InsideEPA, Adam Sarvana
Published May 28, 2007
Nominees to EPA’s yet-to-be-formed asbestos risk advisory panel arecoming under fire from activists and some lawyers for their ties to industry and their role in assisting defendants in health claims litigation, complicating the selection process for a group that will advise EPA on how to properly assess the controversial substance’s potential inhalation cancer risk.
An activist with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) -- which voiced its opposition to panel nominee Dennis Paustenbach in a May 16 letter to EPA -- says the campaign against certain nominees is part of a larger effort to highlight industry-friendly scientists being appointed to outwardly impartial research and advisory panels. “We want to say
there’s a bigger problem here by highlighting these individual cases,”the source says. “Conflict of interest used to be pretty noteworthy, andnow it happens every two or three months.” The letter is available on InsideEPA.com.
One lawyer familiar with the issue says the mission of the panel itself is also questionable because the risks of asbestos have already been widely assessed by multiple health and environmental organizations, such as the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. “Why are we looking at something we’ve known since
1930 can kill people?” the source asks, adding, “Industry’s strategy has always been to say there’s more doubt. Why spend taxpayer money on [assessing] the same . . . substances” when the risks are already
understood?
The EWG letter says Paustenbach, who leads the risk analysis firm ChemRisk, is “leading a science-for-hire campaign to roll back protections from chrysotile asbestos. . . . It is absurd to think that he will bring any sort of objectivity to the scientific review process on chrysotile carcinogenicity. He has an overwhelming financial interest in only one outcome of this chrysotile review, that which will benefit his clients in the asbestos industry, and is without question unfit to
serve on the Panel.”
Paustenbach did not return a call seeking comment.
In all, the EWG source says, the nominations of approximately one-third of the 65 candidates on the panel’s so-called short list have been challenged in comments by lawyers or other activists concerned about candidates’ roles in providing legal assistance to potentially liable asbestos industry members or in conducting industry-funded studies on asbestos’ health risks. The source could not share details because the
Science Advisory Board (SAB), of which the panel will be part, does not make the comments publicly available due to privacy regulations. The comment period closed May 24.
The formation of the panel was announced last August by SAB, but the panel has not yet been finalized pending public comment and conflict of interest assessments of the 65 candidates. So far, no members of the short list have been asked to disclose potential conflicts of interest or any connections that would undermine their impartiality, SAB and EPA sources say, but will be asked to do so later this year when public
comments are shared and discussed with the candidates. An SAB panel typically comprises 12 to 15 members. The SAB provides expert advice and analysis to EPA on a broad range of scientific and research issues.
The asbestos group will assess and comment on a new risk model being developed by the Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response (OSWER) that would allow the agency to develop site-specific cancer assessments for Superfund sites contaminated with asbestos based on the dimensions and mineral make-up of the site’s asbestos fibers (Risk Policy Report, May8, p1).
Assessing asbestos’ cancer risks has become an EPA priority because of the controversy over Superfund sites such as the one in Libby, MT, where asbestos from vermiculite mining operations is highly dispersed in the environment. EPA’s current cancer risk assessment for asbestos is primarily based on data relating to chrysotile asbestos -- only one of several types of the substance -- and does not differentiate between different fiber types or sizes.
An OSWER source says thinner, longer asbestos fibers are believed to be more carcinogenic, explaining for instance that a type known as amphibole asbestos may be more potent than chrysotile asbestos. Due to the scientific uncertainties surrounding the issue, the SAB Web site says the advisory panel “will provide technical advice on the proposed [OSWER] methodology to estimate potential cancer risk from inhalation
exposure to asbestos.”
EPA officials say that, because the model will help determine the
carcinogenic potential of asbestos at a specific site, the model could result in cancer risk estimates either more or less stringent than the existing general assessment in the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database, depending on the characteristics of the asbestos at each site. IRIS is EPA’s database of chemical toxicological profiles and is used to inform regulatory decisions by state and federal agencies, such as setting air and soil cleanup standards.
The model likely will not be ready for the panel’s consideration until October or November, according to one SAB source, who says that schedule means the board has enough time to consider potential conflicts of interest and form a qualified, impartial panel. “We’re confident we’ll be able to achieve the right panel,” the source says. “Whether we’re concerned or not isn’t the question. We have lots of time to come up with a credible panel.” However, “if we found out we don’t have enough
[impartial candidates] we’d have to reopen the process.” -- Adam Sarvana
