Rumple Report Reviewed

By Paul Peters

As evidenced in the Rumple Report, many observers of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Libby cleanup believe the agency’s policies could still be exposing people to amphibole asbestos, which has killed hundreds and sickened thousands.

It is documented that public health statements made by Bush administration officials, which downplayed the risks posed by Libby amphibole asbestos released in Manhattan after the 9/11 attacks, were used by W.R. Grace to lower the standards of the Libby cleanup.

It is also documented that, despite spending more than $110 million on the Libby Superfund cleanup, EPA still has no idea exactly how dangerous amphibole asbestos is, and yet portrayed to the community that Libby asbestos was safe in small quantities.

Eventually, pressure from the public, media reports, and congressmen pushed the EPA to retract information it released to the community that minimized risks of asbestos, and caused the agency to begin the process of investigating the risk posed by amphibole asbestos.

Gordon Sullivan says one of the most important revelations of the report is that the EPA’s own scientists were intensely critical of how standards had changed in Libby post-9/11.

“The most extreme issue in that entire report comes from inside the EPA,” he says. “When your head toxicologist says it’s unconscionable, you’ve got a problem.”

Sullivan refers to Chris Weis, Senior Toxicologist of the EPA’s National Enforcement Investigations Center. According to the report, OIG Special Agent Cory Rumple asked Weis about a brochure entitled “Living with Vermiculite” which was mailed to all Libby addresses, and states that low-level, short-term exposure to asbestos is not dangerous, and that it is perfectly safe to vacuum up “small releases” with HEPA vacuums, or wipe them up with damp cloths, as New Yorkers were told to do.

Weis, according to the report, “stated the language within that document contained ‘double speak,’ adding in his opinion it was ‘unconscionable’ to write a document with such language.”

Rumple’s report goes on to document similar objections to the EPA’s practices in Libby that were raised by scientists within the organization.

He notes that Bonita Lavelle, an EPA scientist who had worked as a project manager in Libby, quit working in Libby because, she said, the EPA was going around its own scientists and using a company referred to as the Syracuse Resource Corporation to get risk information on the site. She also noted, according to the report, “The current process with Libby, MT cleanup is ‘completely different’ from EPA’s common practice of hazardous materials cleanups.”

In the introduction to his report, Rumple notes that every EPA employee he interviewed about the documents distributed to Libby residents, “said the language was incorrect, could not be supported by science and were potentially dangerous.”

The only people who did not raise these objections, he writes, were from the Syracuse Resource Corporation.

Asbestos Watch is currently investigating the role Syracuse Resource Corporation played in this broken Superfund cleanup.

Another aspect of the report people close to the Libby cleanup find odd is that it specifically states, “additional criminal investigation is not warranted,” and recommends that the OIG’s Office of Program Evaluation look into the Libby cleanup.

But, as Rumple notes in the introduction to his report, the OIG initiated a 21-month long criminal investigation, which, he writes, “concluded with a declination of the criminal case by the Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, responsible for prosecuting public corruption.”

“Here’s what has me confused,” says Jeff Ruch, Executive Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.  “Rumple says ‘I don’t  think this is criminal, but this requires a program evaluation.’”

“So rather than do a program evaluation, they initiate a criminal investigation, and the problem with that is… it’s very hard to prove in these circumstances,” he continues. “The criminal investigation is an utter waste of time.”

Ruch says this is a pattern he has seen in the past, in which the OIG pursues difficult-to-prove criminal charges, finds no provable criminal wrongdoing, and stops looking into the issue.

As Ruch says, “They don’t find a crime, therefore everything’s OK.”

Gerry Henningsen says that, had the OIG referred Rumple’s Report to the right channel (the Office of Program Evaluation) and kept it there, things may have been different in Libby.

The Office of Program Evaluation, Henningsen says, looks specifically at how a particular program has been managed, or mismanaged, determines where any breakdowns have occurred, and tries to repair the problems.

Because of this, Henningsen says, it has still not come to light exactly how the process broke down in Libby, and therefore, he asserts, the cleanup of Libby is still as ineffective as it was three years ago.

As Ruch says, “Taking a step back from all these reports, EPA’s role in Libby was all screwed up, and it’s never really been untangled.”

In the last paragraph of his report, Rumple seems to hint at his dissatisfaction with the outcome:

“The purpose in writing it was so that another OIG authority, which I thought would be the Office of Program Evaluation, could pick up where I left off and possibly report the situation to the Agency quickly,” he writes.  “I believed time was of the essence, as the Agency appeared to be heading down the same road it did with the 9/11 fallout. I felt the memo would start a non-criminal review which might slow down what I perceived to be a rush to a Record of Decision and possible future illnesses and deaths in Libby. I wanted to make sure the information I gathered would not simply languish and EPA’s cleanup would not contribute to possible future problems.”

Asbestos Watch attempted to interview Rumple about the release of the report, but was told by OIG spokesman John Manibusan that the agency was “respectfully declining your request.”

Asked why, especially in light of an April 23, 2009 memo by EPA head Lisa Jackson that calls for greater transparency within the EPA, Manibusan said, “It was a management decision… The report was released last week, and at this point that’s everything we have to say on the issue.”

Ultimately, the Rumple Report also offers up some mysteries that make take a while to explain. As of now Asbestos Watch is working obtain a copy of the findings of the failed criminal investigation, and to review all communication between the EPA and the Syracuse Resource Corporation.

To read more about the ongoing problems in Libby, click here, or navigate to the next story in our front page features section.

Page : 1 2 3ALL