ATV driving and asbestos shouldn't mix

By Bethanie Walder

January 20, 2010

Printer friendly version

Maybe it’s because I live in Montana and the small town of Libby has been declared a federal superfund site due to asbestos contamination from a nearby vermiculite mine.  With extremely disturbing stories about the Libby, MT asbestos situation a mainstay of state and even national news for practically a decade, Montanans tend to take asbestos seriously.  And one of the prime questions about Libby relates to responsibility…  when did the W.R. Grace company know about the asbestos, and why didn’t they protect people from it.  (Unfortunately, the government lost its case against the W.R. Grace company last year.)

So it just blows my mind that off-road vehicle riders in San Benito County, California are fighting to reopen a play area that was closed by the Bureau of Land Management after high levels of asbestos were found in the dirt.  The recreation area was also popular with hikers, bird watchers and other nonmotorized recreationists, but it was closed to all use in 2008.

While some apparently question the relative toxicity of the particular type of asbestos found in the area (chrysotile), the EPA and other regulatory bodies have labeled this and other forms of asbestos  as carcinogens.   We’ve previously posted news articles about this story, like this one from the Los Angeles Times in May 2008.  According to that article:

“The EPA and other federal agencies, however, have found that chrysotile asbestos is toxic.
Moreover, officials said, they found other types of asbestos -- including tremolite and actinolite -- all known carcinogens. “

While typically it’s the people who are being exposed to asbestos who fight to stop the contamination, the opposite is true in this example, with off-road riders fighting to reopen the area, regardless of the hazard (and also arguing that there is no hazard).  The San Benito article includes the following quote from a recreationist:

“ ’My husband's been riding there for 30 years, he's fine.  I don't think there is a problem I think it's ridiculous.  And I think that as adults we should choose that if want to put ourselves in that situation, just like we have the right to choose if we can smoke a cigarette,’ says Jackie Murdaugh.”

Well, okay, there’s something to be said about adults being able to choose what they are going to do.  However, the government has a responsibility to protect not just the motorized recreationists, but anyone else who might end up breathing the dust stirred up by those recreationists.  Not to mention the liability the government faces if recreationists become ill at some point in the future and decide to sue over it.

The situation in Libby, MT is extreme, and may not be entirely relevant to the CA recreation area problem.   Nonetheless, the government is doing it's job to protect the public from hazardous materials, even if it means closing a recreation area to off-roaders and non-motorized recreationists.  They should be commended.

Categories: 

Bookmark This Page: 

Comments

Submitted by Visitor (not verified) on January 22, 2010 - 09:57.

ATV dirving and asbestos should'nt mix

While I see your point of view, there are other factors at play here that the causal observer would find interesting. The vast majority of California counties have naturally occurring asbestos soils. Some major cities have, in the air, background levels of asbestos higher than those recorded at the riding spot in question. Also, the BLM rangers and contractors continue to enter the riding area to work, without any hazmat equipment. If they truly believed it dangerous, no one should be allowed to enter. Jim S.

Submitted by Andrew in CA (not verified) on January 22, 2010 - 10:23.

'Asbestos' is the dirt under our feet in California

I wish it were possible to convey the dismay that we feel when this issue is misjudged and misrepresented. Just a few items that a rational person might want to consider before having their mind blown. "Asbestos" is the name given to an industrial insulation product. There is no such thing as 'naturally occurring asbestos' The danger from asbestos is caused by the way the mineral is modified as it is converted into insulation products, not by the source minerals. There is some asbestos product at the New Idria mine, which is within the CCMA site. But rather than complete the SuperFund work, the BLM has elected just to shut the whole area. Very difficult to understand, I hope you would agree. There are fibrous minerals all over California and the USA. It's common dirt. If it were harmful there would be epidemiological evidence, but there is none. If CCMA needs to be closed, I guess the BLM will be closing the rest of California pretty shortly too. The BLM has used a flawed EPA report to justify the closure of clear creek. The report has used occupational limits that are neither relevant or accurate in open air scenarios and the methodology used to estimate exposure grossly overestimate the time and nature of exposure. Hikers, botanists, minerologists and everyone else who used the 70,000 acres of Clear Creek have all been deprived of an outstanding asset that everyone should have access to. Our lands are supposed to be protected for us all to enjoy, not to our exclusion.

Submitted by Ken Deeg (not verified) on January 22, 2010 - 10:39.

OHV and Clear Creek do mix

Interesting story. If the EPA and would read the most current information published in the New England Journal of Medicine and other current information they would realize they are wrong. The BLM is closing Clear Creek because they cannot manage it even though we the California OHV population gave them millions in Green sticker money. Have a nice day.

Submitted by David Tharp (not verified) on January 22, 2010 - 10:40.

Asbestos, EPA, and the BLM

“Subject Uncertainty in model
Just reading through the executive summary. The last paragraph places some doubt as to the adequacy of the model used. The risks could be lower or 0. I am aware that EPA has been consistent in mentioning this and it was in the previous draft.
Uncertainty related to the toxicity parameters of the risk assessment includes the application of the IRIS and OEHHA asbestos toxicity models, which were developed from epidemiological studies of occupational exposures, to infrequent and episodic recreational exposures. This uncertainty could mean that the actual risks could be much lower than those estimated in the CCMA assessment and perhaps zero”.

The previous statement was in an e-mail from the BLM field office manager to the lead at the EPA and shows that there is question about the toxic nature of some of the minerals know as asbestos. The word asbestos is a vernacular name given to six types of naturally occurring fibrous amphibole and serpentine minerals.
Here is a little information about the minerals and difference in the composition of those mierals.

Six minerals are defined as asbestos including: chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite.

Chrysotile is obtained from serpentine rocks, which is common throughout the world.

Chrysotile fibers are curly as opposed to fibers from amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, actinolite, and anthophyllite, which are needlelike.

Serpentine group
Serpentine minerals have a sheet or layered structure. Chrysotile is the only asbestos mineral in the serpentine group. In the United States, chrysotile has been the most commonly used type of asbestos. According to the U.S. EPA Asbestos Building Inspectors Manual, chrysotile accounts for approximately 95% of asbestos found in buildings in the United States.

Amphibole group
Five types of asbestos are found in the amphibole group: amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite. Amosite, the second most likely type to be found in buildings, according to the U.S. EPA Asbestos Building Inspectors Guide, is the "brown" asbestos.

Serpentine and amphibole differ in their physical characteristics. Serpentine develops in a layer form amphibole has a chain-like structure.

Amosite and crocidolite were formerly used in many products until the early 1980s. The use of all types of asbestos in the amphibole group was banned by the mid-1980s.

The EPA does not see the two groups as different and lumps all asbestos as the same mineral.

It is also not possible to understand the issues of the past 40 years of mismanagement of the BLM by reading a single news article. They have never been active in educating the users of the Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA) of the unique habitat of this area. Furthermore the BLM has failed to adequately protect the resources of the CCMA so instead of working with the folks that recreate in the area they just close it to public access?

By the way the admission that the “risk could be much lower than zero” is not to be found in the DEIS. Humm?

Submitted by don schmidt (not verified) on January 28, 2010 - 11:02.

Asbestos

Your comment "Not to mention the liability the government faces if recreationists become ill at some point in the future and decide to sue over it." is totally unjustified and inaccurate. For the last 30+ years people have been riding there, there is NO proof the natural asbestos is harmful. Educate yourself before spewing BS. "So it just blows my mind that off-road vehicle riders in San Benito County, California are fighting to reopen a play area that was closed by the Bureau of Land Management after high levels of asbestos were found in the dirt." This is a biased comment. Your negative outlook towards OHV use has nothing to do with this supposed asbestos health risk. Again, educate yourself before spewing your ignorant views to the world. Don

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.
1 + 9 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.