U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

45–680 PDF 2008

S. 742 AND DRAFT LEGISLATION TO 

BAN ASBESTOS IN PRODUCTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 28, 2008 

Serial No. 110–96 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff 

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel 

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk 

DAVID CAVICKE, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland, Chairman 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

Vice Chairman 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

Ranking Member 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

VITO FOSELLA, New York 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio) 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

RICHARD FRANDSEN, Chief Counsel 

ANN STRICKLAND, Brookings Fellow 

KAREN TORRENT, Counsel 

CAROLINE AHEARN, Counsel 

RACHEL BLESHMAN, Clerk 

JERRY COURI, Minority Counsel 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Albert R. Wynn, a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland, opening statement ...................................................................................... 1 

Hon. John B. Shadegg, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona, opening statement ...................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement ................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Frank Pallone Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 9 

Hon. Betty McCollum, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota, opening statement ................................................................................... 10 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, prepared statement ...................................................................................... 11 

WITNESSES

James B. Gulliford, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, 

and Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC .. 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 283 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 179 

Gregory P. Meeker, Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Microbeam 

Laboratory, MS–973, Denver, CO ....................................................................... 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 223 

Linda Reinstein, executive director and co-founder, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, Redondo Beach, CA ............................................................. 52 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 255 

Margaret Seminario, director, safety and health, American Federation Labor 

and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington, DC ........................... 60 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 247 

Roger O. McClellan, advisor, toxicology and human health risk analysis .......... 71 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 234 

Robert P. Nolan, International Environmental Research Foundation, New 

York, NY ............................................................................................................... 82 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 241 

Richard A. Lemen, private consultant, occupational safety and health epidemiology, and public health, Canton, GA ............................................................ 109 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 111 

Submitted questions 1 ...................................................................................... 279 

James R. Millette, executive director, MVA Scientific Consultants, Duluth, 

GA .......................................................................................................................... 130 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 132 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 216 

Page

VI 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Arizona Rock Products Association, letter of February 27, 2008, submitted 

by Mr. Shadegg .................................................................................................... 141 

Business Association letter of February 27, 2008, submitted by Mr. Shadegg .. 145 

Center for Occupational & Environmental Medicine, P.C., letter of February 

27, 2008, submitted by Mr. Wynn ...................................................................... 148 

EPA Technical Assistance on S. 742, submitted by Mr. Wynn ............................ 150 

Ernest E. McConnell, D.V.M., letter of February 25, 2008, submitted by 

Mr. Shadegg .......................................................................................................... 152 

Petition by Physicians, Scientists and Occupational/Environmental Professionals Opposed to the Present Version of the Ban Asbestos Act, submitted 

by Mr. Wynn ......................................................................................................... 155 

Hon. Patty Murray, a Senator from the State of Washington, et al. submitted 

statement, submitted by Mr. Wynn .................................................................... 161 

Ann G. Wylie, Department of Geology, University of Maryland, submitted 

statement, submitted by Mr. Shadegg ............................................................... 164 

John Gamble, Somerset, NJ, letter of February 25, 2008, submitted by Mr. 

Shadegg ................................................................................................................. 177 

Christopher Weis, Senior Toxicologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

NEIC, Denver, CO, answers to submitted questions ........................................ 206 

Aubrey Miller, Senior Medical Officer & Toxicologist, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 8, Denver, CO, answers to submitted questions .. 262 

1 Mr. Lemen did not answer submitted questions for the record in time 

for printing. 

(1) 

S. 742 AND DRAFT LEGISLATION TO BAN 

ASBESTOS IN PRODUCTS 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:36 p.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Albert Wynn 

(chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Pallone, Capps, Solis, Baldwin, Barrow, Green, and Shadegg. 

Also present: Representative McCollum. 

Staff present: Dick Frandsen, Caroline Ahearn, Karen Torrent, 

Rachel Bleshman, Lauren Bloomberg, Ann Strickland, Jerry Couri, 

David McCarthy, and Garrett Golding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT WYNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. WYNN. Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to call the 

meeting to order. Today we have a hearing on S. 742, the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007, and draft legislation referred to as 

the committee print to Ban Asbestos in Products. For purposes of 

making opening statements, the chairs and ranking members of 

the subcommittee and the full committee will each be recognized 

for 5 minutes. All other members of the subcommittee will be recognized for 3 minutes. Those members may waive the right to 

make an opening statement, and when first recognized to question 

witnesses, instead, add those 3 minutes to their time for questions. 

Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to submit opening statements for the record. The chair would now recognize himself for an opening statement. 

Today’s legislative hearing is, as I indicated, on S. 742, the Ban 

Asbestos in America Act of 2007, and our draft legislation called 

the committee print to Ban Asbestos in Products. The Senate bill 

and the committee print would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act. We will not focus today on the research and study provisions in S. 742, involving certain Federal health agencies, since 

they are primarily within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on 

Health. Rather, we will focus on the provisions of S. 742 that 

amend TSCA. 

Each year, an estimated 10,000 Americans die as a result of asbestos exposure. According to an Environmental Working Group 

2 

study, more than 43,000 Americans have died from asbestos-related diseases since 1979. Asbestos is classified as a known human 

carcinogen, according to the World Health Organization, EPA, and 

other public-safety organizations. No safe level or threshold level of 

exposure to asbestos has been established. 

The primary human exposure pathway from asbestos is through 

breathing particles that are released into the air. Asbestos fibers 

can be released into the air as a dust when used in manufacture, 

processing, use, demolition, or disposal of asbestos-containing products. Medical studies show that people who are exposed to airborne 

asbestos have an increased risk of developing respiratory diseases 

such as asbestosis, a progressive, long-term disease of the lungs, 

which leads to scarring of lung tissue; mesothelioma, a rare form 

of lung cancer that is almost always fatal; and lung cancer, a malignant tumor that invades and obstructs the lungs’ air passages. 

In a 1989 final rule, the EPA sought to phase-out and ban most 

of the asbestos-containing products manufactured in the United 

States. Unfortunately, EPA’s rule was overturned in 1991 by the 

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result of the Court’s decision, 

only six asbestos-containing products remained banned, flooring 

felt, roll board, corrugated commercial and specialty paper, and in 

new uses of asbestos in products that have not historically contained asbestos. According to the World Health Organization, with 

some exceptions relating to certain uses, more than 40 countries 

have banned asbestos, including all members of the European 

Union. Today, I am pleased to say that we are making progress towards a broad ban on asbestos in this country. 

Last October, the Senate unanimously passed S. 742 introduced 

by Senator Patty Murray. The committee print contains many of 

these same provisions that amend ToSCA with certain changes and 

classifications. One of the most important changes in terms of protecting public health is that the ban on asbestos pertains to asbestos containing products. Based on technical comments provided by 

the EPA to our subcommittee, asbestos-containing products are defined as ‘‘any product, including any part, in which asbestos is deliberately added or used, or which asbestos is otherwise present in 

any concentration.’’ We have heard many concerns from Government officials and scientists and public health doctors and victims 

groups and labor groups that the one-percent threshold in S. 742 

is not protective of human health. It is not a health-based or riskbased standard. The 1-percent standard was adopted more than 30 

years ago, and was related to the limit of detection for the analytical methods available at that time. 

As we read S. 742, it provides no authority for EPA to adjust the 

standards to conform to the advances in science and testing methodologies. In a 2004 memorandum, the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response stated that the use of a 1 percent threshold as a trigger for cleanup of asbestos at Superfund sites may not 

be protective of human health. The memorandum also states that 

recent data from the Libby Montana Superfund site and other sites 

provide evidence that soil and debris containing significantly less 

than 1 percent asbestos can release unacceptable air concentrations 

of all types of asbestos fibers. At Libby, asbestos contamination 

from a nearby vermiculite mine has led to almost 200 deaths and 

3 

1,200 being diagnosed with lung abnormalities. Cleanup at Libby 

began in 1999, and more than $180 million has been spent, to date, 

with more to be done. 

I understand that some have raised concerns about the possibility of asbestos in ambient air in the context of asbestos-containing products. As the legislation moves forward, we intend to 

work with all parties to address their concerns while maintaining 

public health protection. 

I look forward to hearing the views of our witnesses today on S. 

742 and the committee print. I want to mention that we added a 

witness to the third panel for today at the request of the ranking 

member of the subcommittee, less than 48 hours before the hearing. While I don’t intend this practice to become a precedent, I 

think in the spirit of cooperation, we wanted to certainly accommodate this request. 

At this time, I would like to enter in a statement. Senator Patty 

Murray, who introduced this bill, the Ban Asbestos in America Act 

of 2007, and Senator Johnny Isakson and Senator Barbara Boxer, 

cosponsors of the bill, have asked to submit a joint statement for 

the record, to present the merits of their legislation. Without objection, their joint statement will be included in the hearing. 

At this point, it gives me pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials. I believe this is your first formal hearing, so I am pleased to 

recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. SHADEGG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do want to acknowledge that this is my first hearing in the role of ranking member. I was able to secure that position upon the retirement of 

former Speaker Denny Hastert, and I am pleased to be here. As 

you know, you and I have worked together on many issues in the 

past and have had a cordial relationship, and I look forward to 

having that here on this subcommittee. 

I do want to thank you for holding this hearing on this very important legislation. I think it is a critically important piece of legislation. I have the greatest sympathy for the victims of mesothelioma-I have some training in how to say it-the victims and families. This disease and other asbestos-related illness are serious illnesses that cause chest, lung and gastrointestinal cancers. They 

are horrible and debilitating diseases that no one wants to see perpetuated or go on. 

In my State of Arizona, we do some asbestos mining, and in fact, 

we mine a unique form of asbestos called chrysotile. And years ago, 

when I was in the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, we were shutting down a chrysotile asbestos site, and I went there and visited 

the workers, talked to the people on the site, and actually spent 

some time visiting with the life insurance salesmen who live in the 

area, who taught me a little bit about the difference between 

chrysotile asbestos and other forms of asbestos. So I think it is important that we shine light on this issue, that we study it, and that 

we consider it carefully. 

4 

I would be remiss if I didn’t note that I am somewhat regretful 

that this hearing is occurring late in the day, late in the week, 

such there are not as many members present as I think either one 

of us would like. It would be much preferable that the hearing on 

this important topic were occurring when we had a better opportunity for attendance. 

That being said, I am anxious to hear the testimony of our witnesses and to proceed. I believe that it is important to note that 

S. 742 did pass under unanimous consent with 100-percent support 

and no dissent in the Senate. I understand that is the other body, 

and we should act in our own fashion, but I think we should do 

so carefully and deliberately. 

I must say, as an opening comment, that I am concerned about 

some aspects of the committee print. I am particularly concerned, 

and I will try to focus on this to the best I can in my questioning, 

with some of the definitions in the committee print. In the committee print, a new term ‘‘asbestos-containing product’’ appears. 

And Mr. Chairman, you just read this term, which defines products, and it says that the term covers any product, including any 

part of that product, to which asbestos is deliberately added, used 

in, or and you read these words, ‘‘is otherwise present in any concentration.’’ I must say I have some concern with the language of 

‘‘otherwise present in any concentration’’ because that is a vastly 

broader definition than is in S. 742, and I believe it raises issue 

of us pulling into this debate issues we do not intend to. 

You just noted that asbestos can be airborne in the dust. At least 

it has been my understanding that when you set a standard that 

says we are regulating every product which has asbestos in any 

concentration, it is my understanding that that can mean, for example, scotch tape, where, as it is being manufactured, an ambient 

particle of asbestos got onto the scotch tape. Suddenly, it becomes 

an asbestos-containing product, and falls under the entire rubric of 

regulation, for example, which would cover asbestos insulation, or 

asbestos intentionally put into a product such as a break line. So 

I think that definition is one that gives me some very severe concern. 

A second issue which I have in looking at the Senate past bill, 

742, is issue of use by the Defense Department in defending this 

Nation and protecting our sons and daughters who are in uniform, 

and the different treatment of the two bills. It is my understanding 

of the wording of the committee print that under the committee 

print, the strictures on Defense Department are much more severe, 

much more problematic, and would open the Defense Department 

to citizen suits. I have concerns about citizen suits, certainly citizen 

suits against our Defense Department, at a time when they should 

be allocating all available resources to defending the Nation. So 

that is a second concern I have. 

The last concern that I want to articulate in my opening statement is that as I understand the committee print, it essentially 

provides that sand and gravel operations or aggregate operations 

are brought into the coverage of the bill, in a way that S. 742 does 

not do, and could be phenomenally expensive in that that would require the testing, essentially, of every single load of rock or gravel 

which is mined, because of the potential for asbestos, simply in the 

5 

soil, which is scooped up by a sand and gravel operator and 

dumped into a dump truck, and as I understand the committee 

print, it would cause the seller of that aggregate, as he puts it into 

a dump truck, if that dump truck is going to sell it to me to put 

as my lawn as gravel, where we have gravel lawns to save water, 

to test every single load. I believe that that we need to be cautious 

here. Certainly, we want to take the steps necessary to protect 

human health, but I don’t think we want to overreach in the drafting of that legislation or be overly broad, thus causing the legislation to be impractical. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman for his opening statement. At 

this time, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Green. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing. 

This is an important issue to the health and safety of American 

consumers and workers. Today, men and women and children 

across the Nation are unknowingly exposed to asbestos through 

their work, home, or everyday consumer products. Widely used in 

commerce for its strength, flexibility and resistance to heat and 

corrosion, asbestos is found in over 3,000 products, including common items such as insulation, fabric, cement, and tiles. I represent 

the Port of Houston, and I have just dozens of seamen over the last 

20 years who have been affected by asbestos exposure, and I have 

been to funerals where they have ultimately passed away from the 

process of inhaling that asbestos, the seamen who are working 

around the ships, and that is why I am glad this bill is before us. 

The EPA estimates that 27 million Americans were exposed to 

occupational asbestos exposure that can lead to health effects between 1940 and 1980. Today, approximately 1.3 billion construction 

and general industry employees face considerable asbestos exposure at the workplace. Exposure to asbestos can cause a variety of 

illnesses, including mesothelioma, lung cancer, and fibrosis of the 

lungs. The long latency period for the diseases means it can take 

decades before symptoms surface, even as long as 40 years, and 

again, I could almost sign affidavits to show that affect. Protective 

standards have been adopted and tightened over the years, but 

human health risks remain. That is why I am pleased the subcommittee is considering a legislation that attempts to reduce the 

risk of asbestos exposure. 

As said before, S. 742 had passed the Senate. The legislation has 

drawn bipartisan support and set a marker. The committee print 

adheres to the Senate bill with certain changes, including the scope 

of the prohibition, exempting certain caustics in aggregate products, and increasing criminal penalties for bill violations. This draft 

has potential to be an effective weapon in combating future asbestos exposure and health effects, and I look forward to the testimony, and I look forward, Mr. Chairman, for us moving the bill as 

expeditiously as possible. And I yield back my time. 

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman. At this time, the chair would 

recognize Mrs. Capps, the gentle lady from California. 

6 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for 

holding this hearing. I am very much looking forward to hearing 

from our esteemed witnesses today. 

This legislation is so critical, and it is so important that we move 

forward on it right now. We cannot afford to wait. We cannot, in 

good conscience, continue to sit idly by while countless numbers of 

unsuspecting men, women and children are exposed to this toxin, 

in their homes, in their workplaces, and in their schools. The potential consequences of these exposures are so severe. 

Mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases continue to 

take a very serious toll on patients and their families. The latency 

period, as my colleague Mr. Green mentioned, for these diseases 

ensures that, unfortunately, we are going to continue to face many 

new cases in the years and decades to come, even should we completely ban asbestos. So we have to pass legislation that gives hope 

to those already suffering and exposed to asbestos, suffering from 

mesothelioma and these other dreaded asbestos-related diseases, 

while at the same time, we need to take aggressive steps to ban 

asbestos in order to protect future generations from exposure. 

I am so pleased that you mentioned the area, Mr. Chairman, 

where a situation did occur, Libby, Montana. I grew up a few miles 

from there, and I know, personally, of the devastation that operation, located in the most pristine and beautiful wilderness area, 

what has happened there to all of the unsuspecting workers who 

went to work every day in that operation, and how for their families, it is a like plague that has visited generation after generation 

of those families. That place, alone, is worth of all of our efforts. 

Unfortunately, it isn’t the only place that we are talking about. 

And I am also very proud that the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation is headquartered in Santa Barbara, in my congressional district, in California. And I know, today, that we have 

several foundation board members with us, and in particular, I 

want to recognize Sue Vento, who is in the audience today. I am 

extremely grateful to have the opportunity to support legislation 

that honors Sue’s husband, and our former colleague Bruce Vento. 

And I am pleased that we are joined by the person that has succeeded him in his congressional district, Betty McCollum, another 

esteemed colleague. Thank you, Sue, for all that you and the foundation have done and are continuing to do to help patients and 

their families and to raise the awareness to the public. So many 

people have no idea what we are even talking about. 

And unfortunately, there is no cure for this terrible disease. Better diagnostic and treatment options for those who are afflicted will 

only be possible with enhanced Federal commitment to better research, and we need that as well. Over the past several years, the 

foundation has used private donations to fund research and to 

identify better treatments for mesothelioma. It is high time that 

the Federal Government do its part in expanding research on this 

deadly cancer. 

I am committed to working with Chairman Wynn and Chairman 

Pallone to enact legislation this year that will ban asbestos and expand Federal research into mesothelioma and other asbestos-reVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:37 Jan 28, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\45680.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
7 

lated diseases. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to 

move quickly on this issue. We must make sure that that this is 

not the end of the road, today, for this crucial legislation, so I 

strongly urge this committee to pass legislation that steadfastly 

protects public health, while addressing the needs of current and 

future patients who are stricken and will be stricken—we know 

they will—with cancer and other conditions, because of previous 

and current exposure to asbestos. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back 

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentle lady. At this time, the chair would 

recognize the distinguished vice chairwoman of the committee, the 

gentle lady, Ms. Solis from California. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. It 

is a very important hearing today. I appreciate the testimony that 

we are going to hear from the witnesses, also. 

The issue of asbestos and related asbestos diseases is a very important issue for all of us to address. Asbestos, as you know, causes 

significant health risks. Each year, about 10,000 people die as a result of occupational exposure, and tens of thousands of others suffer from lung conditions which make breathing so difficult, they 

can’t even fully enjoy daily life. This is further complicated because 

symptoms may not show up for many years, until after. And I am 

concerned about the risk posed by workers, including the 1.3 million employees in the construction and general industries who face 

significant exposure on the job, and their families, who may be exposed to materials that are brought home, unintentionally. 

In 1989, the EPA attempted to ban all uses of asbestos, for which 

there were readily available substitutes. The ban was supported by 

10 years of hearings and over 100,000 cases of records, including 

several hundred scientific studies, but the Fifth Circuit Court 

struck down the ruling, citing concerns with provision in the Toxic 

Substances Control Act. In the 109th Congress, I authorized several amendments to fix the Toxic Substances Control Act, with regard to substances regulated through the Stockholm Convention. I 

recognize that if the EPA failed to regulate asbestos, then public 

health would continue to be at risk, but from asbestos and other 

known carcinogens. Unfortunately, these amendments were not 

fully considered, and asbestos and other known carcinogens are 

still threatening our workers and our families. 

The committee print before us today is a necessary step towards 

achieving needed protections for our community, and I am pleased 

that it recognizes the risk of asbestos to public health by prohibiting the importation, the manufacture, processing or disturbing in 

commerce of asbestos products at a level protective to our public 

health. I am interested in the views of our witnesses today regarding the exemptions, exemptions including both Senate bill 742 and 

the committee print before us, and I am also interested in ensuring 

that any legislation we consider in this body is fully protective of 

the health of our workers and our families. I recognize the work 

done by our colleagues in the Senate to move Senate bill 742 forVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:37 Jan 28, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\45680.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
8 

ward and look forward to working with them to resolve any of the 

differences before we send a bill to the President’s desk. 

As a member of the Health Subcommittee, I also hope that we 

can work together to develop Federal research assistance for asbestos and recognize the Senate efforts to include these provisions. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having this very important 

hearing, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentle lady for her statement. At this 

time, the chair would recognize the gentle lady from Wisconsin, 

Ms. Baldwin. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

It is so important that we are shining a light on the harmful effects that asbestos-containing products can have on each and every 

one of our lives, and this hearing comes at a very critical time for 

millions of Americans who have been and are being exposed to asbestos in places where they live, work, or play, and many don’t 

even know it. Thousands of people, every year, die from asbestosrelated diseases-absolutely devastating those affected, including 

their families and their communities. 

We are long overdue in our action to ban asbestos. Decades have 

passed since the EPA first issued its final rule prohibiting certain 

asbestos-containing products. Yet court orders, red tape, and agency inaction seems to have stalled any real progress in terms of banning the products that are making people sick. And once again, our 

Nation finds itself behind the pack in terms of addressing this 

issue. More than 40 countries, including all members of the European Union have banned the use of asbestos. 

One of the real dangers with asbestos still being so prevalent 

today is that those people who have been or are being exposed may 

not show any signs of an illness until well into the future, and long 

after any prevention would have been helpful. And if we continue 

on this path without a comprehensive ban on the importation, 

manufacture, processing and distribution of asbestos, we are looking at decades, perhaps even generations more, of suffering from 

this devastating illness. 

Finally, let me add that as we move forward on this issue and 

this bill, it is important that we take into consideration all aspects 

of controlling asbestos exposure, through awareness, education, 

prevention, and research. I recognize that the resource component, 

similar to that in the Senate bill, is not included in the committee 

print before us today; however, knowing that the research and 

treatment for asbestos-related diseases has been limited, I believe 

that we must consider authorizing Federal funding for research, 

and I would look forward to delving more deeply in this issue in 

the Health Subcommittee, on which I also sit, and also as this bill 

reaches the full Energy and Commerce Committee. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today, 

and I look forward to hearing from our witness panels. 

9 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you for your opening statement. At this time, 

the chair would recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow. 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the chairman, and waive opening statement. 

Mr. WYNN. The Chair would recognize the gentleman from New 

Jersey, Mr. Pallone. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief, but 

I just wanted to thank you for holding these critically important 

hearing, and I understand that the research component of this legislation is in the Health Subcommittee, so I just wanted to commit 

to you that we will work to enact Ms. McCollum’s legislation in 

both subcommittee and that the bill that bans asbestos and protects people from harmful effects from asbestos exposure is obviously so important because we want to prevent future generations 

from being exposed to asbestos. 

As we all know, the inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause serious illness. It is disturbing to me to think that there have been an 

estimated 27.5 million workers exposed to asbestos while on the job 

between 1940 and 1979. In 1989, the EPA issued a rule banning 

asbestos in any products that asbestos is deliberately added or 

which contains more than 1 percent by weight, but unfortunately, 

as you know, in 1991, an issue challenged the rule, and the EPA’s 

ban was severely watered down. That is why I am glad that we are 

here to discuss this draft legislation that would ban asbestos in any 

product to which asbestos is deliberately added or used. It represents an incredibly strong standard and is an important step in 

protecting workers and everyday citizens from the ill effects of asbestos. 

Since the World Health Organization, the EPA, and other health 

and safety organizations have not established a safe level for asbestos exposure, it is imperative that we have the strongest possible 

ban, and I believe this legislation is the vehicle that will provide 

that ban. 

So I just want to thank you again, and I want to acknowledge 

the presence of Sue Vento in the hearing today. I, of course, had 

the privilege of serving with Congressman Bruce Vento before his 

untimely death in 2000, and in fact that she is carrying on with 

this, such an important bill, and a subject that impacted him. I 

really thank her for that. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you. I look forward to working with you, and 

I want to recognize the outstanding work you have done on a host 

of health issues, and I think we are going to be able to move this 

measure forward rapidly. 

At this time, I would like to recognize one of our esteemed colleagues. She has been referenced earlier, Congresswoman Betty 

McCollum. She is not a member of the subcommittee, but with your 

indulgence, she is one of the distinguished sponsors of the House 

legislation to ban asbestos H.R. 3339, the Bruce Vento Ban Asbestos and Prevent Mesothelioma Act of 2007. I want to applaud her 

10 

leadership on this issue and her hard work, and certainly, we 

would like to hear comments that she might choose to make at this 

time. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BETTY MCCOLLUM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you so much 

for holding this hearing. Thank you, Ranking Member Shadegg, for 

your work on this important piece of legislation, and Mr. Pallone, 

for your commitment to hear the related issues in your committee. 

I really thank everyone for being here to take the time to learn 

about this current situation, explore ideas and to come forward 

with solutions. I am proud to have introduced the Bruce Vento Ban 

Asbestos and Prevent Mesothelioma Act, H.R. 3339, the companion 

bill to Senate 742. 

Congressman Vento was my predecessor and my dear friend, and 

I wish he was the one sitting here today. I want to thank Sue for 

her help and her support, and all of those who are here with her 

today, and those who can’t be with her today, who have worked on 

this issue. They have been tireless advocates, and they have really 

represented well the families who live with this disease. 

As it has been said, millions of Americans are exposed to asbestos every year, and it is long past time that we join the 40 other 

countries that have banned asbestos. The Senate has been working 

hard on this bill for years. It was finally able to pass it unanimously at the end of the year. Senator Murray and Senator Isakson deserve a great deal of thanks for all of their hard work and 

dedication on this issue. It is my sincere hope the House will also 

have the opportunity to pass a bill to ban asbestos. 

Once again, I thank the chairman, the committee staff, and the 

full committee for taking up this important issue and allowing me 

a few minutes here today. I thank you, and I look forward to hearing how this is discharged later. 

Mr. WYNN. Well, thank you very much. I also want to recognize 

Ms. Vento. I also, along with many people, served with your husband. He was a great man and a real credit to this House, and I 

think it is great that Ms. McCollum is recognizing his memory 

through this effort. 

This will conclude the opening statements by members. 

Other statements for the record as well as the text of the committee print will be placed in the record at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell and the committee print 

follows:] 

11 


45680.001
12 


45680.123
13 


45680.124
14 


45680.125
15 


45680.126
16 


45680.127
17 


45680.128
18 


45680.129
19 


45680.130
20 


45680.131
21 


45680.132
22 


45680.133
23 


45680.134
24 


45680.135
25 


45680.136
26 


45680.137
27 


45680.138
28 


45680.139
29 


45680.140
30 


45680.141
31 


45680.142
32 

Mr. WYNN. At this time, we will turn to our first witness panel. 

It is a single witness. I am very pleased to welcome Mr. James 

Gulliford, Assistant Administrator at the Office of Prevention Pesticides and Toxic Substances with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We will have a 5-minute opening statement from Mr. 

Gulliford, the prepared testimony submitted in advance of the 

hearing will also be made part of the hearing record. 

Mr. Gulliford? 

STATEMENT OF JAMES B. GULLIFORD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC 

SUBSTANCES, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Wynn, 

Ranking Member Shadegg, and member of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today, and I ask 

that my entire written testimony be included as part of the record. 

I am here today to discuss EPA’s efforts of asbestos control under 

the Toxic Substances Control Act and to share information on legislation that is pending with the subcommittee to ban asbestos. EPA 

believes a legislative approach to address this issue may be an effective away of further reducing the risks from asbestos, providing 

it is carefully crafted and effectively focuses on risk reduction. And 

as demonstrated through previous meetings with your committee 

staff prior to this hearing, we stand ready to continue to work with 

your committee. 

We all agree that exposure to asbestos remains a public health 

concern due to its continued use and presence in building and products. While the disease rate may slow over time as use declines, 

given the severity and negative outcomes associated with asbestosrelated diseases, actions to address the remaining uses are important to further reduce disease. For decades, a number of Federal 

agencies have regulated asbestos-containing products, wastes and 

releases, and this work has reduced exposures. In 1989, as has 

been pointed out, EPA promulgated final regulations under section 

6 of TSCA to ban and phase out asbestos in most products. However, in 1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned portions of the asbestos-product ban. 

Following the court decision, only a few asbestos uses remained 

banned, along with new uses of asbestos. Nonetheless, EPA continued its work to reduce asbestos exposure and risks in other priority 

areas. For example, in building asbestos removal is not usually 

necessary, unless the material is damaged or disturbed through 

demolition or renovation activities. So our focus is on preventing 

exposure by teaching people to recognize asbestos-containing materials, to monitor them, and effectively manage them in place. EPA 

also regulates the release of asbestos from factories and during 

building demolition or renovation under the Clean Air Act. 

In a number of sites across the country where environmental releases or threatened releases can harm public health or the environment, EPA also performs asbestos cleanups under the Superfund program. As has been pointed out, one of the largest asbestosremediation efforts is the asbestos-contamination problem at the 

Libby, Montana Superfund site. EPA has been working closely with 

33 

the community in Libby to clean up contamination and reduce 

risks to human health. 

On science, many questions remain about asbestos, including 

areas such as toxicology, epidemiology and exposure assessment. 

EPA has a number of ongoing activities to address these various 

uncertainties, including research to address data gaps on health effects as well as assessing risks from exposure to asbestos and related materials. 

After preliminary review, we do have concerns with some of the 

provisions in the draft bill, such as the provision to regulate aggregate and the compliance-testing requirement, and we may have additional concerns as the administration completes its review. However, EPA believes that asbestos does not belong in products and 

safer and equally efficacious and cost-effective substitutes exists. 

And EPA appreciates the opportunity to continue to provide technical assistance to the committee, and we will also continue to review the draft bill. 

So thank you for invitation to appear today before the subcommittee, and I will be pleased to answer any questions. 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much for your testimony. Let me recognize myself for questions at this time, and indicate that I appreciate the technical assistance that you and the EPA staff have provided to our subcommittee. 

The first question I want to ask you, though, is do you agree that 

the 1 percent threshold or cut-off level for regulation in the Toxic 

Substances Control Act that was used by the Senate as the standard for the prohibition in S. 742 was established on the basis of analytical capability in 1973 and does not reflect current science? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Thank you, Congressman Wynn. The 1 percent 

standard was established in the AHERA statute, and it is, as you 

said, established at the time primarily on the basis of our analytical ability to detect asbestos and asbestos fibers. The 1 percent 

standard is not a risk-based health standard, so I would agree exactly with what you said. 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you. That is a very important point that it is 

not risk based or health based. 

The second question I wanted to ask is that almost all of the 

EPA technical assistance suggested changes to S. 742, were incorporated in the committee print. I would like highlight a couple of 

EPA suggestions. Would you agree that to protect public health 

and the environment from asbestos hazards and to improve the effectiveness of the legislation, the ban should target any products in 

which asbestos is intentionally added or present as a contaminate? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Yes, we do agree with that. That was part of our 

technical assistance and our discussions with committee staff because we know for a fact, and particularly we learned it in the 

Libby situation, that soil and debris that does contain less than 1 

percent of asbestos can release unacceptable air concentrations of 

these types of asbestos. So it is important, and we have no standard, we have no threshold under which we believe that there is no 

threat or danger from an asbestos exposure. 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you. At this time, I would like to ask unanimous consent that EPA’s technical assistance comments on S. 742, 

34 

dated November 2, 2007, be put into the record. Without objection, 

so ordered. 

The next question I wanted to ask you is whether it is true that 

EPA is not aware of any commercial uses of asbestos other than 

diaphragms for existing chlor-alkali electrolysis installations which 

do not have non-asbestos alternatives? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. We think that the opportunity that the bill allows for exemptions to be established is an important one because 

there may be uses for asbestos that are appropriate. There may be 

ways, for example, as you mentioned in the chol-ralkali facilities 

where the exposure in the use of asbestos can be mitigated and 

protected in such a way that there is virtually little risk to human 

health or the environment. So we do agree with the process to examine exemptions, but we do believe that it should be a very tight 

exception and that clearly, we should proceed, again, with respect 

to a ban, to those questions where are there are alternative for use, 

they are equally efficacious, they are cost effective, and again, are 

more protective of human health and the environment. 

Mr. WYNN. I think what I am trying to get at is are you aware 

of any situations other than chloroalkali electrolyses installations 

where there are not non-asbestos alternatives? And obviously, that 

could change, but based on what you know today? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. We know that, clearly, there are uses in effect 

that we would not ask that they be removed, for example, asbestos 

in place in cars and in homes, so the fact that we have restricted 

those from the requirements that they be banned will allow continued commerce in that if a person has a home with asbestos products in it, that homes can continue to be sold without removing 

those, again, if they are safe it the situation that they are used. 

Mr. WYNN. But what I am trying to get, and I don’t want to belabor this, but the existence of alternatives is fairly widespread. 

Are you aware of any situations where there are not alternatives, 

other than the one that I referenced at the beginning of my question? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. I agree that for most uses, we believe that there 

alternative that are commercially available, and I, myself, am not 

aware off the top of my head of other existing uses for which there 

are no alternative, but as you indicated, I will not rule that out. 

Mr. WYNN. OK, thank you very much for your testimony and answering the questions I just raise. At this time, I would defer to 

my colleague, Mr. Shadegg. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Gulliford. I appreciate your work on this issue. 

You indicated that a portion of the standard, which is written in 

the committee mark, which talks about asbestos which is deliberately added, and as I understand it, you testified that the 1 percent standard is not a risk-based standard. It was based on ability 

to detect at the time. Is that correct? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Yes, it is. 

Mr. SHADEGG. You heard my opening statement in which I expressed concern that the former definition of asbestos-containing 

products in the committee mark, which says ‘‘otherwise present in 

any concentration’’ sets a zero standard, does it not? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. It could be interpreted that way, yes. 

35 

Mr. SHADEGG. Is there a grant of authority to EPA to adopt any 

standard other than a zero standard under that language, ‘‘any 

concentration?’’ 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Yes, virtually all of our standards are based on 

risk, so zero-based standards are not a necessary standard for EPA 

to go to. 

Mr. SHADEGG. But there is no mention of risk in this language. 

Mr. GULLIFORD. As we provided input on that issue, we did not 

mean for it, for example, as you indicated in your opening remarks, 

to apply to a fiber that may fall on a piece of tape in manufacture. 

But I think it is very important that we recognize that we don’t 

have a risk-based standard that says that there is an acceptable 

level of asbestos. 

Mr. SHADEGG. So right now, if you set any standard above zero, 

if you set a standard that would tolerate an ambient piece of asbestos dropping on a piece of scotch tape, since it says any, you could 

be sued for any standard other than zero, correct? Or is there risk 

language that I don’t see in the bill? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. I am not sure that I understand your question. 

It is not our intent that this definition would apply to the example 

that you gave. 

Mr. SHADEGG. It is very interesting in this hearing room, but it 

is not going to be very interesting to a court. I mean what I am 

concerned about is the court is going to say in in any concentration 

means just exactly what it says in plain English. Now, I know 

judges like not to read plain English, but I read that as creating 

a huge issue. 

Let me ask another question. You said that the 1 percent standard was a statutory standard. It was set in the statute. 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Right. 

Mr. SHADEGG. The committee mark sets a statutory standard. It 

does not leave it to the discretion of the agency. Have you not 

found over the years that it is better to give the agency discretion 

to set the standard, for example, based on risk, rather than have 

the Congress set the standard? I mean, isn’t that what you are telling us is the problem with the 1 percent standard? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. I think what I would try communicate in that 

is in this case, asbestos, much like products like PCBs were in the 

TSCA original legislation, there are products such as that where a 

mandatory ban is a very effective way to deal with products, again, 

that we don’t believe there is an appropriate place for, products 

that contain asbestos in the marketplace, again, unless there is—— 

Mr. SHADEGG. So is EPA saying it wants a zero-tolerance standard? None? Zero? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. I still stand by the definition that we gave, but 

we did not offer that language, again, with the intent that it be exclusively a—— 

Mr. SHADEGG. So the any concentration is yours. You want it to 

mean zero? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Again, the reason I am saying that, as I stated 

before, is because we do not have a risk-based standard with respect to asbestos to suggest at some certain level of asbestos exposure it is safe. 

36 

Mr. SHADEGG. OK, I need to move onto other issues for time reasons. Have you looked at the exemption this legislation provides for 

sand and gravel operations, and would you agree it provides that? 

Sand and gravel operations or aggregate operations can get an exemption if they certify that the load tested is below 25 percent for 

each load and that they then report that to the purchaser of the 

load? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. We have concern for the way that this language 

has appeared, again, in the committee print, and we have not had 

an opportunity to discuss that with the sand and gravel people, so 

we have—— 

Mr. SHADEGG. So you are open to discussing those issues. Are 

you also open to discussing my concern about the ‘‘any concentration’’ language? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. Yes, I am. 

Mr. SHADEGG. OK, great. Last issue: the words ‘‘citizens’’ do not 

appear in the bill, but they are otherwise in TSCA. Do you agree 

with me that under the way the committee print is written, a citizen suit may be brought against the Defense Department under 

this legislation, is that correct? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. I have not have an opportunity to discuss, again, 

the committee print with the Department of Defense. We do, absolutely, agree with that. There are defense-related needs for asbestos and asbestos-containing products. 

Mr. SHADEGG. You wouldn’t advocate citizen suits against the 

Defense Department, would you? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. I would not. And we, also, though would defer 

to the Department of Defense, and NASA, for example, for their 

space applications as well, their judgment in the importance of 

those exemptions. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Do you know if the Defense Department has taken 

a position on the committee mark? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. I do not know. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, and the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 

Barrow, for questions. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t be long. I just 

have a couple of questions. 

Mr. Gulliford, in between the Senate version, which has a 1 percent by weight standard, and the House committee print, which 

has issues which have been raised by Mr. Shadegg and others, how 

does the standard vary in the 40-or-so countries that have a ban? 

A ban can mean more than one thing, obviously, and I read in the 

materials, for example, that Japan has a 0.1 of 1 percent standard. 

Do you have any ideas of how the bans and the various degrees of 

bands tend to vary in terms of the scope of the prohibition? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. I do not know the answer to that. I don’t know 

the basis for any standard that has been set internationally or by 

individual countries internationally, nor do I know the basis for the 

actions that the EU took, for example. 

Mr. BARROW. I can see the commonsense of not trying to eliminate from products that are in the air we breathe the ground we 

walk on at the same time. I can see that you want to avoid a loophole that is going to create an opportunity for any exposure that 

37 

is greater than necessary and that not have any appreciable benefit 

to go along with the cost or risk to go along with it. I am just wondering what other countries are using as benchmarks in defining 

their band for this. I haven’t seen anything that looks quite like 

the committee print in anything that has been referred to in other 

countries, but it may be they have a similar comprehensive or farreaching, but more commonsense interpretation of how it applies. 

Can you guide us in that? Can you give us any insight in to that? 

Mr. GULLIFORD. We would be happy to look into that and report 

back to the committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gulliford appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BARROW. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all I have. 

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman for his questions. It was certainly on point. I believe that concludes all of the questions for this 

panel, and I want to thank you for your testimony. 

At this time, I would like to welcome our second panel. Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming. Before us today, I would 

like to introduce, first all of the panelists. We have with us Dr. Aubrey Miller, Senior Medical Officer and Toxicologist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Region 8. Next, we have Christopher Weis, Senior Toxicologist, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, NEIC. And third, we have Mr. Gregory Meeker, a geologist 

at U.S. Geological Survey. I would like to clarify that only Mr. 

Meeker will be making an opening statement. However, the other 

panelists will be available to answer questions at the appropriate 

time. At this point, I would like to recognize Mr. Meeker for his 

testimony. Again, thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY P. MEEKER, GEOLOGIST, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DENVER MICROBEAM LABORATORY, MS– 

973 

Mr. MEEKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony 

on the mineralogy and geology of asbestos. My name is Greg Meeker, and I am a geologist at the U.S. Geological Survey. 

Asbestos is a term applied to a special group of minerals that 

form as long, very thin fibers that usually occur in bundles. When 

handled or crushed, the bundles readily separate into individual fibers. This type of mineral growth is called asbestiform. The definition for asbestos is based on the proprieties that make it valuable 

as a commodity. Although there are many asbestos minerals, some 

commercial and regulatory definitions of asbestos focus of 

chrysotile and several members of the amphibole mineral group, including the asbestiform varieties of the minerals riebeckite, 

grunerite, anthophyllite, actinole and tremolite. Other amphiboles 

are known to occur in the fibrous and asbestiform habit, but have 

not been utilized commercially. These include the minerals 

winchite and richterite. 

The academic mineralogy community has long classified minerals 

by name. This mineral nomenclature has evolved dramatically over 

the years and continues to evolve. The current academic nomenclature for amphiboles is endorsed by the International Mineralogical Association. The Libby, Montana amphibole provides an exVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:37 Jan 28, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\45680.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
38 

cellent example of the difficulties that have arisen from commingling of different amphibole nomenclatures. During the years that 

the Libby mine was active, geologist, miners and regulators called 

the Libby amphibole tremolite, soda tremolite, sodium-rich 

tremolite and in one case richterite. Beginning in 2000, mineralogists began to reinvestigate the Libby amphibole and apply the current academic nomenclature, identifying it as winchite, richterite 

and tremolite. These findings have generated confusion in the asbestos community regarding the identification of Libby amphibole 

and whether or not the material is regulated. However, there is no 

indication that the regulators intended different treatment for 

what remained the same underlying substance during this time period. In this example, the International Mineralogical Association, 

inadvertently redefined the regulated material for reasons totally 

unrelated to asbestos regulation. 

Historically, most commercial asbestos used in products has been 

chrysotile. Chrysotile tends to have very thin fibers that are often 

very long and flexible. Amphibole asbestos fibers, however, can display a large range of shapes and vary from thin to thick, relatively 

short, and brittle. Other particle types are often referred to by mineralogists as fibrous, acicular, and prismatic. There is currently 

considerable disagreement in the asbestos community about how to 

distinguish these particle types in a mixed sample and more importantly how these different particle types relate to toxicity. 

[Poster.] 

Mr. MEEKER. This poster illustrates the different particle shapes 

that can be encountered in a single study area or sample, showing 

the transition from asbestiform in letter D to acicular in letter F 

to prismatic in letter I. Respirable fibers are extremely small. As 

an example, a soil or aggregate containing 0.25 percent respirable 

amphibole fibers could contain more than 25 million fibers per 

cubic centimeter. The degree to which respirable fibers can be liberated into the air by disturbance and become an inhalation hazard 

depends on many variables. Therefore, reliable determination of actual risk by direct measurement of the amount of fibers in the soil 

or aggregate would be extremely difficult. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. As a 

non-regulatory natural science agency, the USGS works closely 

with other Federal agencies and nonFederal stakeholders to help 

answer many important questions regarding the nature of asbestos-related minerals and to provide important information about 

where asbestos minerals occur in the United States. I am pleased 

to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meeker follows:] 

39 


45680.002
40 


45680.003
41 


45680.004
42 


45680.005
43 


45680.006
44 


45680.007
45 


45680.008
46 


45680.009
47 


45680.010
48 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Meeker. We certainly appreciate your testimony. You are providing us with a very good 

education. We will see if our questions bear that out. 

I would like to recognize myself at this point for questions for 5 

minutes. You mentioned the 0.25 percent standard. I would like to 

ask about allowing products with up to 1 percent asbestos to be imported, manufactured, and sold in the United States. How many fibers of asbestos would you expect to find in a product that contains 

1 percent asbestos? 

Mr. MEEKER. That is difficult to answer because every material 

would be different, but it could be as high as 100 million fibers per 

cubic centimeter. 

Mr. WYNN. Would you say that again please? 

Mr. MEEKER. It could be as high as 100 million fibers per cubic 

centimeter. 

Mr. WYNN. OK, Dr. Miller, can exposure to products and materials containing less 1 percent cause disease? 

Mr. MILLER. Clearly, exposure to products containing less than 

1 percent can generate very high levels of exposure which would 

definitely be responsible for causing disease in the population, 

workers or others that may come into contact with such products 

or disturb such products might have exposures that would be consistent with what we have seen in populations that have been studied across the country that have developed disease commensurate 

with those exposures. 

Mr. WYNN. What are some of the diseases that you have been 

able to observe? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, the diseases that we see, regardless of whether it was from a product that was less than 1 percent asbestos or 

other materials containing higher concentrations of asbestos is the 

same diseases that we see across the board with asbestos exposures. Whether it is from chrysotile or amphibole exposures, you 

will see mesothelioma, lung cancers and fibrogenic lung disease 

consistently with respect to these exposures. 

Mr. WYNN. Let me go back to you, Mr. Meeker. Do all labs determine the asbestos content of a product in the same way? 

Mr. MEEKER. The labs are supposed to follow methods that have 

been validated; however, the methods are very subjective, and so 

if you were to take the same sample from one lab to the next, you 

might get a very different result from the same sample. 

Mr. WYNN. Dr. Weis, has the United States Government, to your 

knowledge, or private parties for that matter conducted research on 

asbestos exposure resulting from the manufacture or use of products that contain small amounts of asbestos? 

Mr. WEIS. Yes, Chairman Wynn, there are a number of studies, 

in fact, by our Government, by the Canadian Government, by private individuals and industry scientists that indicate concentrations far below 1 percent, as low as 0.001 of a percent can generate 

airborne concentrations of concern for exposure. 

Mr. WYNN. Could you provide the subcommittee with those studies please? 

Mr. WEIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WYNN. That would be very helpful if you could do that. 

49 

Also, I would like to ask you, as a toxicologist at EPA you study 

risk to human health. When you studied the amount of asbestos 

people are being exposed to, why is it so important to measure asbestos in the air? 

Mr. WEIS. Very important question. Asbestos is a problem when 

it is breathed in. There are also some concerns for ingestion, but 

those are of far less importance to us. And so when we measure 

risk from exposure to asbestos, we always look for airborne measurements. I think Mr. Gulliford made it clear that measurements 

in bulk materials are not and never will be risk based. 

Mr. WYNN. I wanted to ask you one other question. What, exactly, are cleavage fragments? 

Mr. WEIS. That question, actually, might be better answered by 

Mr. Meeker, who is an expert in mineralogy. 

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Meeker? 

Mr. MEEKER. Cleavage fragments are particles that are defined 

because they are broken. They cleave along specific directions in 

the crystal, and so by definition, cleavage fragments have to be 

crushed or milled during some process. 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much for your testimony, gentlemen. 

Mr. Shadegg? I see this is going to a very interesting experience. 

We are going to have fun here. The chair recognizes Mr. Shadegg 

for questions. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin with a 

question that I at least want to get very clear in my own mind. We 

are talking about in the standards set here 1 percent by weight in 

a given product, which is the standard used in S. 742. And when 

we talk about aggregation this bill, they are talking about 0.025 

percent, again by weight. Obviously, the concentration of asbestos 

in a product is one issue. But the length and intensity of exposure 

is another issue. The point being, each of you said you could be exposed to dramatically less than 1 percent and have it be dangerous 

and, indeed, disease causing. And I believe, Mr. Meeker, you said, 

or maybe you all said, that exposure to less than 0.25 percent could 

be disease causing. I presume that if you were exposed to 0.25 for 

a nanosecond, that would be one thing. If you were exposed to it 

for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 15 years, that would be a 

different level of exposure. So there are two factors, not just the 

concentration in the product, which is measured as a percent by 

weight, but also the length and intensity of the exposure, correct? 

You would all agree to that, I assume? OK. 

Second question, I want to talk a bit about chrysotile asbestos 

because I am trying to learn about it. I thought I learned about it 

a few years back. Dr. Miller, you indicated that there are studies 

showing disease-you may not have said all forms of asbestos, but 

you said chrysotile asbestos and amphiboles. Have there been specific studies done on diseases caused by exposure only to chrysotile 

asbestos? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, there have. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Can you supply those to me? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, we can. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Does that fall in the expertise of either of the 

other gentlemen? 

Mr. WEIS. I would agree with Dr. Miller on that. 

50 

Mr. SHADEGG. I would very much like to see the studies that 

focus on exposure to chrysotile asbestos. 

Let me ask another question on that point. Is there a debate 

within kind of the asbestos industry or community over the degree 

of disease linked to exposure to chrysotile as opposed to amphibole 

asbestos? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, there is, and the discussion really focuses on 

the fact that we recognize that all of the asbestos forms are toxic, 

but it appears that the amphiboles may be more toxic with respect 

to the causation of mesothelioma than chrysotile asbestos, and that 

is the focus of the discussion. But with respect to lung cancer and 

fibrogenic lung disease, it is clear that they all are toxic. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you. That is what I thought. If you can find 

relatively layman-eqsue studies that show, you know, that 

chrysotile is less causative of mesothelioma but is causative of that 

together, that would help me as well. 

Mr. Meeker, I want to ask you, I understand the distinction between chrysotile and amphibole to be that the fibers in amphibole 

are brittle and break, and as I understood it when I learned it, 

have a tendency to stick in the lung by essentially like tiny little 

pins, and that the difference between amphibole and chrysotile is 

that chrysotile is soft. It is more like string and less like something 

brittle which can form a sharp point and stick. Is that your understanding? I understand that is a layman’s explanation, but—— 

Mr. MEEKER. The poster I have here, I don’t have a picture of 

crystatile up there, but in letter A, that would be similar to what 

crystatile looks like. That is an amphibole, and amphibole can show 

a wide range of shapes and sizes and flexibility, and so the 

amphibole in letter A is from new Caledonia, and it appears to be 

flexible and very thin. Letter B is an amphibole from the NIST, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, certified reference 

material. It is a tremolite amphibole standard, and I think you can 

see, there, that that is what you were describing as more like pins, 

and you can find examples that grade from one to the next, even 

in the same sample, so it is not always one way or the other. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Sounds like I get to learn a lot more. Thank you. 

Mr. WYNN. At this time, the chair is pleased to recognize the 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps, for questions. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Miller, if I could ask you a question please. This committee 

is considering banning asbestos down to 0.25 percent by weight for 

byproducts of stone, sand and gravel. Is this an acceptable threshold for human exposure by this industry? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, we find that continued disturbance of products, even at that low-level of contamination will generate airborne 

exposures that can be very, very hazardous. As a matter of fact, it 

is easy to measure the exposures in the air. And as Dr. Weis alluded to a moment ago, if you have materials that may have 0.25 

percent levels of asbestos contamination or lower, if you disturb 

them, we can easily measure the exposures in the air, and clearly, 

we know these exposures are associated with disease and readily 

present an opportunity for exposure, not only to workers, but to 

others across America. 

Ms. CAPPS. No matter how minimal? 

51 

Mr. MILLER. No matter how minimal. 

Ms. CAPPS. Mr. MILLER. Again, it will vary with the material. 

Ms. CAPPS. Dr. Weis, I have two questions for you if I could 

please. I understand that EPA is currently working on a test method that would be used to measure asbestos releases from soils and 

other solids. I think that follows on with what Dr. Miller just said 

because when it is disturbed, that is where we need to really measure if we can. Can you tell me what the status of that work is? 

Mr. WEIS. Yes, Congresswoman Capps. As has been mentioned 

several times this morning, we are interested primarily in exposure 

in air. And so the agency has been working hard over the last several years, actually, in developing a rapid technique for disturbing 

asbestos contaminated materials, sending fibers into the air, and 

then measuring the air where our measurements are far more precise than they are in the bulk materials. That work is underway. 

I can’t tell you exactly what the schedule for that is. I can tell you 

that there is tremendous interest in pushing that forward. 

Ms. CAPPS. Are there any limits to your being able to do it? Is 

there the technology to measure? 

Mr. WEIS. I believe the technology is there, yes, absolutely. 

Ms. CAPPS. So that is where any research dollars should continue? 

Mr. WEIS. Yes, it is a matter of time and resources. 

Ms. CAPPS. I hear you. You just have to follow the testing, right? 

But the more resources we have, the faster you could move, too. 

Mr. WEIS. I think that is true, yes. 

Ms. CAPPS. Yes, let me ask you in anticipation of testimony that 

is going to be given in the next panel, Dr. Nolan in his written 

statement says that OSHA does not regulate these non-asbestos fibers after having a rule-making to determine that they do not 

present health hazards similar to asbestos. Will you evaluate that 

statement for me? 

Mr. WEIS. What I can say, Congresswoman, is that OSHA says 

in their regulations if you are in doubt, then the fibers should be 

counted. I think Mr. Meeker has alluded to the fact, quite clearly, 

that measurements are subjective, and they are often to the opinion of the analyst, and OSHA says quite clearly in their regulation 

if you are in doubt of what this material is, then, it should be 

counted as a fiber. 

Ms. CAPPS. Just a recognition of it as a fiber, you don’t have to 

measure it or anything else, the recognition is enough of an acknowledgment? 

Mr. WEIS. The particle must have the same shape and form as 

a regulated fiber, but if it does, regardless of its chemistry or subtle 

morphology, if the analyst cannot determine using the technology 

they have whether it is a fiber, it should be counted. That is what 

OSHA says. 

Ms. CAPPS. And that is sort of the standard now? 

Mr. WEIS. That has been the standard for a long time. 

Ms. CAPPS. That is the end of my questions. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WEIS. Thank you. 

52 

Mr. WYNN. Gentlemen, again, thank you very much for your testimony and answering our questions. You may be excused. 

All right, I think we are ready to proceed with our third panel. 

Again, I would like to welcome you and thank you for your attendance here today. I would like to introduce Ms. Linda Reinstein, 

who is Executive Director of Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization; second, Ms. Margaret Seminario, Director Safety and Health, 

American Federation of Labor and Industrial Organizations; Dr. 

Roger McClellan, Advisor, Inhalation Toxicology Human Health 

Risk Analysis; Dr. Robert Nolan, Environmental Studies International; Dr. Richard Lehman, Assistant Surgeon General, Retired, 

U.S. Public Health Service; and Dr. James Millette, Executive Director of MVA Scientific Consultants. We would like to have your 

5-minute opening statements. Of course, your full testimony has 

been included in the record, and again, thank you for coming. 

Ms. Reinstein. 

STATEMENT OF LINDA REINSTEIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

AND COFOUNDER, ASBESTOS DISEASE AWARENESS ORGANIZATION 

Ms. REINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Linda Reinstein. I am honored to appear 

before you as the executive director and cofounder of the Asbestos 

Disease Awareness Organization, ADAO, as an independent, nonpartisan volunteer organization, whose goal is to provide the most 

current education resources and support. I am neither a lobbyist 

nor an attorney, only a volunteer, and now a mesothelioma widow 

and a single mother. 

Today, Doug Larkin, T.C. McNamara, U.S. Capitol Tunnel Workers, and I represent victims and family who suffered the traumatic 

effects of asbestos diseases due to occupational or non-occupational 

exposure. In 2006, my husband Alan Reinstein, lost this 3-year battle with mesothelioma, a cancer caused by asbestos. When Alan 

died, my then 13-year-old daughter and I joined thousands of 

Americans who are mourning the loss of loved ones, losses which 

could have been prevented. 

The use and importation of all asbestos-containing products 

should be banned in the United States. As we discuss a complete 

ban today, your final decision will determined if we will continue 

to allow asbestos to killed Americans, or if Congress will pass legacy legislation banning asbestos in any form, any product, any use. 

Scientists agree: asbestos is a carcinogen, and there is no safe 

level. 

[Slide.] 

Ms. REINSTEIN. The penny slide on my left that you are looking 

at compares the nearly invisible deadly fibers just under President 

Lincoln’s nose to grains of rice and human hair. These virtually indestructible asbestos fibers can be 700 times smaller than human 

hair, and remain suspended in air from seconds to days. Inhaling 

or swallowing asbestos fibers permanently penetrate lung and 

other tissue and can cause cancer or other respiratory diseases, exacerbated by a latency period of 10 to 50 years, these diseases are 

routinely underreported and misdiagnosed. 

53 

More than 10,000 lives will be lost this year. Imagine struggling 

to breathe air through a pinched straw, every breath, every 

minute, every day. As victim’s oxygen levels become critically low, 

they are tethered to supplemental oxygen to extend their lives. 

Within 6 to 12 months of diagnosis, the average mesothelioma patient dies. Each life lost leaves a shattered family behind. 

In hopes of a cure, many patients opt for radical treatment, such 

as having their diseased lung or diaphragm surgically removed. We 

call this death by 1,000 cuts. But remember, there are 8,000 more 

patients dying from other asbestos-caused cancers, asbestosis, or 

respiratory diseases. 

Asbestos has not been banned in the United States. Most Americans believe it was banned long ago, and they are shocked to learn 

that asbestos is still a deadly threat. Even today, the EPA states 

that there are 3,000 products containing asbestos, yet there is no 

Federal testing program for consumer products or children’s toys. 

ADAO commissioned three independent Government-certified 

laboratories to test for asbestos in consumer products found on retail shelves. On 11/27/07, we reported five contaminated products 

and a toy. The CSI fingerprint on the table today has tremolite in 

it, one of the deadliest forms of asbestos, in a toy powder, intended 

to be made airborne by children. Our resent results were immediately disclosed to the EPA and the CPSC. To the best of our 

knowledge, neither agency initiated action. 

ADAO applauds the U.S. Senate for unanimously passing S. 742, 

a landmark bill to reduce asbestos exposure and fund educational 

programs, research, registries, and treatment centers. However, S. 

742 does not completely ban asbestos use, and perpetrates a false 

sense of security by only prohibiting industrial materials, consumer 

products with greater than 1 percent by weight. This means that 

the contaminated products on the table, such as the CSI kit would 

remain legal on store shelves. 

Scientific technology has made gigantic strides in asbestos detection since the 1970’s, and we don’t have to compromise public 

health by using antiquated analytical methodology. On behalf of 

ADAO, asbestos victims’ families, leading doctors, and scientists, I 

implore you to ban this deadly toxin. We believe an immediate ban 

on all asbestos-containing products is fully justified, absolutely necessary and long overdue. One life lost to asbestos disease is tragic. 

Hundreds of thousands of lives lost is unconscionable. The United 

States Congress has the opportunity and responsibility to protect 

Americans from these preventable diseases. 

Today, I also brought over 25,000 signatures in petition form, 

asking Congress to please ban asbestos. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Reinstein follows:] 

54 


45680.011
55 


45680.012
56 


45680.013
57 


45680.014
58 


45680.015
59 


45680.016
60 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much for your testimony. I am very 

sorry for your loss, but I applaud your commitment to engage in 

this discussion and find proper solutions. Thank you very much for 

coming today. 

Ms. Seminario. 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET SEMINARIO, DIRECTOR, SAFETY 

AND HEALTH, AMERICAN FEDERATION LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS 

Ms. SEMINARIO. Chairman Wynn, Ranking Member Shadegg, I 

appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the AFL/ 

CIO, on legislation to ban asbestos. The AFL/CIO strongly supports 

Federal legislation to ban asbestos. We applaud the efforts of Senator Murray to champion and guide the passage of legislation in 

the Senate and the efforts of this committee to initiate similar legislative activity in the House of Representatives. 

Without question, exposure to asbestos has resulted in the greatest occupational health epidemic in the Nation’s history, in actually 

the world’s history. Hundreds of thousands of workers have died 

from asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, and other cancers, and 

the mesothelioma cases are still increasing. In 2004, there were 

over 2,600 mesothelioma deaths reported. 

For decades, the AFL/CIO and our affiliated unions have fought 

to protect workers from the hazards of asbestos. Immediately following the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, we 

petitioned for emergency action by OSHA, and the first OSHA asbestos standard was issued, but it was not protective, and so we 

continued, through petitions, through litigation, through Congressional action, moving forward to strengthen the standard, moving 

into a stronger standard in the mid-1970s, 1980s, and finally in 

1994 the issuance of the 0.1 fibers/cc standard by OSHA. 

But these standards, actually, have not been sufficient to protect 

workers. The early standard didn’t address the asbestos cancer risk 

that was posed, and even the existing standard, according to OSHA 

and according to NIOSH, leave workers at significant risk of harm. 

That standard, the 0.1 fibers/cc, was again set based on the limits 

of detection. It was not set as a level to protect workers. 

But it is important to recognize, even though we had a legally 

binding standard, that there are still many, many workers exposed 

to asbestos because of the volume of asbestos that is in palace. It 

is largely among construction workers, maintenance workers and 

other who continue to be exposed. And last year, in 2007, OHSA 

reported that there were 761 violations of its asbestos standard, 

and those were just the violations that they saw and that they 

were able to document, and we know the situation is much more 

far reaching. 

I think most people don’t know that in the mining industry, for 

those workers, they are still legally allowed to be exposed to 2 fibers per cubic centimeter. That is a level that was last set by 

OSHA in 1986. And here, 22 years later, in the mining industry, 

we still have workers legally exposed to those levels. We are hoping 

that MSHA will move on that, and we expect them to do so, but 

again, they are exposed to very, very high levels of asbestos, and 

It is not only the workers who are at risk. As we have heard, we 

61 

have family members who are exposed, the take-home exposures 

and the exposures among the public from exposures in communities like Libby, Montana. 

Our experience with this devastating epidemic, and the difficulty 

of controlling exposures, even with the legal standards, over the 

long life span of this product led us to the conclusion many years 

ago that asbestos should be banned. We simply must remove asbestos from the stream of commerce in this country. 

Let me turn, now, to S. 742 and the committee print. We believe 

that the goal of asbestos-ban legislation should be to stop the introduction of asbestos into the stream of commerce as quickly as possible. And given the potential for serious health affects at low levels of exposure and great difficulty in controlling exposures over 

the lifecycle of this product, we believe that the goal of the legislation should be to apply the ban on asbestos as broadly as possible. 

And to this end, we do have real concerns about the 1 percent 

threshold for the application of the asbestos ban that is in the Senate bill. In our view, and as we have heard from others, this 

threshold will allow levels of asbestos contamination that have a 

real potential to pose a significant health risk to workers and the 

public. 

And let me, just again, do a comparison. We heard from the previous witness, from Mr. Meeker, that exposures with 1 percent 

could result in exposures to 100 million fibers. The OSHA limit is 

0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter. The exposure limit, single exposure, 

is one fiber. One hundred million fibers from 1 percent compared 

to a legal limit of one fiber: that gives you some sense of the level 

of exposure that would be allowed under 1 percent and how they 

compare to what is legally required right now. 

Let me just, also, say that with respect to the way the bill is 

crafted, again, we think that the ban should be broad. We think 

the 1 percent exclusion should be eliminated and to the extent that 

we have to deal with particular area of concern and feasibility 

issues that those should be dealt with through narrowly-crafted exemptions. So we support the exemption-based approach, crafted as 

narrowly as possible. 

Let me also say that with respect to the implementation of the 

ban, the Senate bill allows for 2 years. We think that if this is 

done, statutorily, that we should be looking at doing this in a much 

quicker fashion, 6 months or year. 

And let me just conclude by saying that the Senate bill mandate 

for the various health studies and for the treatment centers that 

are provided for, we think are very, very important, and we would 

encourage the full committee and the health subcommittee to take 

up these provisions as well. 

So let me just conclude and say that asbestos has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. The 

terrible legacy continues, and we urge the committee to move 

quickly and to adopt strong protective asbestos-ban legislation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Seminario follows:] 

62 


45680.017
63 


45680.018
64 


45680.019
65 


45680.020
66 


45680.021
67 


45680.022
68 


45680.023
69 


45680.024
70 


45680.025
71 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you for your testimony. Dr. McClellan. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER O. MCCLELLAN, ADVISOR, 

TOXICOLOGY AND HUMAN HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Good afternoon, Chairman Wynn and Ranking 

Member Shadegg. Thank you for the invitation to present my views 

on S. 742 and draft legislation to ban asbestos in products. It is an 

honor and a privilege to again have the opportunity to testify before this committee on the scientific basis of important proposed 

legislation. 

I request that my testimony be entered into the record as though 

it was read in its entirely. My testimony today draws on more than 

four decades of experience working in air-quality issues. The testimony I offer today also draws on experience serving on numerous 

scientific advisory committees for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, including service as chair of their Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee. I have also served on advisory committees to 

many of the other Government agencies that have been concerned 

with air-quality issues, the National Research Council, the Institute of Medicine, and international agencies such as the World 

Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on 

Cancer. 

I am testifying today at the required of an ad hoc group of associations who shared concern is the clarity of distinction between 

asbestiform fibers and non-asbestiform fibers. However, the opinions that I express today are those of my own personal scientific 

views. My testimony is grounded in a conviction that scientific information should inform legislation and agency policy judgments 

that are required to protect public health. 

As I begin my scientific comments, I want to emphasize that I 

support the central theme of the proposed legislation, which is to 

ban asbestos and protect public health. However, in pursing that 

very appropriate and laudable goal, it is important that we not 

cause unintended consequences via the legislation that will impact 

on industries that are not involved in terms of the use of asbestos. 

So I have five keys points I would like to bring to you today. 

Number one, a clear and accurate definition of asbestos and 

asbestiform minerals, for example, as EPA defined them in 1993, 

and I have attached my testimony, the direct quote from that EPA 

document. Two, the importance of the use of validated-and I want 

to emphasize validated, reliable-test methods for the collection of 

samples, and then sample preparation and processing and analysis 

that specifically identified asbestos and asbestiform minerals while 

also distinguishing them from non-asbestiform materials in a 

mixed-dust environment as generally found in mines and quarries. 

Three, as a staring point, it is appropriate to maintain the existing Toxic Substances Control Act threshold limit related to asbestos with provisions for change in the threshold limit when justified 

by new scientific findings indicative both of need to define the 

threshold level as a risk-management tool to protect public health, 

as well as an ability to put in place lower limits that can be reliably used in practice. 

Fourth, it is crucial that any legislation that is enacted recognize 

the unique physical characteristics of asbestiform materials that 

72 

cause them to pose a health hazard as contrasted with the physical 

characteristic of non-asbestiform materials that may have a similar 

chemical composition but in a non-fiber form do not pose a health 

hazard like that of asbestos. This difference between asbestiform 

materials that are hazardous and rocks that are not hazardous is 

apparent from consideration of figure 1, which I have attached to 

my testimony. 

Five, the potential impact of misclassifying ordinary rocks as 

being asbestos-like is apparent from considering figure three. As 

even a cursory view of this map will indicate, much of this country 

is covered by these minerals. I can point to where I was born in 

the State of Minnesota, point to my good friend’s neighboring state, 

Arizona, New Mexico, where I live today, and you will see much 

of the Western U.S., areas in the East that are covered with these 

minerals. 

In avoidance of their health risk, it is also important that those 

risk-management procedures not inappropriately impact on the use 

of non-asbestiform minerals that do not pose a health hazard like 

asbestos. Thank for your attention, and I look forward to addressing your questions later. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClellan follows:] 

73 


45680.026
74 


45680.027
75 


45680.028
76 


45680.029
77 


45680.030
78 


45680.031
79 


45680.032
80 


45680.033
81 


45680.034
82 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you for your testimony. Dr. Nolan. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. NOLAN, INTERNATIONAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION 

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you. I want to say I am very familiar with 

the health effects associated with the inhalation of asbestos, having 

been born in Paterson, New Jersey, where an asbestos factory produced insulation for U.S. ships in the Second World War. As I was 

growing up in the 1960s, sufficient time had passed that several of 

my neighbors who had worked decades earlier in this factory and 

developed asbestos-related disease. More than twice as many people died from asbestos-related disease in Paterson, New Jersey 

than in Libby, Montana upon the occupationally exposed. 

I took a serious interest in understanding how and why this happened. I joined Dr. Irving Selikoff’s group at Mount Sinai School 

of Medicine in New York. At the time, he was a world leader in 

asbestos research and a long-time resident of New Jersey. I also 

shared his opinion that a ban of asbestos was not necessary and 

it was an old idea that had been seriously considered and rejected 

when it was found not to be supported by the facts. I have a doctoral degree in chemistry, and I am a member of the faculty of both 

chemistry and environmental science in the City University of New 

York’s graduate center. I also want to put in a kind word for the 

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I think the decision had a lot more 

wisdom in it than people might think. And I pick out their key 

phrases that the EPA filed to muster substantial evidence, and I 

believe that that standard still has not been met. There is not substantial evidence for this. 

I support much of what Dr. McClellan said. I think it is very important that if you are going to ban asbestos that you ban asbestos 

minerals, and you be very careful that you mineralogically correctly 

define what you are doing. I was criticized a little earlier by one 

of your colleagues concerning OSHA. OSHA does not regulate nonasbestos fibers in a rulemaking in 1991, and I will produce that 

rulemaking for you and specific quotes that support the statement 

that was read from my testimony. 

And I also somewhat agree with the richterite, winchite, and 

erionite idea. Erionite is a fibrous zeolite. It has never been referred to as asbestos. It can occur with an asbestiform morphology, 

and it is a group 1 carcinogen, according to IRAC, but an erionite 

related mesothelioma has never been reported in the United 

States. 

Now, if you want to include winchite and erionite and richterite 

in the ban, I would ask you to put asbestiform as a modifier so that 

you specifically focus on that material. 

Dr. McClellan covered some of the other points that I wanted to 

make, but I want to make two very specific points. You talked 

about the 1 percent limit of detection, whether it is 1 percent asbestos. Now, you may not be aware of this, but an asbestos ore that 

is beneficiated from mining is 2 to 4 percent asbestos. So a lowgrade asbestos ore would be 1 percent asbestos. One percent asbestos is visible in the rock. It was not an analytical method that determined the limit of detection was 1 percent asbestos. Asbestos develops in the cracks of dilated rock, and seams of asbestos at 1 perVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:37 Jan 28, 2009 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\45680.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
83 

cent are visible in the rocks. There are very few rocks in the 

United States that are 1 percent asbestos. There are very few materials that are 1 percent asbestos. As Dr. McClellan brought out, 

you really need to know how much fibers are liberated from this. 

You need air monitoring. And contrary to what you heard earlier, 

this is what the Inspector General complained about at the World 

Trade Center in New York and at Libby, Montana, that they did 

not have a health-based standard, and they are still not doing that, 

and there are two Inspector General reports that are referred to in 

my testimony. 

Now, the other thing that I would ask the committee to do is the 

number of asbestos-related diseases that occur in the United States 

has been bantered around for decades. At one time, NCI and NIH 

claimed 2 million Americans would die over 30 years. That would 

have ended in 2008. It is 66,000 deaths per year. Several of your 

committee members mentioned 10,000 asbestos-related deaths per 

year this morning. I would challenge that figure. That is not a Government figure, and if you look at the number that NIOSH actually 

produced for the hearing that they had in the Senate, the number 

of mesothelioma deaths is about 2,500 per year, and they are 

claiming about 1,400 asbestosis deaths, and they didn’t specify how 

many lung cancer deaths. 

The Environmental Working Group is not a Government agency, 

and I try to rely on Government statistics for this, and I would like 

the committee to request NIOSH or NCI to give them what is an 

accurate estimate for asbestos-related disease in the United States 

today. 

And the one other thing that I want to make clear, one American 

male in 600 will die of mesothelioma. That is 0.17 percent. There 

are 2002 deaths in the three large chrysotile cohorts in the United 

States, Charlestown, South Carolina, the cement workers in Louisiana, and friction-product workers in Connecticut. In that group, 

there are three mesotheliomas. Their percent of mesothelioma is 

0.15 percent. It is lower than the general population. Now, I am 

not saying that chrysotile doesn’t cause disease, but mesothelioma 

is not associated with chrysotile exposures. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nolan follows:] 

84 


45680.035
85 


45680.036
86 


45680.037
87 


45680.038
88 


45680.039
89 


45680.040
90 


45680.041
91 


45680.042
92 


45680.043
93 


45680.044
94 


45680.045
95 


45680.046
96 


45680.047
97 


45680.048
98 


45680.049
99 


45680.050
100 


45680.051
101 


45680.052
102 


45680.053
103 


45680.054
104 


45680.055
105 


45680.056
106 


45680.057
107 


45680.058
108 


45680.059
109 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much, Dr. Nolan. Dr. Lemen. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. LEMEN, PRIVATE CONSULTANT, 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH EPIDEMIOLOGY, AND 

PUBLIC HEALTH 

Mr. LEMEN. Yes, my name is Richard Lemen, and I am a retired 

Assistant Surgeon General of the United States, and I also spent 

most of my career with the National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health and have been studying the health effects of asbestos for the last 37 years. 

It was 31 years ago that the institute that I spent so many years 

with recommended a revised standard for asbestos, and in that revised standard, it was the first time that I know of any governmental agency saying that only a ban would prevent asbestos-related diseases in the workplace. 

I would like to thank Chairman Wynn and Mr. Shadegg and the 

entire Committee on Environment and Hazardous Materials for the 

honor of being able to testify before you today. I am here to support 

the efforts of the both the United States House of Representatives 

and the United States Senate to ban asbestos in the United States. 

This ban will represent a monumental public-health achievement 

for the United States and its citizens in preventing asbestos-related 

diseases to workers and the public, and I commend the efforts of 

the United States Congress for their work in this endeavor. 

I would disagree a little bit with my colleague Dr. Nolan in that 

the 10,000 figure is an estimate that was adopted by OSHA in a 

risk assessment done by another colleague of Dr. Nolan’s, Dr. Nicholson at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, so by default, it is somewhat of a government figure because it is mentioned in the hearings and in the testimony to OSHA for their standard. 

And also, I might say the only occupationally induced dust disease of the lungs that continues to increase each year in the United 

States is asbestosis. And this is also true for mesothelioma, which 

is a signal tumor for exposure to asbestos. 

I would also like to say that while this country has experienced 

in asbestos-induced disease epidemic that continued to grow worse, 

it is now shifting from the workplace to the non-occupationally expose victims. I would like to provide some data which would shed 

light on the reasons for keeping the fiber definition that is in these 

bills. From my years at NIOSH, I know research have found among 

miners and millers mesothelioma from two counties in Northern 

New York and new cases continue. We have also seen mesothelioma occurring in the taconite miners in Minnesota, and we have 

already heard about the experience in Libby, Montana. 

Dr. Rohl and Dr. Langer at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine 

support the idea that substances other than asbestos, like talc, because of its composition, contain conditions of formation and geological occurrence frequently contaminated with asbestos fibers. 

I am glad that this bill goes beyond regulatory fibers and includes fibers less than 5 microns in length. I would like to say that 

a study just published by NIOSH actually shows that fibers shorter 

than 5 microns in length do cause statistically significant excesses 

in asbestosis as well as lung cancer. I would also like to say that 

pathological studies dating back to 1933 show that it is the short 

110 

fibers that actually end up in the areas outside of the lung where 

the mesothelioma is occurring. 

I also would like to say that we must continue to rely not on the 

antiquated analytical methods, but on new and modern methods, 

and we must take into consideration health considerations and not 

just analytical consideration. 

As far as exemptions, I think I agree very much Ms. Seminario 

that they should be very limited and carefully thought out, and 

that they should be based upon health consideration as well as 

needed use. 

I also would like to say that an exception for the chlorine manufacturing industry must recognize the inherent dangers of both the 

worker and the public from the continued use of asbestos in this 

industry. New, non-asbestos-using processes are available, and 

they operate at much less energy than the other processes, by 

about 15 to 20 percent. 

And finally, I have just a few suggestions for the bill. If currently 

using asbestos in a product at the time of the ban’s effective date, 

it is my suggestion, then, that 6 months only be used for the application and approval for the exemptions, and obviously, as the bill 

states, nothing can be sold or used during this time period. Second, 

the disposal requirement doesn’t go into place until many years 

after the ban. This should be shorter. And I would also like to say 

that I would like to see the bill include a provision for a national 

survey of extraction activities to find out just how extensive this is 

and also what are the potential health effects. And finally, I would 

like to say that I support the EPA’s testing. In addition to testing 

the bulk samples for percentages, they need to test in the underuse conditions and in under-disturbance conditions. 

So with that, I would like to conclude my testimony, and I ask 

that my full comments be added to the record of this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lemen follows:] 

111 


45680.060
112 


45680.061
113 


45680.062
114 


45680.063
115 


45680.064
116 


45680.065
117 


45680.066
118 


45680.067
119 


45680.068
120 


45680.069
121 


45680.070
122 


45680.071
123 


45680.072
124 


45680.073
125 


45680.074
126 


45680.075
127 


45680.076
128 


45680.077
129 


45680.078
130 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, Dr. Lemen. Dr. Millette. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. MILLETTE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

MVA SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANTS 

Mr. MILLETTE. Thank you for the opportunity to testify for you 

today. My name is Jim Millette. I am an environment al scientist. 

I have been involved with the analysis of asbestos since 1974. I 

have a degree in physics and a masters in environmental science 

and a PhD School of Engineering, University of Cincinnati. My 

work history includes 11 years at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where I was working on method-development for asbestos issues. I teach one of the few courses in the United States 

on the analysis of asbestos using the transmission electro-microscope. I am currently the chair of the American Society for Testing 

and Materials. That is ASTM International, Subcommittee D2207, 

that deal specifically with the development of asbestos methods. 

And I would like to recognize the gentleman that I took over for, 

Mike Beard. He and I have worked many, many years, 10 years, 

on this committee, developing methods using the consensus approach, where we have members from industry, government, individual laboratories, working on developing methods that we agree 

upon. 

My testimony today concerns the U.S. legislation that we have 

been discussing concerning asbestos. I would like to make five basic 

points in my testimony. The first is that currently—that is today— 

laboratories across the United States, commercial and government, 

are performing analysis for clients using a variety of bulk asbestos 

methods and reporting levels of less than 1 percent. In the last 35 

years, since the EPA initiated the 1 percent level for bulk materials, analytical methods have developed to the point where we can 

reliably measure less than 1 percent, and we can certainly measure 

to 0.25 percent, which I feel we can do on a regular, reliable basis. 

But there are differing opinions as to the best procedure in which 

to analyze for asbestos. Because some methods involve different 

preparation procedures than others. Some involve grinding the 

sample, and other involve sieving or using other procedures. All of 

these can be used, but there are differences, and so as you heard 

before from Mr. Meeker, if you send a sample to two different laboratories, they may not come out with exactly the same result. 

However, there are procedures for measuring asbestos at the 1 

percent level, where we now have reliable inter-laboratory comparisons that show fairly consistent results, and so if we decide to go 

to a less than 1 percent level, I am sure that can be achieved. 

I support the provision in the committee print that the Administrator shall issue guidance in establishing the test method for purposes of compliance with this paragraph. I think it is important 

that the Administrator provide the guidance so that those of us developing methods for the work that needs to be done will all start 

with the same basic assumptions. 

Apart from the questions of quantification of asbestos in bulk 

samples, the characteristics of what is asbestos must be addressed 

by the method and then universally accepted by the laboratories 

analyzing the samples. As we discussed earlier, the difference between asbestiform fibers and cleavage fragments is something that 

131 

is in dispute. There is a difficulty not in looking at the obvious situation where you have a rock versus an asbestos fiber, but those situations in the middle where you may have a mixture of fiber sizes, 

and they clearly overlap. 

There are some proposed procedures that are in the scientific literature to distinguish between asbestos fibers and cleavage fragments, but these have not been validated. And the research work 

that I am conducting in attempting to validate some of these procedures, looking at one particular procedure, we found that over 50 

percent of the fibers, if we use this procedure and look at a sample 

of NIST standard reference materials would be rejected as non-asbestos. That is essentially saying that here is a sample that NIST 

says is a standard reference of tremolite asbestos, and if you apply 

this particular proposed procedure to discriminate and eliminate 

the cleavage fragments, you would essentially eliminate 50 percent 

of the asbestos fibers in that sample, so work needs to be done to 

fine-tune that particular area. It is my intention that the committee will find an agreement on the definition of asbestos and will 

continue to work on the best way to measure its concentration. 

I would like to add one further comment. In my review of Dr. 

Nolan’s written testimony, he talked about the best procedure was 

using air monitoring, rather than bulk analysis. I disagree. I think 

that bulk analyses are necessary to determine the amount of asbestos in materials. If we don’t have something like that, a material 

such as the CSI box that you see down at the end of the table, we 

would have no way of determining that that did not meet the regulations. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Millette follows:] 

132 


45680.079
133 


45680.080
134 


45680.081
135 


45680.082
136 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you for your testimony. I would like to thank 

all of the witnesses. At this time, the chair would recognize himself 

for 5 minutes for questions. The first question is to Ms. Seminario, 

Dr. Lemen, and Dr. McClellan. Do you agree that the 1 percent asbestos threshold is not a health-based number? 

Mr. LEMEN. Yes, I do. 

Ms. SEMINARIO. Yes, 1 percent is not health based. 

Mr. WYNN. Dr. McClellan? 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. It is a screening value that is not health-based. 

To be health-based, you have to have, ultimately, a linkage to what 

is in the air and to risk. 

Mr. WYNN. OK, thank you. Do you agree that the 1 percent is 

not a risk based number? 

Mr. LEMEN. I agree with that. 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. As I said, it is a screening level based on analytical considerations and a policy judgment that was put in place 

by legislation. 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, Ms. Seminario? 

Ms. SEMINARIO. It is not risk based. 

Mr. WYNN. OK, it is stated that the 1 percent threshold concept 

was related to the limit of detection for analytical methods available at the time, 1973, and that analytical methods have advanced 

and improved significantly in the past 35 years. 

Mr. LEMEN. I certainly agree that analytical methods have advanced, and we can go much lower than that, and that was the consideration at the time, but it is out of date and antiquated today. 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you. Anyone else care to comment? Ms. 

Seminario? 

Ms. SEMINARIO. Yes, I agree that it is a limit that is out of date. 

Mr. WYNN. Doctor, I don’t want to cut you off. You seem anxious, 

but you have got to be short. 

Mr. NOLAN. Yes, I think that any graphometrical percentage 

standard is not going to be risk based, whether it is 0.25, 0.01, 2, 

1. It doesn’t matter. 

Mr. WYNN. OK. 

Mr. NOLAN. In 1973, it was very easy to determine that something was 1 percent asbestos. 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. It is important to recognize that because we 

have improved analytical techniques does not necessarily mean a 

screening value—and that is all it can be when you are working 

with a bulk sample—would be lower, necessarily. It could be higher 

when it is risk based. That is a determination that would have to 

be made on a policy basis. 

Mr. WYNN. OK, I wanted to ask a couple of questions. Dr. Nolan, 

you basically just said we shouldn’t deal with banning asbestos. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. NOLAN. I have been opposed to a ban of asbestos for a long 

time. 

Mr. WYNN. So that means you would find that that CSI product 

is acceptable for children? 

Mr. NOLAN. I didn’t say that. I said—— 

Mr. WYNN. Well, we are proposing to impose a ban on a product 

like that. You say you are opposed to bans. 

137 

Mr. NOLAN. I would not recommend what exactly happened, that 

that should be referred to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and they should make a recommendation. They banned asbestos from paper-mache, from certain kinds of other consumer products. That is fine. 

Mr. WYNN. OK, thank you. 

Ms. Reinstein, I believe your testimony is that the CPSC hasn’t 

done anything on this issue. Is that correct? 

Ms. REINSTEIN. You are absolutely right. Neither the EPA or the 

CPSC has responded to our multiple faxes and comprehensive 

packet with all the science. No response. 

Mr. WYNN. Ms. Seminario, one of the things I believe you talked 

about was the need for an expeditious approach to banning asbestos. Comparing the committee print with the Senate bill, do you believe the committee print offers a more expeditious approach? 

Ms. SEMINARIO. The committee print would do it statutorily, so 

you wouldn’t have to go through a rulemaking process, so once the 

Congress decides that is what they want to do, that would be done. 

So if that is the case, then the question is why wait 2 years? I 

mean both bills provide for a 2-year period, and I would say just 

go ahead and do it sooner if you are doing it statutorily. 

Mr. WYNN. OK, thank you. Dr. McClellan, you seemed your biggest concern was that we make sure we distinguish between asbestos and non-asbestos particles. Is that an accurate—— 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. That is correct. I think that is very important. 

Mr. WYNN. OK, and Dr. Millette, is it your sense that we have 

the capability to make that distinction? You seem to have testified 

that we actually did that. 

Mr. MILLETTE. Well, there are several proposed procedures for 

doing that type of thing. We have not standardized that, and that 

is something that would have to be done for the compliance method. 

Mr. WYNN. Now, the bill provides for EPA guidance, so would it 

be fair to say that you would advocate that kind of guidance from 

EPA? 

Mr. MILLETTE. That is correct. That would be necessary. 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you. I don’t have any further questions. At 

this time, I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Shadegg. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to begin by 

saying, Ms. Reinstein, my sympathies to you and your loss, and I 

commend you for your work. This is an important thing you are 

doing, and it is important that we try to do it right. There are differences in these two bills, and we need to try to get them right 

when they finally pass and become law. 

To that point, both you and Ms. Seminario, and both the AFL/ 

CIO and Asbestos Disease and Awareness Organization supported 

S. 742 when it passed. What you find is this is an improvement 

upon that. Is that correct? 

Ms. REINSTEIN. I testified at the EPW committee for a ban of asbestos-containing product. What finally passed the Senate was asbestos-containing material, which we did not support. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, I have a letter that says you are a signatory 

group that supported the passage of that bill. Is that letter not correct? 

138 

Ms. REINSTEIN. That letter is correct on that date. I was not 

aware until October 23 that that language had been changed. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Fair enough. And Ms. Seminario? 

Ms. SEMINARIO. We have supported the legislative efforts in the 

Senate. As Mrs. Reinstein said, unfortunately in the legislative 

process, the bill was changed. It was significantly changed to allow 

for the 1 percent exemption across the board, which we don’t think 

is warranted. 

Mr. SHADEGG. It is pretty clear that we have this 1 percent, and 

I think we have a zero standard. And the question is should it be 

zero? I mean I have heard a lot of testimony today it shouldn’t be 

1 percent, but I have also heard the issue that 1 percent is a confusing standard because the 1 percent is 1 percent by weight, and 

I think there is a lot of testimony that that is not the right way 

to establish the standard. What the standard should be is not how 

much is in this glass, but how much will damage me if I ingest it. 

And I think some people say the answer is zero and the question 

is, OK, well, then we have a standard of zero. 

Let me just move on. Dr. McClellan, as I understand your testimony, you think it is vitally important that we draw the line, essentially between asbestiform materials and non-asbestiform materials, and in the simple language of some of the people in this room 

who are just trying to speak English, you are talking about rock 

products that are not fibrous, do not have asbestos form, and asbestos products that have the asbestos form. They have the characteristics of that. Is that correct? 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. That is absolutely correct. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Now, here is my concern: this legislation says we 

have got to test every single load that comes out of a sand and 

gravel operation to see if it is under that 0.25 standard, and yet 

I think I hear Dr. Millette—and I am going to let him respond to 

this as well—tell us that, quite frankly, we don’t know how to test 

those, at least there is a huge debate. It is pretty clear when you 

have a nice, hard rock, OK, that is not asbestos, and then when 

you have asbestos, that is asbestos. But it gets pretty difficult 

when you get down to what is in between, and I guess my concern 

is, just from a practical standpoint, if I am sand and gravel operator, and I go scoop up a load and I go take it over and dump it 

in the dump truck, it is airborne at that point, and it creates a risk 

to workers. In Arizona, we have sand and gravel operations near 

homes, and that might create a risk, but can we practically test 

every one of those loads, and are we testing that is a serious 

threat, because that dust is naturally occurring everywhere, or are 

we imposing a standard that is not economically viable in any form 

to achieve no health savings. And I will let you, Dr. McClellan, respond to that, and then Dr. Millette and anyone else that would 

like to. 

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Well, I think you grasp the nuances of this 

very, very well. It is my understanding that in terms of the gravelrelated industries, we got about 3 billions tons a year. Now, perhaps a third of that, a billion tons a year, is in those areas we outlined on the map where there might be some element of concern. 

Obviously, you have to have validated methods. You have got to 

have an approach that is realistic, and is going to have a positive 

139 

health outcome at the end of the day. My colleagues have testified 

we do not have those validated methods in place today. 

Mr. SHADEGG. In fairness, you need some time. 

Mr. MILLETTE. The methods that we do have that are standard 

methods for analyzing for asbestos have been validated and use a 

definition of asbestos which is very specific, but it includes, or could 

include, some of these cleavage fragments in it, and so in trying to 

validate a new method which would distinguish between those two, 

that is the part that has not been done. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Can a sand and gravel operator reasonably test 

each dump load into each dump truck? Dr. Nolan, I take it your 

answer to this question would be trying to reach that level of certainty is not needed because the threat doesn’t merit it. 

Mr. MILLETTE. Correct, and I think it would be similar to the 

problem at looking at all of the drinking water. For instance, there 

is an asbestos regulation in drinking water, and there are trillions 

of gallons that are used through the United States. Every one of 

those places has to be measured at one point, but then you develop 

a procedure where you can do it not every time. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Right, if the legislation says you are going to do 

a sample a year, fine. If the legislation says every single dump 

truck load, I think we are in trouble. 

Mr. WYNN. First of all, thank you all for your testimony. I think 

it has been very helpful today. I would like to ask unanimous consent that the petition that Ms. Reinstein has brought with her be 

entered into the record. 

Also, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the letter from 

the Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine, signed 

by seven medical doctors, urging Congress to swiftly pass legislation be put into the record of this hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Without objection. 

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Shadegg, did you have—— 

Mr. SHADEGG. Yes, I have five citizen letters which have been 

submitted and reviewed by your staff, which I would like to ask 

unanimous consent be included in the record. 

Mr. WYNN. Without objection so ordered. 

Mr. SHADEGG. And I would like to ask that additional studies 

that are supplied by witnesses that we requested today, which arrive within 5 working days be included in the record as well. We 

have some earlier witnesses who are there—— 

Mr. WYNN. We would like to see them. If there are enough days, 

I think we can try to accommodate that. Did you have any further—— 

Mr. SHADEGG. My last request would be that members who were 

not able to be here be allowed the usual 5 days to submit their own 

statements. 

Mr. WYNN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. SHADEGG. And if you are going to finish, let me just conclude 

by thanking the witnesses myself. I appreciate your testimony. It 

has been very helpful. 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you all and we appreciate your presence. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 2:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

140 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

141 


45680.083
142 


45680.084
143 


45680.085
144 


45680.086
145 


45680.087
146 


45680.088
147 


45680.089
148 


45680.090
149 


45680.091
150 


45680.092
151 


45680.093
152 


45680.096
153 


45680.097
154 


45680.098
155 


45680.099
156 


45680.100
157 


45680.101
158 


45680.102
159 


45680.103
160 


45680.104
161 


45680.105
162 


45680.106
163 


45680.107
164 


45680.108
165 


45680.109
166 


45680.110
167 


45680.111
168 


45680.112
169 


45680.113
170 


45680.114
171 


45680.115
172 


45680.116
173 


45680.117
174 


45680.118
175 


45680.119
176 


45680.120
177 


45680.121
178 


45680.122
179 


45680.143
180 


45680.144
181 


45680.145
182 


45680.230
183 


45680.231
184 


45680.232
185 


45680.233
186 


45680.234
187 


45680.235
188 


45680.236
189 


45680.237
190 


45680.238
191 


45680.239
192 


45680.240
193 


45680.241
194 


45680.242
195 


45680.243
196 


45680.244
197 


45680.245
198 


45680.246
199 


45680.247
200 


45680.248
201 


45680.249
202 


45680.250
203 


45680.251
204 


45680.252
205 


45680.253
206 


45680.262
207 


45680.263
208 


45680.254
209 


45680.255
210 


45680.256
211 


45680.257
212 


45680.258
213 


45680.259
214 


45680.260
215 


45680.261
216 


45680.146
217 


45680.147
218 


45680.148
219 


45680.149
220 


45680.150
221 


45680.151
222 


45680.152
223 


45680.153
224 


45680.154
225 


45680.155
226 


45680.156
227 


45680.157
228 


45680.158
229 


45680.159
230 


45680.160
231 


45680.161
232 


45680.162
233 


45680.163
234 


45680.164
235 


45680.165
236 


45680.168
237 


45680.169
238 


45680.170
239 


45680.171
240 


45680.172
241 


45680.166
242 


45680.167
243 


45680.173
244 


45680.174
245 


45680.175
246 


45680.176
247 


45680.177
248 


45680.178
249 


45680.179
250 


45680.180
251 


45680.181
252 


45680.182
253 


45680.183
254 


45680.184
255 


45680.281
256 


45680.282
257 


45680.283
258 


45680.187
259 


45680.188
260 


45680.189
261 


45680.190
262 


45680.264
263 


45680.265
264 


45680.266
265 


45680.267
266 


45680.268
267 


45680.269
268 


45680.270
269 


45680.271
270 


45680.272
271 


45680.273
272 


45680.274
273 


45680.275
274 


45680.276
275 


45680.277
276 


45680.278
277 


45680.279
278 


45680.280
279 


45680.284
280 


45680.285
281 


45680.286
282 


45680.287
283 


45680.288
284 


45680.289
285 


45680.290
286 


45680.291
287 

Æ 


45680.292