Response to plans for remediation of OU-1 & OU-2

perquiaga 86 posts Jan 10, 2010 8:14 PM

January 9, 2010 Mr. Ted Linnert Office of Communication & Public Involvement U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 – OC 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202-1129 Phillip Erquiaga 82 Cedar Street Extension Libby, Montana 59923 Mr. Linnert, This letter, and accompanying attachments, represents my “personal” response to the proposed plans for remediation of Operable Units 1 and 2 (OU-1 “former export plant” aka “Riverfront Park” and OU-2 “former screening plant.”) of the Libby Superfund Site. When distributed - This response should include all attachments. Dr. Spears and LATAG have addressed many of the points I have concerns with (see attached LATAG Response documents, or review them at www.LATAG.org). These include the EPA’s failure to establish analytical methods to properly quantify LA, failure to engage in adequate site-specific studies, failure to consider health effects of fibers above 10um and particularly below 5um in length, as well the failure to address long term effects of structures other than fibers. LATAG also addresses the failure of the EPA to address the long-term cumulative health risks, especially to children. And covers other important concerns. My greatest concerns, as an engineer, are the manner in which EPA has approached the so-called “Cleanup” which is in reality a poor or even failed attempt to contain contamination. There has been no attempt to “Systematically Clean” properties associated with the Libby Superfund Site. It is my position that we can never consider Libby safe until a thorough and “Systematic Cleanup” and an accepted outside peer reviewed health risk assessment is completed. The first question seems to be “What is Clean up?” Well, I would think that if the EPA is to protect human health, and if LA has ANY possibility of having a 1 to 5 magnitude greater heath risk than Chrysotile, as some scientists suggest, the EPA’s position should be that, until science proves otherwise, that ALL contamination should be removed to the extent that technology and science allows. REGARDLESS of COST! Furthermore, there seems to be a greater increase of various problems in homes cleaned by EPA than in homes that have not been cleaned. This includes mold, which appears to be a growing problem in homes that have been cleaned by EPA. It would seem that the containment procedures used to close exposure paths are also negatively altering the ability for these, so called “CLEANED” homes, to breath. The second question is what is “systematic?” It is my position based on observations and experience that the manner in which the purported clean up is occurring is resulting in expanded contamination and cross-contamination. It appears there has been no logistical engineering done to assure that the method of clean up assures that recontamination of areas previously cleaned does not occur or that non-contaminated sites do not become contaminated. To the contrary, the manner in which this purported cleanup is performed WILL, without question, cause cross-contamination. Cross-contamination would occur even if all safety procedures and applicable regulations were followed. Which they are not! In Libby money is consistently being pumped in to the needs of those suffering from asbestos related diseases (ARD), however the fact of the matter is that health care will continue to be the primary need and cost until the EPA changes their position from “Containment” and begins to engage in a “Systematic Cleanup” accompanied by outside peer review acceptance. From the $250,000,000 settlement from W.R. Grace $11,000,000 (EPA stated this is now $16,000,000 with current accrued interest.) has been set-aside for O & M (Operations and Maintenance). This money is set aside for cleaning properties after the ROD (Record of Decision). EPA states there will be ample funds available after the ROD’s to handle those situations. However, I suggest that this is not true! If ROD’s occur using the current “Containment” procedures and current flawed science and engineering, as opposed to a “Systematic Clean Up” using accepted outside peer reviewed science, we will suffer from excruciatingly enormous costs associated with O & M. Based on what EPA is spending today to partially clean each homes (contain i.e.: close exposure paths.) I calculate easily $400,000,000 O&M costs for OU-4 alone. Of course it is virtually impossible to truly project this cost, but I state this as a low end and we know EPA will deny this projected cost. So the question is: Who will pay for this after the O & M funds are gone? This will be a burden on each of us individually and as taxpayers. The individual, the city, county, nor state will have the assets to pay for these costs. We again will have no choice but to be exposed to this deadly and debilitating contaminant. Also associated with a ROD are “Institutional Controls.” Institutional controls could alter our freedoms and lifestyles dramatically. I believe the people of Libby will resist excessive institutional; controls. For example: Who wants to be told how and when they can mow their lawns? Who wants a fine for mowing their lawn in a way that is not compliant with institutional controls? For the city and/or county to pay for the cost of institutional controls they will be forced to fine us or ignore institutional controls. The only way to avoid this is to have a “Systematic Cleanup” and outside peer reviewed accepted science that confirms we have an environment that is safe now and for future generations, thereby reducing the need for excessive institutional controls. Although EPA states that ROD’s, based on “Qualitative Risk Assessments” on OU-1 and OU-2 will not set a precedence for other Operational Units such as OU-4 (Libby), I suggest that, in the end they will set precedence, and EPA WILL attempt to move forward without “Quantitative Risk Assessments.”. I cannot support the proposed plans for remediation based on a “Qualitative Risk Assessment”. My acceptance of any remediation plan will only occur once an outside peer reviewed and outside peer accepted “Quantitative Risk Assessment” is achieved and once I know that all properties are being “Systematically Cleaned” in a manner that conforms to accepted engineering practice. The ONLY alternative: Develop CURES for ALL ARD’s in lieu of cleanup! Sincerely, Phillip Erquiaga Cc: Governor Brian D. Schweitzer Senator Max Baucus Senator JonTestor Congressman Dennis Rehberg Encl: Summary Review of the Proposed Plan to address environmental cleanup at Operable Units 1 and 2 (OU-1 and OU-2) ---------- Phillip Erquiaga EaglesVoice.com 82 Cedar Street Extension Libby, Montana 59923 406-293-2393 perquiaga@eaglesvoice.com

 Copyright - EaglesVoice 2004-2012 - All Rights Reserved