EPA: Risk assessment due in 2014

The EPA outlined a new timetable to produce the results of three studies that will determine nearly every decision the remedial team in Libby will make during the remaining years of the asbestos cleanup.

The studies - a toxicology assessment, risk assessment and feasibility study - will dictate the science that the EPA uses to determine exactly how much amphibole asbestos is acceptable to be left behind when the EPA finishes its on-site work. They will also help the EPA determine how much work is left to do in Lincoln County.

 Deborah McKean, a toxicologist for the Region 8 EPA headquarters in Denver, Co., explained that following the completion of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s toxicology assessment, scheduled for June of 2014, the agency expects it will take another six months to complete the risk assessment.

“My promise is at least within six-months of the toxicity value is finalized, I’ll be producing a draft risk assessment,” McKean said.

Wary of two major deadlines to complete the risk assessment missed previously by the EPA, Lincoln County Commissioner Tony Berget speculated on the possibility of the EPA giving itself more flexibility with its own deadlines.

 “At the latest,” McKean said in response, to punctuate the intended deadline of late 2014.

The complete risk assessment defines the lowest possible concentration of Libby amphibole asbestos fibers that can be reasonably extracted from the Libby Superfund site and compares risk exposure levels before and after remedial construction.

 “We’ve been waiting. We need to know what reasonable level we need to reach,” said Berget.

In order to move forward with the risk assessment, McKean said the toxicity assessment must complete several peer reviews by different federal agencies, including the White House, before reaching consummation.

The toxicity assessment exhibits how Libby amphibole asbestos is directly tied to cancer and noncancerous health issues. McKean underlined the timeline of the toxicity assessment to conclude in the spring of next year after peer review and revision.

The final key to completing the toxicity assessment lies in defining a comprehensive analysis of asbestos-related noncancerous diseases. The part of the toxicology assessment relating to cancerous asbestos-related disease has been completed as the initial piece of the puzzle.

“Once I’m told that the toxicity numbers are final, we can actually finalize the risk assessment, which is not a decision-making document but will present the data,” said McKean.

The EPA’s feasibility study will be the decision-making document that examines the data collected previously to determine alternative options in creating final remedial action.

“We are starting the feasibility study right now. We can start that without the risk assessment,” McKean said.

While conducting work in each operable unit of the Libby Superfund site, the EPA is drawing information from draft risk assessments that allow operations to be put in motion. An EPA feasibility study handout explains that cleanup alternatives are identified by effectiveness, implementability and cost.

“The idea is that those drafts will be rewritten once the cumulative risk assessment is complete,” McKean said.

Jeff Camplin, president of Camplin Environmental Services Inc., said he believes the EPA will generate a report in a timely fashion after missing two previous deadlines during the cours of the 13-year cleanup effort.

“They’re looking for an exit strategy from this superfund site. They’re realizing they have to get out of Libby,” Camplin said.

In 2007, Camplin, an asbestos specialist, appeared before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight to testify on allegations that the EPA downplayed the issue of public health on the beaches of Lake Michigan, Ill.

Camplin has worked as an environmental consultant with activists in Libby, and has previously stated that he believes the EPA has pushed forward without adequate scientific facts to establish a proper cleanup strategy.

“When they say they’re done and they’ve found an acceptable level, we want to hold their final reports up to the high standards of what they claim, and not manipulating the data which they’ve proven over and over is the game they play.”

Granted, after two investigations by the Inspector General’s Office into the muddy progress of the EPA’s administration of the Libby cleanup, Region 8 has produced a new set of milestone completion dates to deliver the risk assessment.

The original risk assessment was required in 2005, but aborted once the agency claimed to have found the Libby site to be an environmental hazard for which they could draw from no previous strategy of attack.

In 2005. after the Inspector General’s Office found that no risk assessment had been moved into development, it set a new timeline to be followed by the EPA for completing specific goals. The new recommendation suggested that the EPA have completed a risk assessment by 2007, and again failed to meet the deadline.

“I think it’s pretty ambitious. I just think it may be a little longer,” Berget said.