W.R. Grace Prosecution Over Montana Poisoning May Disrupt Bankruptcy

[seemslikeadream]

EXCELLENT!


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a6phUVT9KzCE&refer=us


By Bob Van Voris and Steven Church

Feb. 19 (Bloomberg) -- W.R. Grace & Co., the bankrupt chemical and construction-materials maker, faces a criminal trial for allegedly contaminating a Montana town in a case that may disrupt a reorganization plan that’s taken eight years to craft.

The 155-year-old company and six of its former executives are charged in connection with the asbestos contamination of Libby, a town with a population of about 2,500 where Grace mined and processed asbestos-tainted vermiculite until 1990. About 1,200 people in and around the town died or were sickened, the U.S. Department of Justice alleged.

If convicted by a jury to be selected beginning today in a Missoula federal courtroom, Grace may be fined $280 million or more, the company said in a securities filing. Such a fine may threaten its proposed $2.4 billion trust for people injured by asbestos, a fund at the heart of Grace’s reorganization plan.

“A large enough fine would upset any Chapter 11 plan because it is going to mean dollars out the door,” said bankruptcy attorney Evan Flaschen, with Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, who isn’t involved in the case.

Greg Euston, a spokesman for Columbia, Maryland-based W.R. Grace, declined to comment on the bankruptcy case or the criminal prosecution, citing an order by the trial judge limiting what the parties can say publicly.

Grace is charged with conspiracy, violating the U.S. Clean Air Act and obstruction of justice. The six men face between five and 15 years in prison if convicted on the counts they each face. Grace and the former executives have all pleaded not guilty.

Reorganization Plan

Grace said in a Nov. 7 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it spent $108.3 million through September defending the case. The company said it may be forced to pay a $280 million fine if convicted, according to SEC filings.

Grace sought court protection in 2001 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware, in response to more than 100,000 asbestos claims. Since then, the company has fought with asbestos lawyers and creditors over how best to set up the trust to compensate people damaged by the company’s products. Last year, it settled on the outlines of the trust.

Grace told the SEC it may need to borrow as much as $1.5 billion to help fund the $2.4 billion asbestos trust and to pay other creditors owed more than $1.5 billion.

[seemslikeadream]

1. victims will not be allowed at trial

http://www.maacenter.org/news/wr-grace-trial-judge-says-libby-asbestos-sufferers-are-not-crime-victims.html

[bottomtheweaver]

2. Isn't this the company Cheney bought for Haliburton?

Or was that a different one?

[seemslikeadream]

3. YEP that's the one

:hi:

[bottomtheweaver]

4. I seem to recall that they supplied a lot of the asbestos in the WTC

and there was a LOT of asbestos in the WTC.

[seemslikeadream]

5. tons and tons but that not what Christy said

[bottomtheweaver]

7. What a shame that terrists happened to demolish those towers

before Haliburton and its insurers could be forced to pay out mega-billions in asbestosis claims. Ah well, these things happen.

[seemslikeadream]

9. and all that crime scene evidence shipped away

ooopsy

[bottomtheweaver]

11. The important thing was to get those towers rebuilt immediately.

[seemslikeadream]

6. W.R. Grace files for bankruptcy

W.R. Grace files for bankruptcy
Taxpayers may get cleanup bill for asbestos contamination

Tuesday, April 3, 2001

By ANDREW SCHNEIDER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT



Because of the filing, taxpayers may get stuck with millions of dollars for cleaning up sites contaminated by the 150-year-old company.

Grace President Paul Norris said yesterday that his company has received more than 325,000 asbestos personal-injury claims, which have already cost the company nearly $2 billion.

The federal government has done health screening on 6,114 people or who live or lived in or near Libby. Analysis of the first 1,067 examinations showed that 30 percent of the people had signs of asbestos-related disease. With it often taking 20 years or more for the disease to become apparent, no one is willing to guess how many people will be sickened because of the exposure to asbestos in Libby and other sites that processed the vermiculite.

It is estimated that hospitalization, oxygen, medication and home care can cost a person between $300,000 to $500,000 during the course of the illness. Grace is the sixth major company to cite asbestos claims as their reasons for filing chapter 11 since January. Twenty-six companies have made such filings since 1982.

Most of the hundreds of thousands of pending asbestos suits are filed against multiple defendants. The litigation will often list 10, 20 or more corporations that either produced asbestos or used it in products they manufactured.


The Environmental Protection Agency is conducting investigations at 55 sites throughout the country where Grace ran expansion plants that turned the vermiculite ore into insulation and garden and construction products. Sixteen other sites have been identified as being contaminated enough to need cleanup.

"We budgeted between $14 and $16 million for this year, and it now becomes a problem of getting that money," Peronard said. "It's looking more and more like taxpayers will pick up what Grace drops."
EPA has been working closely with forensic accountants in the Justice Department to see whether the company has moved its assets to other, newly formed corporations.

more
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/grace03.shtml





Asbestos Bill Introduced: Murray's Floor Statement
Senator Murray Explains Her Bill to Protect Workers & Consumers

For Immediate Release: Tuesday, June 18, 2002

(Washington, D.C)- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray introduced the "Ban Asbestos in America Act" (S.2641).

Below is Senator Murray's statement on the bill in the Congressional Record.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I rise and join my colleagues Senators Baucus, Cantwell, Dayton and Wellstone in introducing legislation to improve protections for workers and consumers against a known carcinogen: asbestos.

The primary purpose of the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2002 is to require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the substance by 2005.

People Think It's Been Banned. It Hasn't.

Most Americans believe that asbestos has already been banned. People have this misconception in part because EPA tried to ban it in 1989, and the ban was well publicized. But what wasn't so publicized was the fact that in 1991, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned EPA's ban, and the first Bush Administration didn't appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. While new uses of asbestos were banned, existing ones were not.

People also believe asbestos has been banned because the mineral has been heavily regulated, and some uses are now prohibited. But the sweeping ban that EPA worked for ten years to put in place never went into effect.

As a result, products such as asbestos clothing, pipeline wrap, roofing felt, vinyl-asbestos floor tile, asbestos-cement shingle, disc brake pads, gaskets and roof coatings still contain asbestos today. Had EPA's ban gone into effect, these products would no longer be allowed to contain this deadly substance.

Victims of Asbestos Exposure

This morning I met with three people who wish there had been better protections in place against the dangers of asbestos years ago. I had the honor of meeting Mrs. Susan Vento, the wife of the beloved Congressman Bruce Vento from Minnesota who died from a disease caused by asbestos in October of 2000 at the age of 60. Rep. Vento was exposed to asbestos when he worked in factories in St. Paul during college.

I also had the privilege of meeting Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, the son of the legendary Navy Admiral Elmo Zumwalt who also died in 2000 of mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lining of the lungs and internal organs caused by asbestos. Like so many others who served in the Navy, Admiral Zumwalt was exposed to asbestos during his military service.

In addition, I had the pleasure to meet Mr. Brian Harvey, a former English teacher from Washington State University and a survivor of the deadly disease. Like Congressman Vento, Mr. Harvey was exposed to asbestos working summers during college -- only Mr. Harvey worked in a timber mill in Shelton, Washington instead of in factories in St. Paul. Mr. Harvey received aggressive treatment from the University of Washington, and his triumph over the deadly disease offers all of us hope.

You don't have to tell Mrs. Vento, Lt. Colonel Zumwalt or Mr. Harvey that asbestos can kill, or that it hasn't been banned. Unfortunately, they already know about asbestos.

Rudy Barber & Fred Mirante

I have also heard from other Washington state residents about the devastating effects that asbestos exposure can have on people's lives. I'd like to take a moment to tell you about an e-mail I received from two of my constituents, Mr. Charles Barber and his wife, Ms. Karen Mirante, who live in Seattle. They wrote to me last year to express support for my efforts on asbestos. Mr. Barber and Ms. Mirante had just recently learned that both of their fathers were diagnosed with mesothelioma, the same deadly disease that took the lives of Congressman Vento and Admiral Zumwalt.

Mr. Barber's father, Rudolph (Rudy) Barber, was a World War II veteran who worked at Todd shipyards. Then he worked for Boeing for 35 years building airplanes. According to his son, when Rudy served on a troopship during the war he recalled sleeping in a bunk under asbestos-coated pipes which flaked so badly that he had to shake out his sleeping bag every morning.

A few years after retiring from Boeing, Rudy Barber started to develop breathing problems. First he was told by one doctor that his disease could be cured with surgery, but it wasn't. After undergoing surgery, another doctor diagnosed him with mesothelioma. After a year and a half of suffering and of enduring repeated radiation and chemotherapy treatments, Mr. Barber died on April 28, 2002. According to his family, he never complained and continued to help his family and neighbors with maintenance and farm work for as long as he could.

Karen Mirante's father, Fred Mirante, was a retired truck driver who was active in labor issues. While the source of Mr. Mirante's exposure to asbestos is unknown, it is likely that he breathed in asbestos from brakes when he worked on cars. After receiving experimental therapies for the disease and after a two and one-half year battle, he died on June 4, 2002. June 16, last Sunday, was the first Father's Day that Mr. Barber and Ms. Mirante had to spend without their cherished, hard-working dads.

I mention Bruce Vento, Admiral Zumwalt, Mr. Harvey, Mr. Barber and Mr. Mirante to demonstrate that asbestos disease strikes all different types of people in different professions who were exposed to asbestos at some point in their lives. Asbestos knows no boundaries. It is still in thousands of schools and buildings throughout the country, and is still being used in some consumer products.

I first became interested in this issue because, like most people, I thought asbestos had been banned. But in 1999, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer starting running stories about a disturbing trend in the small mining town of Libby, Montana. Residents there suffer from high rates of asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. These findings prompted Montana Senator Max Baucus to ask EPA to investigate. The agency found that the vermiculite mine near Libby, which operated from the 1920s until 1990, is full of tremolite asbestos. EPA is still working to clean up Libby, which is now a Superfund site.

Asbestos From Libby Was Shipped Around the Nation

W.R. Grace, the company which ran the mine, had evidence of the harmful health effects of its product, but did not warn workers, town residents or consumers. Instead, the product was shipped to over 300 sites nationally for processing and then was used to make products such as home insulation and soil additives. EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) have determined that 22 sites are still contaminated today, including one in Spokane, Washington.

At many plants where vermiculite from Libby was processed, waste rock left over from the expansion process was given away for free, and people used it in their yards, drive ways and gardens. During its investigation into sites around the country which processed vermiculite from Libby, ATSDR discovered a picture taken of two darling little boys, Justin and Tim Jorgensen, climbing on waste rock given out by Western Minerals, Inc. in St. Paul, Minnesota sometime in the late 1970s. According to W.R. Grace records, this rock contained between 2 and 10 percent tremolite asbestos. This rock produced airborne asbestos concentrations 135 times higher than the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's current standard for workers. Thankfully, neither Justin nor Tim has shown any signs of disease, but their risks of developing asbestos diseases, which have latency periods of 15 to 40 years, are increased from their childhood exposures.

People may still today be exposing themselves to harmful amounts of asbestos in vermiculite. As many as 35 million homes and businesses may have insulation made with harmful minerals from Libby. And EPA has also tested agricultural products -- soil conditioners and fertilizers -- made with vermiculite, and determined that some workers may have been exposed to dangerous concentrations of tremolite asbestos.

As I learned more about Libby, and how asbestos has ended up in products by accident, I was shocked to learn that asbestos is still being used in products on purpose. While some specific uses have been banned, the EPA's more sweeping ban was never put into effect because of an asbestos industry backed lawsuit. As a result, new uses of asbestos were banned, but most existing ones were not.

Asbestos Is Still in Consumer Products

Asbestos is still used today to make roofing products, gaskets, brakes and other products. In 2001 the U.S. consumed 13,000 metric tons of it. Asbestos is still entering the product stream in this country, despite its known dangers to human health.

Other Countries Have Banned Asbestos

In contrast, asbestos has been banned in these 20 countries: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Now it is time for the United States to ban asbestos, too. According to EPA, 27 million Americans had significant exposure to the material on the job between 1940 and 1980. It is time for the sad legacy of asbestos disease we have witnessed during the 20th century to come to an end. I want to ensure our government does all it can to minimize future suffering and death caused by this substance.

Bill Summary

That is why today I am introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2002. The legislation has four main parts.

First and foremost, this bill protects public health by doing what the EPA tried to do 13 years ago: ban asbestos in the United States. The bill requires EPA to ban it by 2005. Like the regulations EPA finalized in 1989, companies may file for an exemption to the ban if there is no substitute material available: if there is no substitute material available and EPA determines the exemption won't pose an unreasonable risk of injury to public health or the environment.

Second, the bill requires EPA to conduct a pubic education campaign about the risks of asbestos products. Within 6 months of passage, the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission will begin educating people about how to safely handle insulation made with vermiculite. I believe the government needs to warn people that their insulation, if made with vermiculite, may be contaminated with asbestos. Home owners and workers may be unknowingly exposing themselves to asbestos when they conduct routine maintenance near this insulation. While EPA has agreed to remove vermiculite insulation from homes in Libby, the agency currently has no plans to do this nation-wide.

The legislation also requires EPA to conduct a survey to determine which foreign and domestic products being consumed in the United States today have been made with asbestos. There is no solid, up-to-date information about which products contain it, although EPA has estimated that as many as 3,000 products still do.

The survey will provide the foundation for a broader education campaign so consumers and workers will know how to handle as safely as possible asbestos products that were purchased before the ban goes into effect.

Third, the legislation requires funding to improve treatment for asbestos diseases. The bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, working through the National Institutes of Health, to "expand, intensify and coordinate programs for the conduct and support of research on diseases caused by exposure to asbestos."

The Ban Asbestos in America Act requires the creation of a National Mesothelioma Registry to improve tracking of the disease. If there had been an asbestos disease tracking system in place, public health officials would have detected the health problems in Libby much sooner, and may have saved lives.

In addition, the bill authorizes funding for 7 mesothelioma treatment centers nationwide to improve treatments for and awareness of this fatal cancer.

As was the case with Mr. Harvey, who received treatment from the University of Washington, early detection and proper treatment make the difference between life and death. This bill authorizes $500,000 for each center for five years. This means more mesothelioma patients will receive treatments that can prolong their lives.

In response to the EPA Inspector General's report on Libby, Montana, EPA committed to create a Blue Ribbon Panel on asbestos and other durable fibers. However, because of insufficient resources, EPA has now narrowed the focus of the Panel to address issues surrounding only the six regulated forms of asbestos. The bill requires EPA to expand its Blue Ribbon Panel on Asbestos to address issues beyond those surrounding the six regulated forms of asbestos.

The Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2002 expands the Blue Ribbon Panel's scope to include nonasbestiform asbestos and other durable fibers. The Panel shall include participation by the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

In its response to the Inspector General, EPA was originally planning for the Panel to address implementation of and grant programs under Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, creation of a National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Pollutants under the Clean Air Act for contaminant asbestos, and other legislative and regulatory options for protecting public health.

The Administration also promised for the Panel to review the feasibility of establishing a durable fibers testing program within EPA, options to improve protections against exposure to asbestos in asbestos-containing products in buildings, and public education. The Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2002 requires the Panel to address these subjects as EPA originally planned.

The legislation also requires the Panel to explore the need to establish across federal agencies a uniform asbestos standard and a protocol for detecting and measuring asbestos. Currently, asbestos is regulated under at least 11 statutes.

There are different standards within EPA and across federal agencies, and agencies rely on different protocols to detect and measure the substance. This has led to widespread confusion for the public -- for example, in 2000, there were reports that there was asbestos in crayons.

There has also been confusion surrounding asbestos exposure in New York City following the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. And in Libby, the EPA Inspector General's report cited split jurisdiction and multiple standards as one of the reasons EPA didn't do a better job of protecting the people of Libby from exposure to asbestos in the first place.

The Blue Ribbon Panel will also review the current state of the science on the human health effects of exposure to asbestos and other durable fibers, whether the current definition of asbestos containing material should be modified throughout the Code of Federal Regulations, and current research on and technologies for disposal of asbestos-containing products and contaminant asbestos products. The bill leaves up to the discretion of the Panel whether it will expand its scope to include manmade fibers, such as ceramic and carbon fibers. The Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendations are due 2 years after enactment of the Act.

Our federal agencies need to do a better job of coordinating and working together on asbestos, which will mean less confusion for the public and improved protection for everyone.

The toll that asbestos has taken on people's lives in this country is staggering. And while Senators Baucus, Cantwell, Dayton, Wellstone and I continue to mourn the loss of Congressman Bruce Vento, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, more than 200 people from Libby and thousands of others, today our message is one of hope.

Our hope is that by continuing to work together, we will build support for the Ban Asbestos in America Act. If we can get this legislation passed, fewer people will be exposed to asbestos, fewer people will contract asbestos diseases in the first place, and those who already have asbestos diseases will receive treatments to prolong and improve quality of life. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=189107

[seemslikeadream]

8. I started this really lonely battle with good friend Senator Wellstone

Sen. Murray Opposes SB 2290, Praises Dr. Bret Williams, Dr. Harvey Pass, Chris Hahn and MARF


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remarks by Senator Patty Murray on Asbestos Legislation

http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=220630

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, April 21, 2004

Mr. President, I rise today to share my serious concerns with the asbestos liability bill now before the Senate. As my colleagues know, this is not just another bill for me. This is something I’ve spent years learning about, educating my colleagues about, and writing legislation to address.

In fact, my work on asbestos started 3 years ago this very month, when I asked the Senate HELP Committee to hold a hearing on asbestos exposure in the workplace. I started this as a really lonely battle with good friend Senator Wellstone. We held press conferences, and it seemed like no one came. Senator Baucus and Senator Cantwell were with us, but it was a very lonely fight.

That’s why today it is so great to watch my colleagues like Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, Senator Dayton and Senator Leahy moving this discussion to such a productive level. They have taken the time to listen to victims, and I think that if everyone did we’d have a much more balanced bill before us today.

I’m pleased that after all these years of working with victims, family members, and doctors -- the full Senate is now engaged in a debate about asbestos.

I am also pleased that many of the things I have been fighting for have been included in this legislation. This bill includes the ban on asbestos that I first introduced two years ago. That is an important acknowledgement of what I told the Judiciary Committee last June, "If Congress is going to prevent any future lawsuits, then Congress must try to prevent any more asbestos casualties, by banning the use of asbestos."

So I am pleased by some of the progress in this bill, but I am also deeply disturbed by what this bill will do to people whose lives have been torn apart by asbestos, to future victims, to family members, and to average Americans who are being exposed to deadly asbestos everyday without even knowing it.

After listening to victims, hearing their stories, and looking them in the eye, there is no way I could vote for this inadequate and unbalanced bill.

I’m Standing Up for Many

As I’ve learned about asbestos over the past three years, I have been troubled by the duplicity of some companies, by the negligence of our own government, and by the absolute horror that asbestos inflicts on people. But throughout this process, I have also been touched by the commitment and optimism of victims. Some of them realize it’s too late for them, but they want to make sure that no other American goes through the horror they have experienced.

After working with them, I know I am not just standing here on the Senate floor as a single Senator. I’m standing here on behalf of all of the people I have been honored to meet and stand with over the past three years.

I’m standing here on behalf of people like Brian Harvey, Gayla Benefield, Bret Williams, Ralph Busch, Marv Sather, and George Biekkola. They were all exposed to asbestos through no fault of their own.

I’m standing here on behalf of family members of asbestos victims. People like Sue Vento, the wife the late Congressman Bruce Vento of Minnesota, Sue Harvey, and Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, the son of Navy hero Elmo Zumwalt.

I’m standing here on behalf of doctors who have labored to save their patients against a merciless killer. Doctors like Michael Harbut, Alan Whitehouse, and Harvey Pass, who not only provided medical care, but worked to raise awareness and call for needed research.

I’m standing here on behalf of public health leaders like Dr. Richard Lemen, the former Assistant Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. Phil Landrigan, and people like Andrew Schneider and Barry Castleman – who have worked to warn the public about these dangers.

And, I’m standing here on behalf of researchers and advocates. People like Chris Hahn of the Mesothelima Applied Research Foundation and advocates at the Environmental Working Group.

All of these people have stood with me at press conferences and have testified before Senate hearings calling for us to help the victims and to ban asbestos. We have a real obligation to them, and I’m standing here on the Senate floor today to make sure the Senate does right by people who have been wronged.

George Biekkola

Let me share one of their voices with you. In July 2001, the HELP committee held that hearing I requested on Workplace Safety and Asbestos Exposure. One of the witnesses was Mr. George Biekkola of Michigan, a World War II veteran and a community leader who helped bring a hockey rink to the children of his community.

Those of us who were at that hearing three years ago will never forget what he said. He broke down several times as he read his statement, but his message was clear. He told us that he had spent 30 years working at the Cleveland Cliff Iron Company in Michigan. He operated a hard rock drill and was exposed to asbestos dust. He was forced to retire at the age of 60 because asbestos had scarred his lungs and reduced his lung capacity by one-third.

At that hearing he told us, quote, "I thought I’d be spending my retirement traveling out West with my wife, hunting deer up in the mountains. But today, I can’t." He said that he couldn’t exert himself because his heart was weak and that he had to be careful because a simple case of pneumonia could kill him.

He told us, "This isn’t how I thought I’d be spending my retirement, but when I think about the other guys I worked with -- I guess I came out lucky."

He said, "I’m here today to tell you my story so that maybe someone else working in a mine or a brake shop or a factory won’t lose the things I have lost."

He concluded his statement with these words. "Senators, please make sure that what happened to me won’t happen to anyone else . . . Workers like me are counting on you to protect us. Please don’t let us down."

Mr. President, I’m sad to report that George Biekkola died two weeks ago today from asbestosis and mesothelioma. Until the end, he was looking out for other victims. In fact, at his funeral last Saturday, his family displayed a photograph of him testifying at that Senate hearing.

George isn’t with us today, but his words ring as loudly now as they did three years ago – Senators, don’t let us down. That is why I’ve been working on asbestos for the past three years, and that is why I cannot support this inadequate bill.

Mr. President, after all the things that Americans like George Biekkola have been through, after all they have lost, after all their families have lost, and after all they have done to protect others, I will not let them down, and that’s why I cannot support this bill.

Context

Before I turn to the specifics, I want to put this discussion in context. For decades, we’ve been pumping this poison into Americans on purpose and by accident. It’s wrecked lives, families, fortunes, and it’s been a problem for many businesses.

Asbestos is everywhere, and it’s killing us. We’ve got to stop putting this killer in products. We’ve got to stop importing products that contain asbestos. We’ve got to figure out a way to "make whole" everyone who’s been affected by this epidemic, and we need to do it in a balanced way that gives certainty and equity to both victims and companies.

This process has been an education for me because, like many Americans I thought asbestos had been banned a long time ago. In 1989, the EPA did try to ban asbestos, but that effort was overturned in a lawsuit from the asbestos industry. Ten years later in 1999, reporter Andrew Schneider and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published articles about a disturbing trend in the small mining town of Libby, Montana. Residents there are suffering from extraordinarily high rates of asbestos related disease.

At many plants where vermiculite from Libby was processed and then shipped, waste rock left over from the expansion process was given away for free. I learned that people used this free waste rock in their yards, driveways and gardens. This picture shows Justin and Tim Jorgensen climbing on waste rock given out by Western Minerals, Inc. in St. Paul, Minnesota sometime in the 1970’s. According to W.R. Grace records, this rock contained between 2 and 10 percent tremolite asbestos. This rock produced airborne asbestos concentrations 135 times higher that OSHA’s current standard for workers. We have to do right by Justin and Tim, and those are the people I’m thinking about as I look at this bill.

I also learned that our country is far behind others. The United States remains the only industrialized country beside Canada that has not yet banned asbestos. More than 30 million pounds of asbestos are still consumed in the United States each year.

A Continuing Danger

I learned that asbestos is still found today in over 3,000 common products in the US, including baby powder, cosmetics, brake pads, pipes, hair dryers, ceiling tiles and vinyl flooring. It is still legal in 2004 to construct buildings with asbestos cement shingles and to treat them with asbestos roof coatings. It is still legal to construct new water systems using asbestos cement pipes imported from other countries. It is still legal today for cars and trucks to be made and serviced with asbestos brake pads and linings.

Workers in this country are still being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. According to OSHA, "an estimated 1.3 million employees in construction and general industry face significant asbestos exposures on the job."

Washington State Impact

Asbestos has taken a particularly large toll on the people of my state. According to a recent report by the Environmental Working Group, King County has the fourth-highest number of deaths related to asbestos in the country. Three other counties – Kitsap (24th), Pierce (28th) and Snohomish (52nd) all rank in the top 100 for asbestos-related deaths. Overall, Washington state ranks eighth in asbestos-related deaths nationwide.

Just last week in Spokane, Washington our state Department of Health announced that 100 former workers at a vermiculite factory likely inhaled deadly asbestos fibers and should seek advice from their doctors.

They also warned that the children and spouses who lived with these workers could become ill from particles that were carried home with loved ones on clothing, skin and in hair. Given the known dangers of this mineral, we should all be asking - why are we still using it? Why are we still adding it to products on purpose where there are perfectly acceptable substitutes?

My Work on Asbestos

Americans in every walk of life and in every corner of this country have been exposed, and we’ve got to protect them. That’s why I’ve worked to do a series of things over the past few years. On June 18, 2002, I introduced the Ban Asbestos in America Act. I reintroduced this bill again last May as Senate Bill number 1115. I want to thank all the Senators who have cosponsored my bill: Senators Baucus, Boxer, Cantwell, Daschle, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hollings, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Leahy and Reid.

I’ve pushed the EPA to warn homeowners about the dangers of Zonolite insulation, which today is in the attics of 35 million homes, schools and businesses. I’ve urged the EPA to warn brake mechanics about the deadly asbestos dust they are exposed to on the job. I’ve asked OSHA to increase its efforts to enforce existing regulations that attempt to protect automobile brake mechanics.

I’ve shared my concerns with legislators in Canada, the country that is the largest source of America’s asbestos imports. I testified at a hearing on Libby, Montana, and I testified before the Judiciary Committee last July.

Asbestos liability is a real problem. It’s a problem for victims, and it’s a problem for companies. We need a balanced solution. Unfortunately, this bill falls short in 6 ways.

6 Problems with this Bill

First, it is unfair to victims because the awards are too small – even smaller than many would get if they were allowed a day in court.

Second, it could lock future victims out of getting help because the trust fund is inadequate.

Third, it keeps Americans in the dark about the dangers of asbestos. It does not include the education campaign that we know is needed and that I have been pushing for over the past three years.

Fourth, it falls short on research, tracking and treatment for asbestos diseases.

Fifth, it makes family members jump through too many restrictive hurdles.

Sixth it allows insurance companies to place liens on the awards that family members receive - unfairly reducing the award they deserve and treating them much differently that other federal compensation programs.

Let me discuss each of those in detail.

1. Awards Are Too Small

First, the awards are too small. Many people who have had their lives torn apart by asbestos will actually do worse under this bill than they would in court. For example, awards for lung cancer victims who have more than 15 years of exposure to asbestos are limited to $25,000 - $75,000, even though most victims will die within a year. Victims with asbestosis who have lost 20% to 40% of their breathing capacity – many who will be disabled for life – will receive only $85,000. That is far less than their lost wages and medical costs. This bill gives them less than they deserve. At the same time, it blocks the courthouse door to victims who have staggering medical bills, lost wages and other damages. I don’t see how Congress can leave asbestos victims worse off than they are today, but that’s what this bill would do.

2. The Trust Fund is Too Small

Second, the trust fund is too small to compensate all victims, but that is just one of the problems with this trust fund. I believe a successful trust fund would provide fair and adequate compensation to all victims and would bring reasonable financial certainty to defendant companies and insurers. To do that, the trust fund must include four things: fair award values, appropriate medical criteria, adequate funding, and fast processing.

The system for processing claims must allow victims to get prompt payments without the complications, time and expense of a traditional lawsuit. Unfortunately, the trust fund in this bill falls far short of what is needed. I have already discussed how the award values are unfair.

In addition, the trust fund is not adequately funded. In fact, the trust fund in this bill has been slashed dramatically from the original Hatch legislation. In the Judiciary Committee’s bill, the trust fund was $153 billion. But in this bill, the trust fund has been slashed by over $40 billion.

Now, the trust fund didn’t just shrink on its own. It was reduced after closed-door negotiations that included only one side – the defendant companies and the insurance industry. It was not based on the actual needs of victims. Instead, it was based on what insurers and businesses were willing to pay. This one-sided agreement reduced the funding provided in S. 1125 by more than $40 billion. Making matters worse, an additional $10 billion in contingent funds does not become available for 24 years. The United States Senate should not adopt a policy of adjusting award values just to meet an arbitrary and artificial limit reached in a backroom with only one side present.

Not only was this figure arrived at in an unfair way, but it’s clear that it is not enough to meet the needs of current and future asbestos victims. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost of this bill at $134 billion. This bill only provides $109 billion – so there is a significant shortfall already.

But there is very good reason to believe that the shortfall will be even larger. Recent claims in the Manville trust shows much higher than expected claims for many asbestos diseases. Those claims also show that recent mortality and morbidity data increase the likelihood that the number of asbestos related diseases and related claims will exceed current estimates.

If this fund becomes insolvent, it will leave victims without the help they need. Because of that possibility, last year, Senators inserted a number of protections during the Judiciary Committee mark-up.

Important Protections Were Removed

Tragically, the bill before us today throws away those carefully-crafted, bipartisan protections.

For example, we had protections for victims in case the trust fund became insolvent. Those protections in the Biden amendment were stripped from this bill.

We had protections that guaranteed that asbestos victims would preserve their legal rights until the trust fund is operational. That’s important because if this bill becomes law, it will end up in court, and there will be no mechanism for victims and their families to get help while this law is tied up in court. We solved that problem with the Feinstein amendment, but again -- those protections were stripped from this bill.

So overall this trust fund is inadequate. If we are going to lock the courthouse doors to victims, we’ve got to be 100 percent certain that the trust fund will have enough money to cover all of the 600,000 current claims -- and the thousands more that may be filed later. This is especially important because asbestos diseases have a very long latency period – often decades long – making it hard for us to predict today who will need help in the future.

If we pass this inadequate trust fund, my constituents – and hundreds of thousands of other Americans -- will be left out in the cold with only the faded memories of their loved ones to carry them through this tragic ordeal.

3. No Public Education Campaign

My third concern with this bill is that it keeps Americans in the dark about the dangers of asbestos exposure. This bill completely drops the education campaign that was in both of my asbestos bills. One of the reasons why asbestos takes such a deadly toll is because people are unaware that they are being exposed it.

Ralph Busch of Spokane

Ralph Busch exposed himself and his wife to asbestos when he renovated his home. He never knew about the dangers until he happened to read a story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Today, his dream house is abandoned, his credit is ruined, and his health is a constant worry. Ralph Busch did not do anything wrong. He couldn’t have known about the danger of Zonolite insulation. There is no way that Ralph Busch could have known that by buying and renovating an old house he would eventually expose his family to dangerous levels of asbestos.

We must make sure others do know about this public health risk by providing additional resources to educate the American public about the dangers of worksite and home exposures to products that contain asbestos.

We must also provide safety information to homeowners on what they can do to prevent asbestos exposures at home, particularly in the attic and basement.

Workers Unaware of Dangers

In addition to homeowners, many workers are exposed to asbestos on the job. Often they are not aware of the danger, and they don’t have the protective equipment they need.

I am heartened to hear that EPA, ATSDR and NIOSH are now proactively reaching out to consumers and workers to warn them to stay away from vermiculite attic insulation. But, I am very concerned that the EPA, prodded by a request from the law firm of the former acting agency administrator, is considering revising its "Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics" to convey the false impression that brake repair work is no longer a risk.

Clearly, any effort by the EPA to downplay these risks flies in the face of current Congressional intent regarding the inherent health problems with exposure to asbestos in the workplace. I sincerely hope that EPA will not bow to the pressure of the industry and in fact strengthen its guidance for brake mechanics.

4. It Does Not Do Enough for Research, Tracking and Treatment

My fourth concern is that this bill does not do enough for research, tracking and treatment.

I want to thank the Senator Hatch for including some modest resources in his latest version of the bill – which should be used to establish mesothelioma research and treatment centers around the country. Yesterday I was pleased to hear Senator Hatch say that he would be willing to explore additional funding for asbestos research and treatment centers. These centers will be critical as the medical community works to develop new treatments and protocols for the variety of deadly cancers and diseases that exposure to asbestos brings to workers and their families.

Unfortunately, not included in S. 2290 are the resources needed to track the victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos causing cancers, and to conduct additional research about the harmful effects of this deadly material.

These are areas that doctors and other experts have told me time and again we must invest in. I heard from some of those doctors last month at a press conference I held, which Senator Reid and Senator Dayton attended. At the press conference, Dr. Bret Williams of North Carolina said, "As a doctor, a cancer patient, a husband and father, I am asking my government to take a stand. Fix the problem. Give us hope. Fund a mesothelioma research program. Please invest in a cure."

A surgeon from Detroit, Dr. Harvey Pass, told us that progress on asbestos diseases requires funding, and he said that funding, "remains absolutely insufficient to set up the type of collaborative approaches that already exist with lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer."

So the fourth problem with this bill is its inadequate support for research, tracking and treatment of asbestos diseases.

5. Treats Family Members Unfairly

My fifth concern with this bill is the way it treats family members. Under this bill, family members of victims will be forced to jump through an additional series of hoops, reducing the likelihood they will ever receive an award.

Susan Lawes & Spokane Families

Let’s remember, these family members have lost their loved ones. In many cases they are vulnerable themselves because they came into contact with asbestos fibers through a family member. Take the case of Susan Lawes. Her father was a pipe fitter and was exposed to asbestos on the job. When he came home from work, asbestos fibers were still on his clothes. He’d walk through the door after the end of a long day and give his daughter a hug. Last month, Susan was diagnosed with an asbestos disease. As she told me, I am literally dying because I hugged my dad.

Susan and so many people like her are not treated fairly under this bill. The children and the spouses of workers should not have to prove five years of exposure to asbestos from their husbands and fathers as they would under this bill. They also should not be forced to appear before a special Physicians Review Board in order to determine their medical condition and whether they are eligible for a compensatory award.

It’s the same for people in Spokane, Washington. Spokane is one of the 22 sites that EPA has determined is still contaminated. Why are we forcing these innocent victims of take-home asbestos exposure to jump through extraordinary hoops to determine their eligibility for an award?

So my fifth concern is the unfair way this bill treats family members – making them jump through hurdles that reduce the chance they will ever get the help they need.

6. Allows Insurance Companies to Reduce Victims’ Awards

Finally, this bill allows insurance companies to reduce any awards that victims actually receive – something that is not found in similar federal plans.

This bill allows insurance companies to place liens on the awards that victims and family members receive.

I find it unconscionable that health insurance companies and other entities can recoup their costs by placing liens on the awards family members receive in compensation for their loss of a father, a husband, a son or a daughter.

These workers were often the only breadwinners in their households, but this bill tells their surviving family members that they can be sued by their health insurance provider for a substantial part of an award – an award that as I’ve shown may already be inadequate.

What’s especially disturbing is other federal compensation program do not allow this type of action, but for some reason, asbestos victims are being given fewer protections. The awards provided to victims in federal compensation programs like the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program and the Ricky Ray Hemophiliac Relief Fund Act are not subject to liens by workers compensation insurers. I don’t know why the authors want to treat asbestos victims differently, but I do know that it is not fair, and it’s one of the reasons why I can not support this bill.

So Mr. President, in the end, this bill falls far short of what victims deserve.

The awards are too small.
The trust fund is inadequate.
It fails to educate Americans about the dangers of asbestos.
It falls short on research, tracking and treatment for asbestos diseases.
It puts unfair burdens on family members.
It allows insurance companies to reduce a victim’s award.
I’ve been fighting on this for years, and it makes no sense that we could squander this moment with a bill that is so inadequate. George and Gayla and Ralph and Marv and Bret and Brian all deserve so much better, and I will continue to fight for them.

Mr. President, regardless of what happens with this bill, the one thing we must do is ban asbestos, and I assure my colleagues I will keep fighting for that. I do want to pass a law. We need a real solution. I don’t want companies going bankrupt. I don’t want victims going without the help they need. I still think we can do it, and I will continue to fight for a balanced and fair bill that will do right by victims across the country. We really have an obligation to them and their families. I’ve been fighting for them for three years, and no matter what happens this week, I’m not going to stop now.

*** POSTED APRIL 22, 2004 ***

http://www.mesothel.com/pages/murray_s2290_pag.htm

[seemslikeadream]

10. environmental liabilities -- $1 BILLION

Grace told the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1998 that its liability for environmental cleanups was more than S230 million. But some EPA officials estimate the company's environmental liabilities to be "substantially greater," adding that it could be closer to $1 billion.
more
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FVP/is_22_261/ai_87016288

[seemslikeadream]

12. a kick for the biggest polluter on the face of the earth

[MinM]

13. Here & Now: Montana Asbestos Poisoning Case

http://www.hereandnow.org/shows/2009/02/rundown-219/

Five former mining executives go on trial today in an asbestos poisoning case that dates back nearly 70 years and resulted in at least 200 deaths and thousands of illnesses among residents of the town of Libby, Montana. We revisit a conversation we had in 2007 with Libby resident Gayla Benefield, and Drury “Dru” Gunn Carr who co-directed a documentary about what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calls the the worst case of industrial poisoning in the nation’s history.

:kick: 'n R