Following a national trend, asbestos-related deaths in Maine are on the rise, but compensation to victims and their families may be threatened by federal legislation.

A recent national study by the nonprofit, nonpartisan organization Environmental Working Group shows deaths here rose from 10 in 1980 to more than 40 in 2000. Over the same period, according to the study, nationwide deaths related to asbestos rose from about 1,000 to about 4,000.

Though the mortality figures are not as impressive as those from colon cancer or heart disease, the increase is significant for at least two reasons. First, illness related to asbestos exposure can take decades to develop into a diagnosable condition, and even longer to cause the death of its victims, so the upward trend is likely to continue.

Second, since 1998, when changes were made in federal tracking of mesothelioma – a lethal cancer that develops only in people who have been exposed to asbestos – reported cases have nearly doubled, a troubling indicator that earlier cases have been significantly underreported.

In addition to the always fatal mesothelioma, people who have been exposed to asbestos are likely to develop other lung cancers as well as the trademark condition called asbestosis, in which asbestos fibers lodge in the lungs and cause irreversible, progressive scarring and thickening of the lung tissue.

Even a relatively brief exposure can seed a fatal respiratory condition that may go undetected for many years. There is no effective treatment for asbestosis.

Health experts estimate that more than 100,000 Americans will die of asbestos-related illnesses in the coming decade, as people exposed to the substance years ago fall ill. And, since asbestos continues to be used in manufacturing building materials, automotive parts, electronics and many other applications, and since it lingers as insulation in many older buildings, worker exposure to the dangerous material will continue indefinitely, or until the material is banned.

Most at risk are workers in the plants that transform natural minerals from their native state into the characteristic light, fibrous, fire-retardant material. The second-most-frequent exposure is from “take-home contamination” – dust on clothes and other items brought into the home from the workplace. The third most vulnerable are public school teachers, whose buildings were routinely fireproofed with asbestos.

In Maine, schools, hospitals, shipyards, paper mills, warehouses, railroad yards, textile mills, power plants and many other sites continue to be potent sources of asbestos exposure.

More than 700,000 lawsuits have been brought against the companies that manufacture asbestos itself or use it in other products or processes. But Republican-sponsored legislation pending before the U.S. Senate would prevent such lawsuits, establishing instead an industry-supported trust fund for claimants who meet certain medical criteria.

Supporters of the measure say it will provide more timely compensation to those who need the money most while protecting businesses from filing for bankruptcy. Dozens of large and small companies have already reorganized or closed, citing economic losses from individual and class action suits related to asbestos exposure. Supporters of the trust fund model point out that these bankrupt companies are often unable to make payments to victims as ordered.

But critics argue the bill is designed primarily to get big business off the hook, including subsidiaries of Halliburton Corp., the far-reaching enterprise formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. That protection would come at the expense of fair compensation to victims and their families, while allowing the companies that have knowingly injured their workers to carry on business as usual.

Critics also charge that the bankruptcy claims filed by Halliburton subsidiaries and other companies rarely result in a company going out of business, but provide a smokescreen for reorganization and protection of at-risk corporate assets.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is expected to emerge from the Judiciary Committee by the end of this month and be heard by the full Senate.

Michael Tucker, a spokesman for the Committee to Protect Victims of Mesothelioma, said the legislation fails to establish a mechanism for tracking people who have been exposed to asbestos but have not yet become ill. Also at issue are the size of the proposed compensation fund – now set at $114 billion – and the amount of the individual awards, capped in the proposal at $1 million per claim.

Tucker said Maine’s two Republican senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, are being “strongly targeted” for their support from both sides of the issue.

Snowe and Collins cautiously support the idea of the trust fund proposal because it promises more rapid payments and would limit economic damage to companies, their offices report.

“Senator Snowe hopes a compromise can be brokered so that these victims can get the support they deserve,” said Antonia Ferrier in Snowe’s office.

“Senator Collins feels that the current legal system is preventing many asbestos victims from being compensated for their injuries in a fair and timely manner,” said Collins spokeswoman Jen Burita. “That’s why she supports the concept behind a trust fund to provide more assistance for those who need it most. … In addition, a trust fund would make compensation available even if a company has gone bankrupt.” Burita added that the fund also would eliminate the “exorbitant legal fees” garnered by the lawyers prosecuting the suits.

The Environmental Working Group’s study was funded in part by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Association spokesman Carlton Carl said Tuesday that the trust fund will create major “windfalls” for many corporations that already have settled liability cases. For example, he said, Halliburton has agreed to pay $4.3 billion in asbestos settlements. But if the trust fund were established as proposed, the most Halliburton would have to pay would be $1 billion. The Honeywell Corp. would save $1.5 billion and the W.R. Grace Corp. – infamous for its role in the Woburn, Mass., environmental contamination case made famous in the book and movie “A Civil Action” – would save about $1.7 billion, according to Carl.

“The people who deserve the fairest treatment here are those who were injured through no fault of their own, not the manufacturers and insurance companies that have been complicitous against them for over 100 years,” Carl said.

According to the Environmental Working Group’s Web site, asbestos exposure has been an acknowledged health issue since the early 1900s. By 1918, some insurance companies were refusing to pay health care claims of people exposed on the job because of the “presumed health-injurious conditions” inherent in the workplace, and one prominent insurance company advised attorneys that asbestosis was “incurable and usually results in total permanent disability followed by death.”

By the 1930s, the evidence against asbestos was so clearly documented that, despite its value as a heat shield and fire inhibitor, its use was in steep decline. World War II renewed the demand, notably in the shipbuilding industry. As it became an accepted presence in the shipyards, its use in other applications grew.

In 1989, the federal Environmental Protection Agency banned all uses of asbestos. But under pressure from manufacturers, the ban was repealed on the grounds that its economic consequences had not been fully explored. Today asbestos is manufactured at sites across the country and used in a wide variety of products and processes.

The Environmental Working Group report, with links to other sites of interest to victims of asbestos disease, can be read at www.ewg.org.