DuBose Law Firm, PLLC

Main navigation

You are here: Home / Archives for Asbestos / US Congress

US Congress

EPA Asbestos Risk Assessment Is Flawed

By

asbestos risk - fibers

The dangers from asbestos were identified decades ago; still, the long-awaited Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft of its asbestos risk assessment is flawed. The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) is a non-profit independent organization dedicated to alerting the public and government agencies, especially the EPA, about the deadly risks posed by exposure to asbestos. Linda Reinstein, ADAO president, released this statement after reading the EPA’s assessment draft.

“For nearly four years, ADAO and other stakeholders have urged EPA to use the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act to ban asbestos in the United States. The risks of asbestos have been well-documented for decades. As it stands, the draft asbestos risk assessment the EPA has proposed will perpetuate the dangers of asbestos and undermine the chance for the national ban on asbestos the nation desperately needs.”

What are the risks?

Inhalation of asbestos fibers can lead to lung cancer, asbestosis, and the deadly mesothelioma. It is a silent killer as it can wait decades, up to 50 years, before it shows up and is diagnosed. These are preventable deaths. Yet, almost 40,000 people die from one of these diseases each year in the United States alone.

Even Bob Sussman, the former EPA Deputy Administrator, states the “EPA’s incomplete and un-protective risk evaluation is a big step back from the decades of high-quality work by government scientists on this extremely dangerous carcinogen.” Sussman also serves as ADAO counsel.

While the US refuses to ban asbestos, nearly 70 countries have – including most industrialized nations. The US continues to import and use tons of raw asbestos every year.

What can be done?

A host of experts and advocates agree that this mineral – asbestos – is a preventable risk for everyone. Asbestos exposure can occur through many circumstances, including job sites, remodeling, old buildings, even makeup marketed to teen girls. As Reinstein states, “The evaluation, as proposed, fails to protect the public from this deadly and knowable threat. EPA continues to drag its feet and has repeatedly put chemical company concerns before protecting the public. We urge them to act, but we can’t afford to keep waiting, which is why we call on Congress to pass the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act (ARBAN).”

If this concerns you, contact your congressional representative and tell them you want this bill passed.

Talc Safety Topic of Congressional Hearings

By

Talc safety has been a concern for years. More recently, the clear possibility of asbestos contamination in talc has led to heightened concern about critical diseases, such as mesothelioma and ovarian cancer being caused by use of talc based products.  

Why is asbestos connected to talc safety?

Both talc and asbestos are minerals found in underground mines. Geologists know that these two minerals are often found intertwined in veins, making cross-contamination a real risk.

Talc everyday uses

Aside from baby powder, talc is used in a wide range of cosmetics for its moisture absorption and silkiness. Recently asbestos was found in four cosmetic products from Claire’s and Justice – both catering to makeup for children. It was also used for feminine hygiene, crayons, children’s toys, chewing gum, and a plethora of common products. There is no safe level of asbestos as its microscopic fibers can infiltrate lungs and harbor the potential for developing into lung cancer, asbestosis, and the deadly mesothelioma for fifty years or more.

Congressional hearings on talc safety

Concerns recently grew when the FDA found asbestos in several products, including baby powder. An initial hearing was conducted in March of 2019 over cosmetic talcum powder’s safety. This hearing specifically focused on talc’s connection with ovarian cancer.

The second hearing was launched when the FDA found asbestos in a sample of Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) baby powder in October 2019. Under consideration may be the use of warning labels or regulation of talc products.

Congress speaks

The hearing questioned the testing methods used.  William Longo, founder of Materials Analytical Service, stated, “Independent labs throughout the country and over the course of several decades have documented the presence of asbestos in consumer talc products, including Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder. The methods used in the past and today by the industry are not sensitive enough to detect trace levels of asbestos.”

While Longo once denied the presence of asbestos in talc, he stated there is now more sensitive testing. He also received access to thousands of internal J & J documents showing their knowledge of small amounts of asbestos in their talc for decades. There is no safe level, yet J&J kept this information from regulators and the public. Protecting the J&J brand and the public trust of their products was their focus. They now have paid out billions of dollars in thousands of lawsuits with thousands more in process.

The House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy tried to convince the CEO of Johnson & Johnson, Alex Gorsky, to testify at the hearing. He turned down the invitation.

Charles M. Elson, director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, said Gorsky’s refusal made sense as the “CEO and his advisers probably figured that the downside was greater to testifying than not.”

Finally, One Less Worry for 9/11 Responders

By

With passage in the House and Senate of a 9/11 first responders bill, and signed by the president, there is finally one less worry for 9/11 responders. This legislation is named for three responders who gave their lives in the aftermath of 9/11. It is now known as “Never Forget the Heroes: James Zadroga, Ray Pfeifer, and Luis Alvarez Permanent Authorization of the September 11 Victim Compensation Act.”

The men behind the bill’s name

Zadroga, a N.Y.C. officer, in 2006 was the first to die. He passed due to a respiratory disease brought on by his exposure to the clouds of toxic particles. Next was Pfeifer, who died after fighting cancer for eight years in 2017. He worked for eight months digging through the rubble that had been the towers. Finally, this past June 29th, Alvarez, a NYPD detective, died just weeks after testifying and fighting for permanent healthcare and compensation for those physically affected by the 9/11 aftermath. He spent three months on ground zero giving aid for the recovery efforts that led to 69 rounds of chemotherapy. Each of these men fought for ongoing healthcare for first responders.

One less worry

While relieved the fight for healthcare is over, the 18 years of fighting for assistance leaves many exhausted. Most survivors are too sick to continue trips to Washington fighting for additional funding. This bill assures them that their health problems are covered until 2092, allowing them to concentrate on their medical treatments and their families instead of repeated trips to D.C.

The people who never gave up

The firebrand who famously advocated for this bill was Jon Stewart of the “Daily Show”. He brought attention of this appalling situation to the public as well as congress. An original co-sponsor of the 9/11 Victims Fund, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, was very vocal in her pursuit of justice for these men and women. Rep. Maloney vowed to wear a FDNY firefighter’s jacket, beginning in February, until the bill was passed in her effort to publicize the urgency. Other Democrats who were crucial to the passage were Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, Senators from New York. Republicans named were Representatives Chris Collins, Mark Meadows, and Deb Fischer. John Feal, a first responder who suffered a crushed foot at ground zero and an outspoken advocate said, “I’m going to ask my team now to put down your swords and pick up your rakes and go home, and hopefully, we don’t have to come back.”

Only two senators did not vote yes: Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Both affirm they support healthcare for survivors, but wanted money set aside to fund the bill.

The human statistics

Over 70,000 people applied to the program when it was known as the Zadroga Act. At this time, more than 32,000 enrollees now have developed respiratory or digestive diseases – and 705 people have died from them. Cancer is also an outcome, with close to 9,000 first responders afflicted and 600 who succumbed to the disease. Among the many toxins encountered in the dust and debris was asbestos. This mineral has no safe level of exposure and is known to cause many diseases, including the deadly mesothelioma. Experts reviewing these statistics warn that the deaths from the aftermath will exceed the 3,000 people who died that horrible day and may have already exceeded that number.

Sponsor statement before passage

Sen. Kristen Gillibrand who was chief sponsor of the bill, said, “Our 9/11 first responders are sick and dying, and too many of them have spent too much of their precious time left fighting to convince Congress to pass the 9/11 VCF bill. This legislation has strong bipartisan support and the votes in the Senate and the House to pass this bill as soon as it comes to the floor. This all comes down to political will and whether Congress is truly willing to ‘never forget’ the heroes of 9/11.”

Finally, one less worry for 9/11 responders.

Suit Filed on the EPA to Strengthen Asbestos Regulations

By

Eleven attorneys general covering the District of Colombia and ten states went to court with a suit filed on the EPA for more stringent asbestos regulations. Though the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a restrictive rule on asbestos in April, they did not ban the deadly substance. The suit filed would force the EPA to proclaim a new, and more thorough, asbestos reporting rule after the EPA denied a petition to gather more data on asbestos.

Asbestos danger leads to suit filed on EPA
No safe level of exposure

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a release addressing the suit filed on the EPA, “It is widely acknowledged that asbestos is one of the most harmful and toxic chemicals known to humankind. While it’s troubling that we must once again take the EPA to court to force the agency to do its job, we won’t pull any punches. There’s too much at stake to let the EPA ignore the danger that deadly asbestos poses to our communities.”

Dangers of asbestos

Asbestos was widely used in a multitude of situations, including construction, mining, shipbuilding, and fireproofing. Use of the material was mostly banned by the end of the 1970s. However, it still exists in homes, businesses, schools, and commercial buildings constructed before 1980. There is no safe use, so proponents for a complete ban have been active for many years.

While its benefits for insulation and fireproofing made it a prime component of construction, its tiny fibers – when disturbed – are easily inhaled by workers or anyone in the vicinity. Asbestos still kills thousands of people each year – some who were exposed 50 years ago due to its long latency period. This can show up in mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis.

The April EPA rule

This rule was the first EPA action on asbestos use in 30 years, but critics claim that it could still allow some asbestos products to be reintroduced in the market. Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention stated, “If there is any unreasonable risk, the EPA will regulate, and our regulation could take the form of a ban.” But Democrats want to see action – meaning a full ban, not more rules that they perceive as loopholes to asbestos use.

Melanie Benesh, legislative attorney at the Environmental Working Group, wrote, “This new rule makes it more difficult for industry to resume some abandoned uses of asbestos, but that is a half-step at best.” An outright ban “is the only way the public can trust industry will never again be able to use this dangerous material that has literally killed tens of thousands of Americans.”

States in suit filed on the EPA

The ten states suing include: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

Sex Discrimination in the Workplace – An Ongoing Fight

By

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was enacted to prevent sex discrimination in employee wages. Signed into law on June 10, 1963, the Equal Pay Act was part of John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier. After signing the bill into law, President Kennedy remarked: “While much remains to be done to achieve full equality of economic opportunity – for the average woman worker earns only 60 percent of the average wage for men – this legislation is a significant step forward.”

As an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Equal Pay Act was part of the same legal framework that establishes federal wage and hour laws.

Equal Pay Act provisions

The EPA provides that the employer may not pay lower wages to employees of one gender than it pays to employees of the other gender, employees within the same establishment for equal work at jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions.

Significantly, the EPA does not contain an intent requirement within the statutory language. Liability under the EPA is established by meeting the three elements of the prima facie case:

1. different wages are paid to employees of the opposite sex;
2. the employees perform substantially equal work on jobs requiring skill, effort, and responsibility; and
3. the jobs are performed under similar working conditions

If an employee can establish these elements, then the EPA imposes strict liability on employers who engage in wage discrimination on the basis of gender.

1972 broadening of the Equal Pay Act

In 1972, the Education Amendments to the EPA broadened the Act to cover executives, outside salespeople and professionals. This short Bat Girl video from the Department of Labor illustrates the issue.

Current sex discrimination for equal pay status

Despite the progress of the last half-century since passage of the EPA, there hasn’t been much improvement in the last decade in closing the gap further between genders. The most recent research shows women in the United States still make only 80%, on average, of their male counterparts. A host of factors are attributed to the slowing of improvement on this issue.