ASBESTOS: A LAND MANAGEMENT DILEMMA

Recently federal and state regulatory agencies have advanced the argument that public access to regions where asbestos occurs on the surface of the Earth is inherently dangerous, and should be highly restricted if not prohibited. Unfortunately, this argument is not backed up by evidence of disease in presumably affected populations or by other convincing scientific studies. Two case studies, one from Vermont and the other from California, illustrate the land management issues that have arisen. It has proved difficult to communicate a scientific rationale for some of the steps that have been taken, with resulting public apprehension and mistrust of the agencies involved.

Chrysotile asbestos was quarried on Belvidere Mt., Vermont, for nearly a century, prior to closing the Vermont Asbestos Group (VAG) mine in 1993. Until recently, public access to this privately owned property was available via owner permission. Sportsmen, mineral collectors and scientists were attracted to this unique locality. However, starting in 2007, the U.S. EPA and the State of Vermont (ANR) have attempted to discourage or prohibit such access, and have published various studies to justify this action. A November 2008 study by the Vt. Dept. of Health was embarrassingly retracted. A July 2009 EPA activity-based study presented no evidence that casual, non-destructive visits to the mine presented a health risk.

New Idria, California contains the world’s largest deposit of chrysotile asbestos, which was mined from 1960 to 1993. The huge New Idria district lies in a remote area that has been a mecca for ATV riders and hunters, as well as prospectors, mineral collectors and scientists. The district lies on public land, managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In May, 2008, an EPA study suggested the presence of tremolite asbestos here, and the BLM closed the district to public access forthwith, citing increased health risks. No other published study, going back to 1853, has discovered amphibole asbestos at New Idria. Since 2008, lack of access to scientists has impeded follow-up studies.

In the two cases described here, unclear scientific studies by regulatory agencies, poorly presented, and in some cases motivated by legal strategies, have created a public backlash. Outside peer review of such studies is needed to maintain public confidence.