Eden Mine Study Dubious

Reporter Jesse Roman of the Stowe Reporter in Vermont has been following the situation with the asbestos mine and health study as events unfolded in Vermont.

According to a January 29, 2009 article, new information obtained by the Stowe Reporter casts serious doubts on a Vermont Department of Health study about the former asbestos mine in Eden and Lowell.

The study cited three asbestosis deaths among residents within 10 miles of the mine, but at least two of those deaths involved people whose high asbestos exposure had no connection to the mine.

One is Henry Allrutz, who lived in Hyde Park. According to a death certificate at the Hyde Park town clerk’s office, Allrutz died in 2001 of internal hemorrhaging; asbestosis was listed as a secondary cause of death.

Allrutz, born in Akron, Ohio, worked as a shipbuilder and welder for most of his life, according to the death certificate. Shipbuilding was previously associated with asbestos exposure because it was used on boilers and pipes.  

Percy Richard of Lowell also had asbestosis listed as a secondary cause of his death.  Mr. Richard’s family confirmed that he worked in the Vermont asbestos mine for a year, though that is not listed on his death certificate nor on employee lists.  Mr. Richardson was a dairy farmer most of his life, and his doctor told him he had “farmer’s lung,” a condition similar to asbestosis, resulting from breathing in fine dusts and molds from hay.  No autopsy was performed to confirm either way. 

The Vermont Health Department confirmed to the Stowe Reporter on that Allrutz and Richardson are two of the three asbestos-related deaths it cites in its November study, making the conclusions of that study dubious.

The third individual’s information is not available because that person died in New Hampshire, where death records are private.

The health department study suggested that people living within 10 miles of the former asbestos mine have a higher than normal chance of developing an asbestos disease.  The initial study claimed a higher incidence of lung cancer but those results were later retracted.

The study’s conclusions hinge on two findings: Per-capita asbestosis deaths and hospital discharges in the 10-mile area around the mine are higher than the state averages. The state looked for any death certificates that mentioned asbestosis. Excluding former mine workers, officials found the towns closest to the mine had three deaths and 14 hospital discharges related to asbestosis, out of the 167,000 people living in those areas between 1996 and 2005 — 16,700 people per year for 10 years. The state average is only 0.37 deaths and 4.47 asbestosis hospital discharges per 167,000 people.

It is obvious now that State officials did not conduct a thorough investigation to confirm the three deaths were related to asbestos and related to the mine.

According to Roman, now that the facts have emerged about the Allrutz and Richardson asbestosis cases, the state’s assertion of asbestos health risks now hinges on a single death.

He and Eden residents also question whether the study’s findings are still statistically significant. 

Several state legislators, he says, are drafting a bipartisan resolution that is highly critical of the Vermont Health Department for releasing the asbestos study on such thin evidence.

The legislators are demanding that the report be withdrawn and that the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Department of Health end efforts to obtain federal Superfund designation until the health and environmental evaluations are completed, validated by peer review, and presented to the Legislature and the affected towns.

The report may have been released prematurely to support a lawsuit filed by the state against the Vermont Asbestos Group (previous mine owners) to force it to pay for cleanup costs.

Which of course they should.

The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources has also sued Vermont Asbestos Group, current owner of the mine, for hundreds of thousands of dollars. The suit alleges that, “during the period from 1975 to the present, VAG discharged waste into waters of the state without first obtaining a permit for that discharge.” The proposed penalties are $50,000 for each of the two initial violations and $25,000 “for each day that the release has continued unabated thereafter.”

When contacted by the paper, Vermont Governor James Douglas did not come down on either side of the fence in regard to the health department’s study.

It’s clear the health department’s initial report involving lung cancer was erroneous. Someone made a mistake and caused unnecessary stress and for that should be held accountable.

The decision on releasing the report ‘is a dilemma they have. Folks in (the media) appropriately are interested in disclosure of information of government agencies, and it is a judgment call. The likelihood of a problem is slight — but is not zero,’

The statistics (in the study zone) are higher than in the general population, but there is no direct evidence it is related to the mine. Was it the right call (to release the report)? I don’t know. The department erred on the side of disclosure. If they didn’t, someone would complain, when the report was discovered, that they should have released it earlier. These are the decisions they have to make on a regular basis, and it is open for debate.

Residents claim the report has already had a significant impact on property values.

The governor said more research is needed to see if there is a direct link between asbestosis and the mine. He also said that the state should pursue getting the site designated a Superfund site, to secure federal resources for cleanup, and more should be done to discourage people from getting close to mine. Now, it’s often used by cross-country skiers and ATV riders.

Read the original article.