Stand firm on Libby asbestos fix

Inter Lake editorial

The asbestos saga in Libby reaches a critical point next week as the U.S. Senate considers the merits of the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act.

Whether or not the landmark legislation can live up to its name and deliver the fairness it strives to create for asbestos victims remains to be seen. The bill creates a $140 billion trust fund from which people with varying levels of asbestos disease would be compensated if they meet the criteria. Questions remain whether that amount of money will be enough to fairly compensate all asbestos victims.

Adding a sunset provision to the bill, as some have suggested, would make sense. That way, claimants could regain their right to sue asbestos companies for damages if the trust fund ran dry.

But it's the criteria for eligibility, and more specifically, special protection for Libby asbestos victims, that has created a political maelstrom. Some lawmakers don't want the provision in the bill that's become known as the Libby Fix. They argue that Libby victims shouldn't get preferential treatment, since the ore processed at the W.R. Grace vermiculite mine in Libby was shipped all over the country.

Libby is, however, the "eye of the storm," asbestos victim Les Skramstad told Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., during a weekend video conference. He's absolutely right. Libby is the epicenter of asbestos exposure in the U.S., and no one should begrudge those victims the measure of coverage they need to live out their lives under the cloud of pain and suffering from asbestos disease.

We're glad to see Sens. Burns and Max Baucus, D-Mont. pulling together to restore a complete Libby Fix to the asbestos bill. Still missing from the Libby provision is a crucial diffusion capacity test that measures the lungs' efficiency in transferring oxygen into the bloodstream. Medical experts say this test is a particularly important indicator of the severity of disease in Libby victims who were exposed to tremolite asbestos. Tremolite, with its long, needle-sharp fibers, is much more toxic than its cousin, chrysotile asbestos, the more common form found in building materials.

Without this crucial test, it is estimated that the bill would disqualify 40 percent of the Libby victims who would otherwise qualify for immediate compensation. That is unacceptable.

Unless this provision for Libby victims is restored to the asbestos bill, our senators should vote against the bill.

The tradeoff in this "fairness" legislation is supposed to be adequate health care for victims in exchange for the asbestos industry's immunity from all lawsuits. If victims don't qualify for compensation and lose their right to sue, where's the fairness?

For the sake of Libby victims, a faulty asbestos bill would be worse than none at all.