Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Diesel Dangers: Mining Companies Get First Look at Government Cancer Study

4 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size

A long-delayed government epidemiological study of possible ties between diesel exhaust and lung cancer in miners may finally be published this fall -- but only after a mining industry group, represented by the Washington lobbying powerhouse Patton Boggs, finishes a pre-publication review of the study's drafts.

Eighteen years in the making and eagerly awaited by public health officials, the cancer study evaluates more than 12,000 current and former workers from eight mines that produce commodities other than coal. Its goal is to determine whether ultrafine diesel particulate matter -- a component of exhaust from diesel-powered machinery -- poses a serious hazard to miners in confined spaces.

In a development some experts find alarming, however, Patton Boggs lawyer and partner Henry Chajet, representing a mining industry alliance, the Methane Awareness Resource Group Diesel Coalition, accused the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of "unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably" depriving mine owners of an advance look at research that could impact their operations.

Providing the latest twist in a nearly 15-year court battle, Chajet's persuasive court filings led to a federal judge's terse, two-page order in June requiring the two Department of Health and Human Services institutes to turn over research to the business coalition's scientific experts 90 days prior to their public release. The same judge had issued a similar order in 2001.

See more investigative journalism from the Center for Public Integrity at

"I think it's outrageous and dangerous," said Francesca Grifo, director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It's not a fair fight under any circumstances. The public interest community is so out-funded by the private community, and then on top of that they're getting these materials in advance," she said. "They can spin anything they want any way they want."

Despite critics' charges that Chajet has endangered workers by challenging regulations proposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) -- while attacking the science behind such regulations -- the preview was a significant victory for the veteran crisis manager and litigator, who has defended companies in chemical exposure cases, mine disasters, explosions, fires, and construction accidents for more than three decades.

In this clash with the government dating to 1996, Chajet has been a formidable advocate for companies that mine salt, limestone, and an ore used in soda ash, including General Chemical Industrial Products Inc., Cargill Inc., Detroit Salt Co. LLC, Rohm and Haas Co.'s Morton Salt, FMC Corp., and Mosaic Company.

"People turn to us when they want expertise and they want good lawyering," Chajet explained to journalism nonprofit Center for Public Integrity. "There are times when problems occur in any business and any enterprise, and we've been honored to help people try to resolve those problems so they can move forward." (According to 2010 disclosure forms filed with the Senate, Chajet was registered to lobby on behalf of General Chemical Corp. and the Methane Awareness Resource Group.)

Celeste Monforton, an assistant research professor at George Washington University who worked at both the occupational and mine safety agencies, has followed the long-running dispute between government health officials and industry interests over diesel. She calls Chajet's challenges "fear-mongering."

"He understands the limitations of science and how to convince people that these agencies are out of control. He really has an appreciation for our dysfunctional regulatory system and has been masterful at capitalizing on that dysfunction," she said.

Monforton believes the mining industry group's demand to see drafts of the cancer study is part of a campaign to delay or discredit the $9.4 million scientific inquiry. "They've done everything they can to obstruct the study," she said.

"Government researchers do studies all the time and publish them in peer-reviewed journals. This is the only example I know of where an industry group gets access to the information before anybody else does," Monforton said. "I think as soon as the study is published [industry consultants] will already have another paper prepared that will dissect it and explain away any risks that are identified."

The study will be published in the "Annals of Occupational Hygiene," a peer-reviewed British journal, after the court-ordered 90-day review period ends next month.

Representatives of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's NIOSH, and the National Cancer Institute, citing ongoing litigation, declined to comment for this story.

Industry may seek more government documents

Chajet said the diesel coalition's only goal is to provide the subjects of the cancer study -- both workers and mining companies -- with details on how the study was conducted and its results. Even after surrendering edited versions of its unpublished drafts, the government refused to turn over some internal correspondence and raw data. "Our scientists are reviewing what's been given to us," Chajet said, "but we are seriously considering going back [to court] to try to obtain the rest of the documentation." He said the coalition will report its findings to NIOSH and Congress.

"For whatever purpose -- whether for litigation, the establishment of public policy, or the establishment of regulatory policy -- our goal is to get the information and open the door and let the participants and the public see what the conclusions are based on the science," Chajet said.

But some critics suspect an ulterior motive. Industry scientists, they say, could do their own analysis of the government data and produce papers that minimize the risks posed by diesel. "The bottom line is that this is scientific information in a draft form, and to have that released just provides a superhighway for industry to manipulate those research results," Grifo said.

In arguing for a diesel exposure limit in 2001, the mine safety administration said that diesel particles spewed by front-end loaders, generators, air compressors, and other underground equipment could carry with them up to 1,800 other organic chemicals, including carcinogens. Median diesel concentrations in mines, it said, were up to 180 times higher than the average exposure in heavily polluted urban areas and eight times higher than in other workplaces.

"When there is uncontrolled diesel equipment in an underground mine, it is like working in the tailpipe of a city bus," said Mike Wright, health and safety director for the United Steelworkers, which represents 15,000 miners.

Monforton contends that Chajet sells his clients on the idea that "any characterization of a hazard -- particularly a chemical hazard -- is a potential liability" to them. His aim, she believes, is to "muck up the works" by challenging the science on toxic compounds such as diesel exhaust and, therefore, help companies fend off litigation or new government rules.

Chajet said he has no such motivation. "We have never conducted any work that put people at risk," he said. "Our clients are committed to protection of health and safety and the environment and are committed to policies that accomplish those goals."

Chajet, 59, has been practicing corporate defense law since 1976. At Patton Boggs, he has testified before Congress on workplace issues; his clients tend to be companies that find themselves in the crosshairs of OSHA and MSHA.

After a Kaiser Aluminum plant in Gramercy, La., blew up in 1999 -- injuring 29 workers, showering the neighborhood with residue, and prompting a spate of lawsuits -- Chajet and his legal team "resolved all investigations and enforcement actions, helped recover almost the entire financial loss, favorably resolved the tort actions, and recovered denied insurance proceeds to rebuild the plant," according to the Patton Boggs website. In a settlement with the government, Kaiser Aluminum and two of its managers paid more than $500,000 in fines.

In another notable industry win, OSHA in late 2009 said it would drop chemical exposure limits developed by a nonprofit professional group from hazard disclosure documents that employers are required to maintain. Chajet, representing a range of industries, had pushed for such a move, arguing that the limits -- designed to protect workers' health -- were developed in secret by "biased" scientists from the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Chajet spent a decade fighting the group in court to stop the government from using the organization's recommended exposure limits.

Delays and frustration

The epidemiological study of workers at so-named metal and nonmetal mines was launched in 1995 by the National Cancer Institute and NIOSH to build on studies that suggested a link between diesel and lung cancer in truck drivers and other workers exposed to diesel particulate matter. The study's results will offer a "state-of-the-art evaluation of diesel," said Kyle Steenland, a professor at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health and a former NIOSH epidemiologist. "It should provide a very important piece of information about whether diesel is a lung carcinogen. Unfortunately, it has been delayed and delayed for years. It's high time that the public and the scientific community get to see the results of this study."

The delays began in 1996, when the diesel coalition sued NIOSH, arguing that scientific panels established to review the study protocol were potentially biased. Over five years of legal tussling, an appeals court found only one minor violation by NIOSH: providing an advisory panel's charter to the wrong congressional committee. Nevertheless, in a 2001 order, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Haik directed government researchers to share drafts of the study with the House Education and Labor Committee prior to any public release and required that documents explaining the diesel study protocol go to the coalition along with the House committee.

Little of consequence happened after that until March of this year, when the researchers gave drafts of the soon-to-be-published study to the House committee but not to the diesel coalition. In April, Chajet asked Judge Haik to order the government to turn over the drafts to the coalition. The government unsuccessfully argued that releasing the drafts to the group would have constituted public disclosure, in violation of the judge's own 2001 order.

Some observers believe the fight over the cancer study may be a proxy for a bigger objective: Another mining industry challenge to an MSHA rule limiting diesel exhaust.

On Jan. 19, 2001, President Bill Clinton's last day in office, the mine safety administration proposed its first-ever exposure limit for diesel particulate matter in metal and nonmetal mines. The regulation, which was phased in, is designed to cap concentrations of the microscopic particles, which can work their way deep into the lungs. "Miners should not be required to serve as human guinea pigs in order to remove all doubts about the excess risks of [diesel] exposures," MSHA said at the time.

Although the industry challenged the diesel exposure limit -- which MSHA estimated would cost each mine, on average, a relatively paltry $128,000 per year to adopt -- the final version of the regulation took effect in 2008. Companies in the diesel coalition opposed it "because they don't think the science supported what MSHA did," Chajet said, adding that the quarrel over the cancer study has no connection to the MSHA standard. "This is not about a regulation," he said.

Of course, mining companies could in theory ask MSHA to roll back the diesel standard in the face of new scientific evidence, said J. Davitt McAteer, assistant secretary of labor for MSHA from 1993 to 2000. However, it's unlikely such an effort would succeed.

"That would be like finding out that tobacco smoke is actually good for you," McAteer said. "It's not a realistic outcome."

Jim Morris and Chris Hamby are staff writers with the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative news organization based in Washington, D.C.

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.


Filter by:

Tell that to the men who crank up every am and run their truck for 30 minute's Yes our Nabor's love showing off their truck's every morning!That's one of the reason's we have clean air macine's In every room !The Diesel from the exhaust has just about killed all my plan's and It's horrible to smell We've ask the man next door to cut It short!He just ignore's our crie's How would you like to get woke up at 4.00am In the morning?Oh so sorry He's living the American Dream We're living The American Night Mare Must be a Man thing!

September 28 2010 at 8:18 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

This investigation is vulnerable to much junk science. Mining is a very hazardous occupation, perhaps second to fishing, and diesel particulates are only one of the potential risks. In the days when my ancestors came to America as indentured laborers to pay off their transatlantic transportation out of starvation, the hazards were much more immediate and severe. Fortunately, some of my ancestors were lazy enough to invent machines rather than simply work harder with pick and shovel. That inventive genius is what has advanced America's industrial economy. Overregulation can ironically stifle the prosperity it seeks to assure.

September 27 2010 at 8:07 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply


September 27 2010 at 2:49 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply

Francesca Grifo was quoted as saying, "The bottom line is that this is scientific information in a draft form, and to have that released just provides a superhighway for industry to manipulate those research results." The premise that industry representatives looking at the data might “manipulate” it to their advantage means that the original government authors may also have distorted it. The story goes on to say “the government refused to turn over some internal correspondence and raw data.” What are they afraid of if the data are clear and their interpretation is correct? The assumption that all government workers are unbiased is fatally flawed. In science, all hypotheses and all data should be subjected to critical review. This is especially true as new information becomes available, because it may change earlier interpretations. As for the other rants about hydrocarbons and fossil fuels, this study was not about coal miners. Remember that the fuel before petroleum and coal was wood – bad news for tree huggers. Wind blows at night, and solar shines in the day, but neither is reliable (think flipping a switch). Blocking the sun with solar panels (or roads and roofs) prevents oxygen production through photosynthesis. Solve the energy crisis and get lower oxygen levels as a consequence – bad idea, for breathers everywhere. Wind mills kill birds – unfortunate. I’ll bet you won’t accept nuclear. Increased carbon dioxide is making crops more productive, making us able to feed more people. Climates have changed throughout geological history, and will again. Whether this change is “accelerated” by humans or not does not change that glaciers have, and will, melt. (Much of the northern U.S. and all of Canada were covered and cleared multiple times without human interference.) If people don’t like global warming, why do so many people retire to Florida and Arizona? Wouldn’t you feel better if the IPCC scientists had shared all of their data and quieted the critics three years ago – assuming that sharing that data would have, in fact, quieted the critics. Remember, not all government scientists are unbiased.

September 27 2010 at 2:21 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply

This reads as these articles always do. OSHA and the MSHA along with the National Cancer Institute try to find the cause so the workers can get some protection. Along comes the scheming lawyers and Judges on the their payroll and they overturn and waterdown the findings so they can enrich themselves and the Mine Owners and to Hell with the Workers who are barely getting by anyway and could not afford to fight the battle for safer working conditions. Our Government exists so the Lawyers can make new laws that benefit themselves. They could care less about you unless you have a lot of money and then they will try everything they can to get it from you including filing frivilous lawsuits unti they bleed you dry. Here is Judge who should be removed from the bench. This group has no more right to the research than they do to walking into your bank and taking all of your money without your permission. How long will the people allow this kind of inhuman treatment to continue. Vote every Lawyer who has been elected to represent you out of office and we may eventually get some change. Shakespeare said it right when he said "The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers".

September 27 2010 at 2:21 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply

This is outrageous pandering to the corporate interests who consistently put their financial status far ahead of safety and workers' rights and compensation. That said, I wonder why I even bother commenting, as such strategies seem more the rule than the exception, as we continue allowing (relatively) short-term benefits for the 'haves' to trump the longer-term benefits of all the rest of us. So far as I know, no one can eat money.

September 27 2010 at 2:08 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

If you need further proof ,corporations run the government here it is.Starting with uncle Ronnie,the businessmans friend.corporation spokesmen and officials were appointed as heads of regulatory agencies.This also explains why government gets a bad rap for running the government poorly.These pro business officials have covered up findings of the agencies whose job it is to regulate the businesses and report hazards to human beings.I am sure after reading the government report the coal mine owners will tell the government what parts not to release and will spin the rest into insignificance.Since Reagan concern for human life has taken a severe nose dive to profits.

September 27 2010 at 12:36 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

Its really sad that we can no longer trust Goverment to do their job. Where we are now Lobbiest and Huge Corporations control everything. I had a Great Uncle who was pratically a Father to me that died from Lung Cancer. We have zinc mines here and its a small Town and a major source of employment. At one time they were all Union and workers could refuse to work in area's they felt to be unsafe or to smokey. The mines shut down for about 2 years then came back non union. Workers were afraid to say anything for fear of being out of work again so they worked in the smoke, they worked in area's where there was bad ground and where there was bad ventilation. His father worked his entire life in them and died at the age of 64 which was the same age my Uncle Passed as well. I don't think our goverment wants us to live to draw Social Security but maybe a couple of years or so and now many of us will not draw it at all. The talk is to do away with it all together and since we see how badly Goverment has handled it would be a goos idea. How ever I wouldn't want a program that was yet again handled by Goverment and forced to pay into it. That would mean that it would be left to the individual to prepare for retirement and how many will do that. And what if at a young age you become disabled and didn't have enough time to save enough for retirement. We have become worse to the people than many third world Countries. I find it very sad that the Goverment would take funds paid in some 40 years and just use it. If they would do that what wouldn't they do for Big Business and it seems that is what controls our Country today.

September 27 2010 at 11:50 AM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
Mr Wonderful

Lobbying should be outlawed,it leads to corruption and payouts to politicians for voying certain ways despite what the public wants or what is right.

September 27 2010 at 11:24 AM Report abuse +9 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Mr Wonderful's comment

Lobbying also negates the democratic values of the American political system designed by our founding fathers. The "Golden Rule" is to do unto others what you would want them to do unto you. NOT "He with the gold makes the rules".

September 27 2010 at 2:35 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

I have to wonder what is wrong with giving the people you are investigating the evidence that you have against them? I thought with almost any civil or criminal proceeding that you are allowed to see the charges and evidence against you. This is a fundamental right of our system. Yet here you have people (almost predicatbly on the left) complaining about a judge requiring the government to advise the methodology and results of a study that is being used to potentially sue mines. It is scary to me that anyone would support the government being able to go after any person or group and not give them the legal rights to which they are entitled.

September 27 2010 at 11:01 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to rosematt's comment

It would be unusual for the mining groups to see the results before they are published. The norm is to allow the publication and the peer reviews to be finished before litigation begins. Their involvement at this stage will only interfere with the scientific process. They will have more than enough opportunities to defend themselves, although if they get involved now, they'll manipulate the outcome. The motive is blatant, always has been. They are protecting themselves from far more than litigation.

September 27 2010 at 11:38 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

They have the right to defend them selves when the report is published. Like always!

September 27 2010 at 2:36 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>