A series of stories in the Daily Inter Lake, which serves Northwest Montana and which initially broke the story about widespread asbestos contamination of the town of Libby, Mont., in 1999, is featuring a series of stories about the town. The feature is related to a recent town hall style meeting organized by the University of Montana, which is seeking to get clarification from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about just how much toxicity remains in the town.

The town hall meeting, which was held Dec. 6, featured a panel discussion about the deadly fallout from town’s vermiculite asbestos mine, which was operated for years by W.R. Grace & Company. Even those who didn’t work in the mine were exposed to asbestos, as dust from the mine covered the surrounding area, railroad tracks and roads used to transport the materials. Asbestos was even used as filler for gardens and ballparks.

According to the Daily Inter Lake report, more than 300 deaths have been linked to asbestos exposure from the vermiculite mine. A special health clinic established by the EPA after the story broke about the widespread asbestos disease affecting Libby area residents is currently treating about 2,800 patients with varying levels of asbestos disease.

Dr. Brad Black, who oversees patient care at the clinic, called the Center for Asbestos Related Disease (CARD), says it’s impossible to really determine how many people have been affected by asbestos in Libby, because around 80,000 people “came and went in Libby while the mine was operating,” the paper reports.

Because of the long latency period of asbestos disease – which includes conditions such as asbestosis, a severe scarring of the lungs that impedes lung function and limits breathing, and mesothelioma, a deadly cancer that affects the lining of the lungs or, more rarely, the abdomen or heart – which is sometimes as long as 30 or 40 years, Black estimates cases will continue to emerge well into the future, through the year 2030.

Since the asbestos contamination of Libby was brought to light, it has been a roller-coaster ride for area residents. The EPA has spent more than $206 million to date to clean up residential and commercial properties. In June, Libby was declared a public health emergency, which is the first time the agency has made such a determination under the 1980 Superfund law. This will allow more money to be put into the town’s cleanup efforts.

However, there are still lingering questions about just how effective these cleanup efforts really are. The EPA has divided the Libby Superfund site into eight geographical units, and has so far only completed cleanup on two of those units. However, some scientists argue that the type of asbestos affecting Libby – amphibole – is much more toxic than chrysotile asbestos, and that cleanup efforts are being conducted using old research on the wrong type of asbestos.

The Daily Inter Lake reports that EPA officials have admitted they are using toxicology assessments from 1985 data on less toxic asbestos, not Libby asbestos. This is despite a more recent study completed in 2003, which “established exposure benchmarks for mesothelioma and lung cancer based on asbestos epidemiologic studies,” the news agency reports.

According to the paper, federal government risk assessment standards say cleanup efforts are necessary when there is evidence of one death per 10,000 people. In Libby, where the population is around 10,000 people, there have already been 31 deaths just from mesothelioma. This doesn’t even take into account the suffering and death from other asbestos-related diseases.

The asbestos contamination also has been a see-saw on the legal front. In May, W.R. Grace & Co. and several of its top leaders were acquitted of criminal charges related to the widespread asbestos disease affecting its residents. Nearly 800 people still have pending civil suits against the company, which have been delayed by bankrupcy claims on the part of Grace. The company is expected to emerge from bankruptcy in January.

Testimony resulting from the bankruptcy trial in October revealed that there is a 59 percent probability of death for Libby residents exposed to asbestos dust.

“No other place on the planet has that,” the Daily Inter Lake quotes attorney John Heberling, who is representing asbestos clients.

This is a fascinating and tragic series of stories, and I encourage you to visit the Daily Inter Lake online to read the full series. It includes a feature on Gayla Benefield, who, along with compatriot Les Skramstad, began the campaign to expose the Libby contamination and lobby for justice for the town. Here are just a few of the links:

What is a safe dose for Libby?
What’s next for Libby?
Asbestos victims try to stay upbeat
Advocate’s work for asbestos victims spans 35 years
Grace lawsuit claimants still in limbo

There is news this week that underscores the fears of our good friend Mike Crill, who has been so personally affected by the asbestos contamination in Libby, Montana. Mike has been concerned about how contamination from the W. R. Grace vermiculite mine in Libby, which operated for years in that town, would actually affect the entire country as a result of the product being exported to factories across the country, for use in making Zonolite insulation.

This week, a story in The Republican reports the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will provide assistance to an Easthampton, Mass., town to clean up soil that is contaminated with asbestos. The affected land is the former site of a vermiculite insulation factory operated by W.R. Grace. Although the facility closed 20 years ago, it has left a legacy of danger for residents.

According to The Republican report, Grace shipped more than 250,000 tons of vermiculite ore from its Montana mine to the Easthampton factory over a period of about 40 years.

The cleanup comes as a result of city plans to extend a scenic trail into the area, and also hopes to install a new sewer line. According to The Republican, the cleanup effort involves a span of about 1,000 feet that would be the location of the trail extension and sewer project. It is estimated that soil may have to be removed to a depth of 6-12 inches, although the EPA is still examining the area.

Asbestos exposure is linked to mesothelioma, a deadly cancer that affects the lining of the chest and lungs, or, more rarely, the abdomen or heart. The only known cause of mesothelioma is asbestos exposure. There is currently no known cure for meso.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Feb. 5 that Anderson-Wilcox Corp. and Cutting Edge Concepts II LLC agreed to pay a fine of $300,000 for improper removal and disposal of asbestos at a New Haven, Conn., site. The fine is part of a settlement agreement between the companies, the EPA, and the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Connecticut.

According to the EPA news release, the companies were fined for improperly removing and disposing of asbestos from a historic property that was undergoing renovation and construction. Despite knowing that asbestos was prevalent in the structure, built in the 1800s, the EPA said the companies instructed subcontractors to remove asbestos-containing materials such as vinyl floor tile from the building and to throw it into standard open trash dumpsters.

By failing to use extreme caution in handling asbestos-containing materials, the company put its workers and the public at risk. Asbestos fibers are deadly when they are disturbed, as in demolition work, which releases them into the atmosphere. Inhaled asbestos fibers may cause a variety of asbestos-related diseases including asbestosis, a severe scarring of the lungs that impairs breathing, and mesothelioma, a deadly cancer.

The effects of asbestos exposure may not become apparent for years after exposure, when they manifest to cripple or kill.

Just last week, I was invited to participate in a good-intentioned project to help renovate a building for use by a charity group. The notice announced plans to tear down sheet rock, pull down ceilings and rip up flooring, and I shuddered at the thought of potential asbestos exposure.

It still boggles my mind that people are not aware of the potential hazards in tasks that seem harmless and even helpful.

If you are planning to undertake a building renovation project, please, please consider calling an asbestos abatement expert to have the structure inspected for possible asbestos hazards before you begin. Extreme caution should be used – and in many cases is required by law – when handling asbestos-containing materials.

An article published by the Daily Inter Lake, which serves Northwest Montana, reports on a new study by Dr. Alan Whitehouse, a pulmonologist affiliated with the Center For Asbestos Related Disease (CARD) in Libby, Montana. Dr. Whitehouse’s study, published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, predicts an epidemic of mesothelioma cases in Libby in the next 10-20 years.

Dr. Whitehouse, along with four other physicians including CARD’s Dr. Brad Black, studied 31 mesothelioma cases, including 11 cases not previously reported. The study focused specifically on non-occupational asbestos exposure, including exposure to contamination of the community, the surrounding forested area, and areas in proximity to the Kootenai river and the railroad tracks used to haul vermiculite.

It is estimated that more than 200 people in Libby have died from asbestos-related disease, and CARD is following 2,000 additional asbestos cases. CARD primarily serves Libby residents who were affected by the W.R. Grace-operated vermiculite mine, which was in operation for many years, and at high capacity from the 1940s to the 1970s.

Focus has recently shifted to include people suffering from asbestos disease and mesothelioma who never came into direct contact with the vermiculite mining operation. In June, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency announced an $8 million grant to fund a five-year study of the effects of low-level asbestos exposure.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Asbestos Committee held public meetings July 21 and 22 in Washington, D.C., to discuss changes in the way it measures the risk posed by inhalation exposure to asbestos. Results of this meeting are coming under fire, as environmental groups, labor safety leaders, physicians, scientists and politicians object to the EPA’s proposed revised evaluation standards.

According to recent report in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, there were 20 experts appointed to the SAB’s asbestos panel, charged with evaluating the validity of the EPA’s plan to change how the toxicity of the six types of asbestos regulated by the government differ in danger. Its findings would be submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

According to the PI report, scientific advisors say the EPA used the asbestos panel to submit new studies that contradict longstanding research into the dangers of asbestos. The new studies say chrysolite, in particular, the most common type of asbestos, isn’t dangerous and doesn’t cause mesothelioma.

PI quotes Dr. David Egilman, an occupational medicine specialist, who testified at the public meeting, as saying the new study was financed by mining and other asbestos-related industries, and said the studies have no scientific credibility.

Another vocal spokesperson at the hearing was Sen. Patty Murray, who sponsored S. 742, the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007, which passed the Senate on Oct. 4, 2007. Currently, it is the companion bill to H.R. 3339, the Bruce Vento Ban Asbestos and Prevent Mesothelioma Act, sponsored by Rep. Betty McCollum, which currently is in committee in the House of Representatives.

Sen. Murray has long been an advocate for a total asbestos ban, calling for better worker protection. The PI quotes Sen. Murray as telling the committee, “I’d like the political appointees at the EPA to look into the eyes of a mesothelioma patient and say that asbestos isn’t dangerous. It appears that this administration is once again putting politics before public health.” Murray is currently chairwoman of the Senate Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee.

The EPA asserts the new system is needed to improve how asbestos-contaminated Superfund sites are evaluated. The organization can move forward with its proposal without approval from the OMB or the SAB, if it so chooses.

This is a reminder to those who haven’t yet contacted their representative in U.S. Congress about H.R. 3339, the Bruce Vento Ban Asbestos and Prevent Mesothelioma Act. Please take the time to do this right now! It’s very important to let your Representative on Capitol Hill know that you support this measure to finally ban asbestos in the U.S. and provide funding for mesothelioma research.

The bill is currently in committee, with the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Even if your district’s representative is not on this committee, it is important to let him or her know that you support the bill so that they know how to vote. The more voices they hear from their constituency, the better chance they will pay attention when this finally comes to the House floor.

If your representative IS a member of this committee, it is even more important. Many bills “die” in committee, never making it to a vote of the full House or Senate. Please make sure your representative helps get this bill approved in committee and to the floor for its vote.

My representative, Terry Everett (2nd District, Alabama), acknowledged his receipt of my request with a letter, in which he said he will keep my thoughts in mind should the bill make it to the floor, although he is not a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

According to information provided by Everett’s office, H.R. 3339 would require several actions to be taken by the federal government in addressing asbestos and its harmful effects. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would establish a plan to increase awareness of the dangers posed by asbestos-containing materials in homes and workplaces and encourage participation in research and treatment endeavors of asbestos-related disease patients.

The bill also would require the disposal of asbestos-containing materials within two years and the prohibition on the importing, manufacturing, processing or distributing of asbestos-containing materials, except for specific exemptions sought by the Department of Defense and National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

If you are not sure of the representative for your Congressional District, visit the House of Representatives online. You can also find out here if your representative is a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Please take the time to do this today. Your one voice is SO important. Let it join thousands of others to finally make a real difference.

After years of ignoring the dangers of asbestos, and the resulting nationwide epidemic of asbestos disease, including mesothelioma, there is a renewed interest in studying this deadly material. This week, the Billings Gazette announced the federal government will fund an $8 million study to understand the health effects of low-level exposure to asbestos. The study will be based in Libby, Montana, where more than 200 people have died to date as a result of asbestos mining operations in the town, and hundreds more people suffer from asbestos related diseases.

The Libby program, dubbed the Libby Amphibole Health Risk Initiative, is funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The study is expected to span 5 years with a goal of expanding knowledge about the potential and real health issues of asbestos exposure.

Libby already has proved a tragically rich source of knowledge about long-term exposure to high levels of asbestos, as the EPA’s initial examination and cleanup of the town focused on miners with direct exposure to the substance in their jobs, as well as people who handled asbestos mineral and were exposed to asbestos dust secondarily on a daily basis.

But, the Gazette reports, too little is know about exposure to lower levels of asbestos. EPA officials hope that results of the study will benefit not only the residents of Libby, but people throughout the country.

In April, the Minnesota state legislature approved $4.9 million for its own five-year study, to be conducted under the direction of the University of Minnesota, in connection with unusually high levels of mesothelioma affecting Iron Range mine workers. A large question in the area is whether dust from the taconite mined there – a fibrous mineral similar to asbestos – could also cause mesothelioma.

A key part of the Minnesota research will be an examination of previous asbestos exposure among mine workers, which will expand the base of knowledge about the affect of asbestos on health, in addition to the new studies about the effect of taconite.

According to the Billings Gazette, among tests to be included in the Libby study are a comparison of film and digital chest X-rays to determine which is best for assessing the lungs, a comparison of the health of people exposed to Libby asbestos in childhood versus people who weren’t, an expanded evaluation of Libby residents who were exposed to asbestos, an assessment of whether the health problems related to asbestos exposure extend beyond lung disease.

Researchers in Libby also hope to make improvements to public health tracking systems and patient health record databases, to better link exposure information to health conditions, the Gazette reports.

Gayla Benefield, perhaps one of the best-known residents of Libby for her early outcry about the health effects of asbestos on the people in her town, says she is happy to see an emphasis on research.

She was a charter member of the board of directors of the Center for Asbestos Related Disease (CARD), a not-for-profit clinic governed by a volunteer community board and devoted to healthcare, outreach, and research to benefit all people impacted by exposure to Libby amphibole asbestos. She only recently retired from her position with that organization.

“This is something I’ve wanted from the onset – more study and more research,” she says. “I’ve been especially interested in how much or how little of the (asbestos) fiber can cause meso, and I’ve been really concerned about the schools having been contaminated.”

The key, Benefield says, is to detect mesothelioma at its earliest stage, when there is still time for treatment to prolong life. When people around her in Libby began being diagnosed, she says, their mesothelioma was so advanced that many died within days of the diagnosis.

“We all – everyone in Libby – live under the threat of developing mesothelioma,” she says. “They’re never going to get all that (asbestos) fiber out of Libby, or anywhere for that matter, homes with asbestos insulation, so the research is the big thing. Any and all research having to do with mesothelioma is fantastic. A dream come true.”

Last week I posted news that the federal Bureau of Land Management, under the direction of the Environmental Protection Agency, closed a 48-acre recreational area in California known as Clear Creek due to concerns about high levels of asbestos in the area. The land is a popular area for off-road hiking, biking and ATV adventures, with about 35,000 visitors a year. But now it seems that asbestos is a growing concern throughout a wide swath of California, where naturally occuring asbestos is prevalent. The Los Angeles Times reported May 2 about a community in El Dorado Hills, Calif., that is being investigated by the EPA for high asbestos levels.

Inspectors donned air filters and protective gear while running, biking and playing baseball and other sports in areas of the town to monitor asbestos levels. The paper reported that initial EPA assessments were worst along a creek-side trail in El Dorado Hills Community Park, where asbestos levels were 22-43 times higher than ambient air levels when stirred up by the common recreational activities tested.

It shouldn’t come as a complete surprise to the town. Already, the newspaper reported, asbestos concerns were responsible for a $2.5-million cleanup at Oak Ridge High School, including replacing the running track with a new all-weather surface.

Still, there is active ground clearing and new home construction throughout the town, with an affluent population and fine homes priced in the $700,000 range.

While some residents expressed concern, I was struck by the comments of residents who seemed to want to ignore the threat, or who refused to believe there would be a problem as a result of the asbestos. The Times quoted residents who “shrugged off” the news, saying “the whole thing seems like overkill.” Others objected to “the government” “overreacting,” saying “there’s risk in life whatever you do.”

One resident, who is worried about the effects on her children, recalling how her daughter brushed up clouds of asbestos-laden dust after a cheerleading routine, said, “Most people around here seem more worred about home values than health.”

The same types of risk dismissals are found in the Clear Creek story, where outdoor enthusiasts are vowing to fight the recreational area’s closing, telling the government to stop meddling and let them take the risk.

I just don’t understand this attitude. Asbestos is proven to be a danger, causing asbestosis, mesothelioma and other lung and stomach cancers. If people were told they were building their homes on radioactive land, or bike riding through Chernobyl, they would be concerned. Why is this deadly threat so much less apparent to them? Most seem to have the attitude that they will “worry about it later.”

What about the children? With the often long latency period for asbestos damage, youngsters exposed to asbestos now are at risk of developing problems in the prime of life. Are parents really willing to risk the lives of their children in order to not be “inconvenienced” or to “make their own decisions” independent of government recommendations?

If the EPA were to turn away from this danger, to issue a warning but not aggressively pursue closures and clean-up, what would the public say years from now, when people are affected with asbestosis and mesothelioma? “Where was our warning?” “Where was the government, to tell us there was danger?”

You can’t have it both ways.

Approximately 31,000 acres of public land in California’s Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA) have been closed to all forms of entry and public use by the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, based on the results of an Environmental Protection Agency CCMA Asbestos Exposure and Human Health Risk Assessment. The closure order was issued by the Bureau on May 1.

The closure order states, “This closure is necessary to protect public land users from human health risks associated with exposure to airborne asbestos in the CCMA based upon a final report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency that concludes that public use activities could expose an individual to excess lifetime cancer risks. The order will remain in effect while the BLM completes a Resource Management Plan for the CCMA to determine if and how visitor use can occur without associated health risks.”

The risk in this area comes from natural deposits of asbestos. Asbestos is linked to mesothelioma, a deadly lung cancer.

The San Francisco Chronicle, on the SFGate.com web site, quotes Jere Johnson, a project manager with the EPA, as saying, “Frankly, we were surprised at how high the levels of asbestos are at Clear Creek. What we found is that there is a lot of asbestos in the soil, and when you disturb the soil it poses a health risk.”

Chronicle reporter Carolyn Jones says outdoor enthusiasts are not happy about the area’s closing, and are skeptical of the danger. She quotes Don Amador, Western representative for the Blue Ribbon Coalition, an outdoor advocacy group, as saying, “It’s unprecedented, as far as public land issues go. We’re going to want to fight it, either administratively or in court.”

The article says the area will most likely be off-limits for at least a few years, while the Bureau of Land Management completes its own study.

There will be a public meeting tonight at the Santa Clara Convention Center, 5001 Great America Parkway, from 6-9 p.m. There also will be an open house from 3-5 p.m. Additional meetings will be held from 6-8 p.m. May 19 at Veterans’ Memorial Hall, 649 San Benito Street in Hollister; and 6-8 p.m. May 21 at the Martin Luther King Jr. Library, Room 225, 150 E. San Fernando Street, San Jose.

If you live in the area, please let me know if you attend any of these meetings. We will follow this issue and let you know if there are new developments.

Asbestos concerns have forced the relocation of nearly 150 elementary school-age children from North Kossuth Community School in Bancroft, Iowa. An Associated Press report released on MSNBC today says asbestos levels in one classroom were 10 times greater than what is considered safe, and 1,000 times greater in a second-floor hallway at the school. Asbestos has been linked to mesothelioma cancer and other diseases including asbestosis, a severe scarring of the lungs.

The school was closed Monday after testing revealed the high asbestos levels present in the facility. Students will be relocated to a facility in the nearby community of Swea City, with plans to complete this resume classes Thursday. Students have three weeks remaining in the school year.

According to a story on MidIowaNews.com, the district has been concerned about the school since at least May 4, 2007, when Paul Baer of The Institute for Environmental Assessment sent a memo stating that accoustical ceiling spray on the ceiling of the second floor hallway and classrooms contained asbestos. The news story goes on to say that the memo stated that due to roof leaks beginning in 2002, asbestos was beginning to separate from the plaster and would release asbestos fibers into the air if it fell.

On March 18, 2008, the Fairmont Sentinel, a daily paper that serves southern Minnesota and northern Iowa, reported that concerns were raised at the March 17 school board meeting. North Kossuth Superintendent Mike Landstrum told the Sentinel that an IEA inspector “told me there were some major concerns with health issues.”

Following the meeting, two public hearings were set to address the issue, one on April 7 at Swea City, and one April 14 in Bancroft.

The Sentinel reported that at the Swea City meeting April 7, in a letter to the district, George Rosburg of the IEA stated the water damage, visible leaks and sagging asbestos ceiling spray were “… a serious health & safety concern, and recommends North Kossuth Community Schools consider the asbestos removal and roof repair as a very high priority.”

Until this decision to relocate students, North Kossuth Elementary has been located in space rented from St. John’s Catholic School, a private school located on the same campus. North Kossuth has rented the property since 2002. Because the district leases the building, St. John’s is responsible for maintenance, which would include asbestos removal and other repairs.

North Kossuth’s lease agreement with St. John’s does not expire until 2012.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires all public school districts and private schools, known as local education agencies or LEAs, to inspect all school buildings for both friable and nonfriable asbestos; to develop plans to manage asbestos in schools; and to carry out the plans in a timely fashion.