Asbestos cleanup still plagued
admin | May 07, 2009 | Comments 3
Henningsen says he tried to convince the community and the EPA that the settlement was not in Libby’s interest.
“I tried hard, and I said, ‘you guys settle, there’ll be nothing else we can do.’ I said, ‘if this happens, there’s nothing more I can do to help,’” but, he says, the settlement went through.
Afterward, Henningsen resigned his position as Libby’s technical adviser.
Now Henningsen says the money Libby got in the settlement will never be enough to determine risk in Libby, or to clean the town.
“Libby will not be cleaned up… because there won’t be any money,” and, he adds, “Grace wanted this badly, because it minimized their liability and let them off the hook.”
Abe Troyer and Clinton Maynard are likewise critical of EPA’s ongoing efforts.
“The state of the cleanup is still less than protective,” Maynard says. “EPA is still leaving this stuff behind, and the people of Libby, Montana will either ignore it and be exposed continually, or there’ll be institutional controls, ordinances, that limit people… as to how they will live on their properties.”
The frustration with the EPA is starting to take a toll on these men, and Sullivan’s voice went a bit ragged when he told Asbestos Watch, “It’s like a never ending battle with these people.”
Asbestos Watch hopes to stick around until the end.
Print
Terry Trent says:
Hi! I dunno what this web sitehttp://blog.umt.edu/gracecase/ is all about but am thinking it would be nice if it were a continuation of the previous Grace Case web site. It was so refreshing hearing from sources other than the usual suspects (our almost completely lost newspapers and books). May I suggest that comments be distributed between this web site and Paul Peters new web site at http://www.asbestoswatch.net/2009/05/07/introducing-asbestos-watch/ or http://www.asbestoswatch.net/2009/05/07/feds-release-rumple-report/. I hope to see the whole gang, yes you too Mr. Latham, for whom I have gained a great deal more respect, and everyone else who I have learned respect for, at these two new sites.
My first topic, although by no means obligates any of you in your own first topics, will be to answer Student and Steve Erickson and explain to them that “asbestos” is not a lazy man’s subject, opinions are hard fought and studied for to be accurate and are not taken lightly. That the truth lays in the publications and histories of the great men who have devoted their lives to this subject, and the “whack” lays in the publications, histories and monstrous (in magnitude) neglect perpetrated by our old Public Health agency now EPA/ATSDR. How EPA’s actions and inactions do not exonerate anyone….yet their shear size by comparison dwarfs WR Grace’s infractions. Also how I am not responsible that our government wasn’t smart enough to press the correct charges against Grace….or even the correct people.
Finally the 5 defendants exonerated themselves in front a jury of their peers and a Judge who paid attention. They did it easily and swiftly, although I suspect they are all emotional basket cases by now. Do not attempt to take that away from them. The jury in reality didn’t even have to think about it much, they just did what was right, almost immediately. Our EPA could learn a lot about doing what is right…immediately…from such people.
Best regards,
Terry
FLASH!!!! Libby air safe. All told to take deep breathe. I shit you not…
Why not put a gun to your head with five bullets instead of 1…
FLASH!!!! Libby man diagnosed with asbestosis after moving to Libby 5 years ago.Who murdered that man???
FLASH!!!! Who the hell cares!!!!
With regard to the “nothing changed” comment, a few weeks ago a significant release of asbestos bearing material, flowed into the Kootenai River where endangered species are a major consideration. When asked why the EPA never reported the release to the Montana Department of Enviromental Quality, or the USFWS, project managers went back almost a decade to hang their hat on flawed science. Managers maintain that in the past the material in question had been sampled and tested by PLM and resulted in a “non-detect reading”. Anyone, including kids in our local grade school, who understand the EPA, knows full well that a non-detect result under PLM does not constitute the absence of asbestos. To the contrary, non-detect samples may contain huge levels of asbestos and maybe “very dangerous”. This is deception at it’s best. Something the EPA Region 8 has gotten very good at doing.