Document RJdrk1O6DVyyQKLG55y1eMdVV

Editorial Warning Auto Mechanics about Asbestos Hazards n 1986, the U.S. Environmental IProtection Agency (EPA) pub lished Guidelines for Preventing Asbestos Disease among Auto Mechan ics,1 a brochure warning of the dan gers of asbestos exposure and advis ing procedures to reduce exposure to asbestos in brake repair work. This report was widely distrib uted to vocational training schools around the United States. The EPA's 1989 regulation phasing out asbestos in many products was over turned in court before the provi sions for brakes took effect, and asbestos-containing brakes continue to be widely used in the United States today. U.S. imports of brakefriction elements more than dou bled from 1996 to 2002, to a total value of $125 million, and most of this comes from asbestos mining and manufacturing countries. News reports by investigative journalist Andrew Schneider in 2000 and 20032,3 found that asbestos-contain ing replacement brake parts are widely used in the United States, but mechanics are largely under the impression that such products were banned long ago. Schneider's October 2003 article3 reported that U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) air sampling for asbestos in workplaces where brake repair was done had been virtually nonexistent over the preceding 20 years. In the nine years after OSHA added a sec tion (f)(3), "Specific compliance methods for brake and clutch repair," to its asbestos standard in 1994, only five workplaces in the United States were subject to fines for violation of this section. In only one case did the fine exceed $750; another 12 employers were cited for (f)(3) violations but were not fined by OSHA."4 With this continuing worker and consumer danger flourishing in a state of official neglect, some lawyers have now written to the EPA demanding that the EPA's brake guidance document be officially withdrawn.5 The law firm's selective scientific argument claimed that new reports have shown that the asbestos exposure of mechanics does not cause asbestosis, lung cancer, or mesothelioma. The U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) alert bulletin to mechanics of 1975, the 1978 brochure by the Friction Mate rials Standards Institute (an indus try group) advising that mechanics be protected from asbestos, and many reports in the scientific litera ture, including those from Dr. James Leigh and his co-workers at the Australian Mesothelioma Regis ter,6 are not mentioned at all. In its letter to the EPA,5 counsel from Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius declined to say whom they repre sented. However, one gets an idea who hired this firm (ranked sixth in a recent "Who Represents Corpo rate America" survey) from their statements about the "impact" of the EPA report. They emphasize that, in thousands of damage suits, the report is portrayed as a "definitive EPA statement that friction products are indeed hazardous and cause asbestos-related disease." They con tinue by claiming that, outside the courtroom, the report "hinders a fair-minded assessment of the haz ards of . . . asbestos-containing fric tion products." The law firm has been a registered lobbyist for the American Insurance Association and the insurer CNA, and has also represented corporate defendants in asbestos personal injury litiga tion; so their clients may not be pres ent sellers of asbestos-containing brake parts imported to the United States from Mexico, China, and Colombia. All we know for sure about the clients is that they seek to justify corporate suppression of warnings in the past with govern ment suppression ofwarnings today. The lawyers' claim that the EPA report is very important in brake asbestos lawsuits is exaggerated. Castleman's book on the history of discovery of asbestos hazards7 has a 41-page chapter on brake workers, but mentions the EPA brake guid ance document only briefly because of the report's late date. However, if the brake guidance document is withdrawn by the EPA, that would instantly become the linchpin of the defense case against mechanics with asbestos disease claims against the brake manufacturers. Four paragraphs slipped into a Congressional appropriations bill in 2001, now given the exaggerated titles of Information Quality Act and/or Data Quality Act (DQA), instruct all U.S. government agen cies to develop procedures to accept requests to ensure that all informa tion the government puts out meets high standards of quality. The lan guage was introduced by Congress woman Jo Ann Emerson, whose staff confirmed to journalist Andrew Schneider that the text was provided by Jim Tozzi, chief of the industry group, Center for Regulatory Effec tiveness (CRE). In 2003, the CRE also tried to use the DQA to get the EPA to refrain from publicly stating that the herbicide atrazine is an endocrine disruptor despite persua sive publications on this point, claim ing that there are "no validated test methods for assessing such effects." By this reasoning, the Natural Resources Defense Council points 108 out, peer-reviewed epidemiologic studies would also be inappropriate as a basis for EPA assessments of data and information releases.8 Most recently, Tozzi's group and manufac turers of the chemical have tried to use the DQA to interfere with the EPA's addition of diisononyl phthalate to the list of chemicals for which industry must publicly disclose its environmental releases (the Toxics Release Inventory). It remains to be seen whether parties whose requests to suppress public health information such as this, if declined, will be able to get the courts to permit them to pursue lawsuits against the govern ment (in which case their lawyers would at least have to say whom they represent!). Congressman Dennis Kucinich9 and other Mem bers of Congress are opposed to the effort to get the EPA to withdraw the brake guidance document and have asked the EPA and OSHA what they are doing to protect mechanics from asbestos. The EPA stoutly refused Kucinich's request to ask Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius whom they represent, incredibly asserting that the law firm is itself an "affected party" and therefore is itself entitled to make such requests under the EPA's rules. The EPA's Acting Administrator at the time this request was reviewed, Mari anne Horinko, had previously worked at Morgan, Lewis.10 It is not known how high up the real affected parties had to go to enlist the U.S. government as accomplice to their concealment. Authoritative comments on the medical evidence on asbestos brake hazards have been filed with the EPA by former NIOSH Director Richard Lemen and Drs. James Leigh, David Egilman, and Barry Castleman. Additional comments were filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and by attorneys representing mechanics with claims against asbestos brake manufactur ers. The EPA had no procedure for publicly posting comments received from these scientists or anyone else who commented while the clock ticked on the EPA's 90-day deadline for reply. Industrial parties and their consultants do not appear to have sent comments to the EPA. On Nov. 24, 2003, the EPA responded that the agency was revis ing "various information materials" in its asbestos program, including the brake guidance document.5 The draft revised brake document will be made available for public comment in the second quarter of 2004. At that time, public health professionals and other interested parties will have the opportunity to submit their opinions of the draft revised document to the EPA. What will the EPA tell the mechanics being instructed in vocational training schools now? Joseph LaDou, MD Editor-in-Chief References 1. EPA Guidelines document: <http:// www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/asbestos/control.html> (item: preventing disease among auto mechanics) 2. Nation's mechanics at risk from asbes tos/deadly fibers are found in brakes, but officials have kept silent. Seattle Post-Intelligence.r November 16, 2000. <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/uncivil action/brks16.shtml>. 3. EPA warning on asbestos is under attack. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. October 26, 2003. <http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/8D5A911 07334195086256DCA0054D4CA?OpenDocument&Headline=EPA+warning+o n+asbestos+is+under+attack>. 4. Occupational Safety and Health Admin istration Inspections in Standard Indus trial Codes 7538 and 7539 in Which Asbestos Standard (19101001) Was Cited Since Inception, 01/01/72 through 09/30/03. 5. Morgan, Lewis letter to EPA and EPA response. <http://www.epa.gov/oei/ qualityguidelines/ af_req_correction_ sub.htm> (item 12). 6. Leigh J, Driscoll T. Malignant mesothe lioma in Australia, 1945-2002. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2003; 9: 206-17. 7. Castleman B. Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects. 4th ed. 8. Sass JB, Devine JP (Natural Resources Defense Council). The Center for Reg ulatory Effectiveness invokes the Data Quality Act to reject published studies on atrazine toxicity. Tozzi J (CRE). Reply. Envir. Health Perspect. In press, Jan. 2004. 9. Letter from Congressman Kucinich et al. <http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ oh10_kucinich/031020EPAasbestos. html>. 10. Bush Names Horinko Acting Agency Head; Johnson Fills Deputy Administra tor Post. Environment Reporter 34: N o. 28, July 11, 2003. <http://ehscenter. bna.com/pic2/ehs/nsf/id/BNAP5PCEV8?OpenDocument>. Note: Public comments to EPA can be sent to: <quality.guidelines@epa.gov>. VOL 10/NO 1, JAN/MAR 2004 www.ijoeh.com Editorial 109