Fix flawed asbestos testing

If he gets the job, here's the first order of business for Dave Lauriski, who has been nominated by President Bush to oversee the Mine Safety and Health Administration:

Change the rules that prevent modern technology from being used by his agency to determine the presence of asbestos fibers.

The method now used by the MSHA -- and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (see today's Letters to the Editor) -- is not adequate to determine the presence of the fibers, according to reviews released this week by the U.S. Department of Labor and the Environmental Protection Agency.

That review was triggered by a 1999 Post-Intelligencer investigation by Andrew Schneider, who documented hundreds of deaths and asbestos-related illnesses in Libby, Mont., site of a vermiculite mine operated by the W.R. Grace Co., and by subsequent P-I investigations that detected small amounts of asbestos-like fibers in crayons as well as potentially dangerous levels of exposure to asbestos by brake mechanics.

However, tests of the suspect fibers by various laboratories turned up widely varying results because different methods are used to look for it. This confused, inaccurate approach has potential life-and-death consequences for workers and consumers. It can no longer be tolerated.

The U.S. Bureau of Mines lists more than 100 mineral fibers as asbestos-like fibers, yet because of lobbying by asbestos and stone industries, the government regulates only six. The rationale for that policy must be reviewed.

Moreover, OSHA is restricted to using phase contrast microscopy, which means that agency relies on a method that magnifies fiber samples by only 400 to 450 times. EPA, the Defense Department and other agencies use transmission electron microscopy, a more accurate method that magnifies samples by as much as 1 million times.

There is no excuse for regulatory policies that deliberately prevent government agencies charged with protecting human health from using the tools needed to carry out their charge.

However, prospects for change are bleak. The Bush administration so far has behaved as a handmaiden to the mining industry. It remains to be seen if Lauriski, who runs a mining consulting firm and is chairman of the Utah Board of Oil, Gas and Mining, will be disposed to fight for the needed changes if he is confirmed for the job.

In addition, the nomination of John Graham to head of the White House Office of Management and Budget's powerful but little known Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs raises doubts that asbestos regulation improvements will be forthcoming even if Lauriski recommends them. Graham would have to sign off on any changes in asbestos sampling rules and standards.

Graham runs the controversial Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, largely financed by industry, and has been an ardent critic of government regulation and safety standards.

Of course, if the Bush administration won't act responsibly on asbestos, Congress surely can -- and surely must.