A battle in the House Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee over legislation that would place an outright ban on asbestos in certain products is sparking questions about whether such a restriction is feasible. Subcommittee Chairman Albert Wynn (D-Md.), who is leaving office in June, is pushing to keep a Senate exception that would allow up to 1 percent asbestos by weight in certain products out of House legislation. His committee is developing a bill that would ban asbestos in those products entirely. Sen. Patty Murray(D-Wash.) told E&E Daily she had to include the 1 percent exception in order to convince the Senate to pass S. 742 in October. That bill would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act, directing EPA to issue a ban on asbestos-containing materials. Because the bill uses the Toxic Substances Control Act's definition of asbestos-containing materials, products containing less than 1 percent asbestos by weight are not included in the ban. Murray said she had not seen the subcommittee print yet but believes it would eventually be possible to get to a zero percent limit under the language in her legislation. 'Mere rationality' "There is no safe threshold for asbestos," Wynn said at a February hearing. He argued a 1 percent safety standard cited was developed more than 30 years ago and was related to detection limits for the analytical methods available at that time (E&E Daily, Feb. 29). But a zero-tolerance goal for asbestos will be difficult to achieve, said Chris Hahn, executive director of the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation. "Asbestos is dangerous, and any asbestos fiber floating around anywhere can present a danger to public health, so perfect legislation would say we are going to ban every single asbestos fiber and ... all the asbestos out there in the attics of 35 million homes, in products and in building materials," he said. "My position is that's probably not realistic, so we should talk about what can really be achieved as opposed to pure black and white terms." U.S. EPA also says there isn't a safe threshold for asbestos. Hahn said he appreciated the efforts of everyone pushing for the strictest language possible. "The big question is simply what is possible, and we don't really know, because we don't know what negotiation has gone on between industry and the folks representing our view," Hahn said. "There's a bit of a partisan Senate and House, and one side is pushing our view of 'let's clean up and ban asbestos,' and one side is saying we have to be concerned about business." Hank Cox, a spokesman for the National Association of Manufacturers, said the 1 percent exception is not an option. "Asbestos, in the final analysis, is one of the most common minerals in the world," Cox said. "It's everywhere, and you can find minute traces of it in just about anything, so unless you're going to declare everything to be a hazard, you have to recognize the reality." Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), the subcommittee's ranking member, said he is inclined to support a 1 percent threshold for asbestos, citing the threat of lawsuits against manufacturers if a lower standard is installed. "Mere rationality demands you have the minimum level at which legal positions don't kick in, otherwise we'd just spend the rest of our lives suing each other and there'd never be an answer to it," Cox said. Research funding Federal funding for medical research on mesothelioma is imperative, Hahn said. Mesothelioma is a form of cancer caused by asbestos exposure that can affect victims' lungs, chest, abdomen and heart. Symptoms, which include shortness of breath, coughing and chest pain, may not show up for decades following exposure. Hahn lauded Murray's bill, which establishes a $50 million network of treatment centers for asbestos-related disease and require a public awareness campaign on asbestos exposure. S. 742 also requires the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the National Academy of Sciences and EPA to conduct a health study on mesothelioma and calls for the establishment of a national mesothelioma registry (E&E Daily, Oct. 5, 2007). Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) has introduced a similar bill, H.R. 3393, in the House. "We need something to pass," Hahn said. "We have been working on this effort for seven years, and we can't go another seven years." He said the prevalence of materials containing asbestos in homes, schools and workplaces throughout the United States underscores the need for medical research. Between 400 and 1,000 tons of asbestos exploded over lower Manhattan and New Jersey after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to Hahn. "Those exposures have already happened and are going to continue to happen," he said. "Since we started [this effort with Murray] seven years ago, I personally have had to say goodbye to many meso patients who have died in the meantime. I don't want to wait [another] seven years." EPA banned asbestos in the United States in 1989, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the rule in 1991. Only six products containing asbestos are currently banned in the United States: flooring felt; roll board; corrugated, commercial and specialty paper; and new uses of asbestos in products that have not historically contained it. The European Union banned asbestos in 2005. More than 43,000 U.S. citizens have died of asbestos-related diseases since 1979, according to an Environmental Working Group study.