo worked at the plant two or more years, there were 39 deaths from lung cancer rather than the 5.97 deaths expected, Seidman noted. There were 76 deaths from all asbestos diseases, as compared with the 12.41 deaths expected. Among the workers who were exposed to asbestos for one month, adverse health effects from the exposure first were seen after 20 years. The effects were observed sooner among those with longer exposure, Seidman added. The plant involved in the study was owned by the Nicholson File Company, and it provided asbestos for U.S. Navy ships during and after World War H. Ventilation at the plant was "poor," and "even short periods of exposure left a large number of asbestos fibers in the workers' lungs," ac cording to the American Cancer Society researcher. Workers at the facility were exposed only to one variety of asbestos, amosite. according to Irving Selixoff, Ml Sinai School of Medicine, who collaborated on the study with Seid man and another American Cancer Society researcher. S. Cuyler Hammond. This determination was based on Navy specifications and on records of the products sold by the company, Selikoff explained. . In a study of 17.800 American and Canadian insulation workers whose histories were followed from 1943 to 1977, 2,270 deaths were observ^apmpared with the 1.660 deaths expected. Selikoff also reported. Cancer was the "most im portant" cause of death, wilH 994 cases observed rather than the 320 expected. &,0ccu9Ofono) Sofety Neolth Report** OOS5-3237/7B/5CO 50 ASARCO ELP 0005287 CURRENT REPORT The cancer mortalities included 175 deaths from pleural and peritonea] mesothelioma, two forms' uf cancer that are extremely rare in the general population, according to the Mt. Sinai researcher. Chemical Maintenance Worker* A study of 144 chemical plant maintenance workers in dicated abnormal chest X-ray findings among 48.4 percent of those with direct asbestos exposure, according to Ruth Liilis. Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. Pleural changes, in cluding thickening and calcification of the membrane, were found in 28 percent of the total group. Some 45.4 percent of the maintenance workers who had some asbestos exposure produced abnormal chest X-rays, while readings were abnormal for 24.2 percent of those workers who were not exposed to asbestos, T ini* added. Chronic bronchitis rates were similar for both smokers and nonsmokers, with 23 percent of those who smoked ex hibiting bronchitis, compared with 19 percent of the nonsmokers, Lillis told conference attendees. Asbestos exposure involving maintenance workers presents a "very serious problem for the future." Seiikoft commented. In many cases, employers do sot realize that products in their facilities contain asbestos. The problem in volves "a vast number of workers," because in many chemical plants there are as many maintenance employees as chemical workers, Selikoff commented. Shipyard Hazard* High rates of lung cancer and cancer of the pharynx have been found in three-fourths of the U.S. southern coastal coun ties where shipyards operated during World War . accor ding to William J. Blot of the National Cancer Institute. A study of these counties was initiated after NCI demographic research showed an "unexpected pattern" of high cancer mortality clustered along the Gulf Coast and on the U.S. southeast Atlantic coast. Blot stated. In addition to an excess of lung and -pharynx cancer, high rates of bronchial, esophagus, and stomach cancer have been noted. Lack of information on the smoking histories of cancer vic tims in these counties has hampered the NCI study, but "it is unlikely that smoking would account totally for the pattern." Blot commented. Currently NCI is conducting a field study on the Georgia coast, where preliminary figures show an excess lung cancer risk among persons who worked in shipyards in Savannah and Brunswick during the Second World War, the NCI scien tist announced. Some 20 percent of the 500 lung cancer vic tims interviewed by NCI so far reported that they had work ed ir. shipyards during .the war. NCI is halfway through another case-control interview study in the Tidewater area of Virginia, the location of the Newport News. Va., Naval Shipyard. Results of this project "should clarify the shipyard problem," 3Iot commented. Ke added that information on exposures at the shipyard should be iess difficult to gather than similar data in the Georgia study, because the Newport News facility is still in opera tion. Other studies are planned in Maine, where lung cancer in cidence is rising, and in Louisiana, where shipbuilding was a major industry during the war. Blot noted. All persons who have worked in shipyards in the past, whatever their craft, face the risk of developing asbestos-related disease, according to Phiuip L. Polakoff. Western Institute for Occupational and Environmental Health. Berkeley, Calif. In a study involving 359 workers from shipyards at Hunter's Point and Mare Island. Calif.. 59 percent of the employees were found to have pleural and parenchymal abnormalities. 1 103' The abnormalities "were aistributed evenly among all oc cupations," including painters, sailraakers, laborers, mechanics, and carpenters, Polakoff stated. There was a significant increase in pleurai changes with advancing age, 'the researcher continued. A high incidence of parenchymal changes was discovered, but these changes oc curred "indepenoent of age." This diserepency may be ex plained. Polakoff theorized, by the possibility that the study inadvertently used a select group of workers with abnor malities in all age groups. The changes also might have been due to factors other than asbestos, such as cigarette smoking or exposure to other toxic agents. Groton Study An increase in pleural and peritoneal changes correspon ding to longer periods of time from first exposure to asbestos was found in a study of 1.000 workers from the Electric Boat Company shipyard *at Groton, Conn., Irving Selikoff reported. Abnormalities were found in 43 percent of the workers whose first exposure to asbestos occurred less than 20 years ago, the Mt. Sinai researcher stated. The rate increased to 50 percent among workers first exposed more than 20 years ago. Abnormalities were found in all trades, but there were not enough workers from any one group to compare the in cidence rates and thus identify any workers who might be particularly at risk, Selikoff noted. Comparing lung cancer rates among shipyard workers with those for insulation workers not employed in shipyards. Selikoff said he found die rates "very much the same." Some 153 out of 500 production workers at the-U.S. Navy shipyard at Long Beach, Calif., have been found to have asbestosis. according to a report by Jean S. Felton, Naval Regional Medical Center. The Navy began a study of workers at the shipyard in June 1977. X-rays have been taken for 88 percent of all the workers at the shipyard, and indicate abnormal findings for 16 percent of the workers thus far examined. The abnormalities show a linear increase by age. occurring in 34 percent of those workers employed at the facility for at least 17 years. Felton reported. The Navy hopes to take X-rays of the remaining workers during the next month, conference attendees were told. Carcinogen* HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS CONCERNED OVER REGULATION COSTS. INOUSTRY SAYS Recent controversy over the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's cation dust standard demonstrates the concern "at '-he highest levels of Government" for the economic effects of regulating, OSHA's hearing on a car cinogens policy was told June 26. Richard Zeckhauser. a witness for the American Petroleum Institute, predicted "years of delay in litigation" for the proposed policy unless OSHA attempts to analyze the costs and benefits of the proposal and tries to estimate risks to workers. Individual firms and the American Industrial Health Coun cil, an umtreila-group of companies ar.d trade associations, earlier had presented the first testimony from the business sector as me hearings continued into Lhe second month (Current Report. Jumf 22, p. 86). Zeckhauser. a political economist from Harvard Universi ty. referred during his testimony to President Carter's in volvement in Lhe OSHA- ration.dust standard and the review Coovn;*-? I 1378 dv The Bureau of National Affairs. Inc. C035-3237/78/S00 *Q v ASARCO ELP 0005288 CURRENT REPORT 183 This rate, which equals one case per 895 man-years, is `not a very high incidence lor an industry said to have a high incidence." Ballou maintained. The Firestone official conceded that his company had trou ble ir. the eariy 1960s with an antioxidant called IPPD. which caused an outoreak of rash among 60 workers who came into contact with it. However, once IPPD was identified as the source of the rash and replaced by other chemicals, the problem ceased. Ballou said. A cutaneous risk does exist in the rubber industry because of the defatung properties of some solvents, skin abrasion from the use of abrasive soaps, and the existence of nonin* dustrial rash which could be aggravated by exposure to chemicals. Ballou noted. However, he added, the industry attempts to prevent the occurrence of disorders by providing protective creams to workers, and by conducting extensive medical surveillance programs. The next meeting of the advisory committee is scheduled for July 26-27. Topics suggested by members for future dis cussion included skis hazards in agriculture and food processing, existing surveillance systems for cutaneous hazards, and skin hazards from radiation. Workers' Compensation ASBESTOS WORKERS' COMPENSATION BILL IS CRITICIZED AS INDUSTRY RELIEF ACT ' NSW YORK CITY -- (By an OSKR staff correspondent) -- A measure introduced in Congress last year to provide com pensation to workers who became disabled through exposure to asbestos was attacked June 29 as uie "Asbestos Industry P.ehef From Liability Act" by Robert E. Sweeney, an at torney from Cleveland. Ohio. Sweeney debated Dennis H. Markusson, an attorney for the Johns-.Manville Corporation, dunng the New York Academy of Sciences International Conference on Public Controls of Environmental Health Kazards.on the role of the Government in providing compensation for occupational dis eases. Last August Congressman Edward P. Beard (D-RI) and Congresswoman Millicent Fenwick (R-NJ) introduced the proposed Asbestos Health Hazards Compensation Act to provide compensation to workers suffering from any of four diseases contracted through exposure to asbestos and asbestos coupled with the inhalation of cigarette tobacco smoke (Current Report. August 4. 1977, p. 313). The bill has made no progress in Congress. At the time the compensation bill was introduced, Fenwick said she bad received "splendid" cooperation from the asbestos industry in the preparation of the legislation. Sweeney claimed that the bill came "out of the workshop of the legal department of Johns-Manville." Markusson noted that the Fenwick bill is supported by the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers. Sweeney charged that Markusson ''wants to draw down the curtain on the American tort system, to foreclose a vic tim's opportunity to go into a courtroom." He said it is clear industry wants "to adopt a compensation plan that would deny workers the right to stand before a jury." He explained that industry "wants to take away the victim's right to punitive damages." Markusson countered that, under the tort system, the money goes to the insurance companies, lawyers, and the courts, but not to the victim. He noted that the National Com - mission on State .Compensation Laws criticized the tort system. Markusson argued that the Government should pay all compensation from general revenue funds. Sweeney said this would amount to "welfare for industry." since it would pass on to taxpayers the burden for compen sating workers whojuffec-due to asbestos inhalation. Markusson explained that, under the first year of a com pensation program similar to the one that would be es tablished under the Fenwick bill, a minimum of S30 million would be contributed by the asbestos industry, which is more than it is currently paying out under the tort system Sweeney declared that he has "no confidence" in the abili ty of the Federal Government to run an efficient compensa tion system lor occupational diseases. He suggested that it wouid be best if the Federal Government established minimum standards for workers' compensation systems ad ministered by the states. Markusson said workers trying to get compensation for ill nesses resulting from asbestos exposure will not get relief through the court because "tfie*record does not prove the culpability of industry." He added that no jury would believe a claimant's statements about the state of the art of con trolling asbestos exposure and therefore prove that the in dustry was negligent. Markusson said Sweeney's position would make true the statement of Newark. N.J., attorney Jacob L. Balk that a worker who believes he is suffering from an occupational disease should "go to a lawyer and let a lawyer send you to a proper doctor." Noise LABOR DEPARTMENT SEEKS CONTRACTORS FOR RESEARCH ON COMPENSATION CftITEftIA Criteria for determining hearing impairment for compen sation purposes and the relationship of such impairment to occupational noise exposure will be studied under a far reaching contract to be issued by the Labor Department. According to a June 29 work statement included with DOL's request for proposal, the agency intends to produce a national review of issues in these controversial areas. Specifically, the studies will be linked to determining im pairment for federal workers' compensation. The agency's performance in that area has been subject to congressional and General Accounting Office criticism which claims that DOL criteria have been too lenient and that they conflict with current acceptable scientific evidence (Current Report, June 8. p. 31). The proposed contracts are scheduled to last approximate ly one year. They call for investigations into several areas concerning noise-induced hearing loss. Under a complicated arrangement, the agency intends to issue four contracts comprising 13 "research tasks." The 13 areas to be studied break down into the following subject areas -- (1) assessing hearing impairment and examination: (2) benefit formula; (3) presbycusis, recruitment, and tinnitus: and (4) oc cupational noise. The contracts are designed to provide for research to determine the most appropriate formula for compensation under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act IFECA) and the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The agency rgyueeted that each area of analysis include a review of spedficjovemment policy options "designed to fairly and equitably compensate injured employees with Copyright O 1978 by Th( Puru of Nnonl OC9S-3I37/7S'SCD SO Inc. asarco elp 0005289