A Dangerous Lie
admin | Jul 27, 2006 | Comments 0
Worst risk management ever
Troyer, Sullivan, Maynard and Henningsen acknowledge that they do not know what the current risk of contracting an asbestos-related disease in Libby is, but they say the EPA has actively tried to convince the public that it’s minimal. As evidence of this claim, they point to two documents created by the EPA. One, a brochure entitled “Living with Vermiculite,” was mailed to every home in Libby in 2003; another, a letter, was mailed out in spring of 2005 to 600 people whose property had been cleaned by the EPA.
“Living with Vermiculite” purports to advise Libby residents on handling vermiculite and the asbestos it contains, telling them they can vacuum or wipe up small amounts of it. It also contains several claims about the danger of the asbestos remaining in Libby, using language that leaves the EPA plenty of wiggle room, including: “Even though contacting or working near vermiculite or other asbestos-containing materials can release asbestos fibers into the air, if such exposures are infrequent or for short durations, they will not likely significantly increase your risk of health effects.”
“It’s a dangerous lie,” Maynard says, noting that someday, when the science on Libby’s asbestos comes in, current notions created by the EPA may need to be dispelled. Maynard had specifically asked that the brochure be retracted several times, and discussed his concerns with OIG investigator Cory Rumple. During his phone call, Rumple told Maynard, “Clinton, you’ll be glad to know that ‘Living with Vermiculite’ was referred to as unconscionable,” by the scientists Rumple asked to review it.
Henningsen unleashes some of his harshest criticisms of the EPA in his critique of the letter sent by the EPA to Libby residents whose homes it had cleaned. He took one of the letters, which was sent to Libby residents Les and Norita Skramstad, and scanned it into a PDF file. He then highlighted certain passages and typed his criticisms of them in the margins. He prefaces his critique by writing that he has observed “a disturbing and harmful pattern by some at EPA…who are responsible for the WORST risk management work in the Superfund Program that I have ever witnessed during my career.”
He then takes the letter apart piece by piece. In one of his more damning comments, he points to a line in the letter that reads: “Very low, often immeasurable levels of Libby asbestos remain in soil, indoor dust, fabrics, upholstery, and carpets. Current EPA risk assessments suggest that these circumstances do not pose a significant health risk.” In response to this passage Henningsen writes, “This is another totally PREMATURE and UNFOUNDED FANTASY that the EPA author is attempting to deceitfully use to minimize further health risk concerns by the public. This is a very HARMFUL, unethical, irresponsible and immoral act which knowingly SACRIFICES and potentially ENDANGERS the lives and health plus welfare of Libby resi- dents.”
In addition to disseminating unscientific information on a toxic substance, the four men say, the EPA, without knowing what sort of ongoing risks Libby faces, made policy decisions on the cleanup, again, without the benefit of science. For instance, they say, the EPA determined that yards did not need to be cleaned unless the soil was 1 percent or more asbestos. The agency also decided that asbestos could be contained behind walls in homes where it had been used as insulation, and simply vacuumed up by homeowners when it leaked. According to Abe Troyer, the EPA also allowed vermiculite to remain along fences, in driveways, and around the root systems of trees and perennial plants that had grown into vermiculite- containing soil.
Troyer didn’t like it when he saw the EPA change its policy of completely removing asbestos from homes and yards to partial containment in 2003. “As a worker, what I observed left me troubled at times,” Troyer says.
Print
