[Senate Hearing 110-1051]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1051
OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL EFFORTS TO CLEAN UP ASBESTOS IN LINCOLN COUNTY, MT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 5, 2007--LIBBY, MT
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-925 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
__________
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 5, 2007--LIBBY, MT
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 1
Specter, Hon. Arlen, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, prepared statement............................... 129
WITNESSES
Bodine, Susan Parker, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Responses to additional questions from Senator Baucus........ 993
Roose, Marianne B., commissioner, Lincoln County, MT Board of
County Commissioners........................................... 101
Prepared statement........................................... 102
Black, Brad, M.D., Lincoln County Health Officer, medical
director, Center for Asbestos Related Disease.................. 104
Prepared statement........................................... 105
Thom, Leroy, board member, Libby Area Technical Assistance Group,
Inc............................................................ 107
Prepared statement........................................... 109
Audience Participants:
Williamson, Lloyd Douglas.................................... 116
Benefield, Gayla............................................. 117
Sullivan, Gordon............................................. 118
Prepared statement....................................... 131
Maynard, Clinton............................................. 119
Flynn, Kevin................................................. 120
Caldwell, Bill............................................... 121
Prepared statement....................................... 136
Carney, Eileen for Edna Johnson.............................. 124
Wood, Tom.................................................... 124
Priest, Alice................................................ 126
Parker, Mel.................................................. 126
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statement, Orr, DC............................................... 137
OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL EFFORTS TO CLEAN UP ASBESTOS IN LINCOLN COUNTY, MT
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Libby, MT.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:18 p.m., in the
Ponderosa Room, Libby City Hall, Hon. Max Baucus presiding.
Present: Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. The meeting will come to order.
First I'll thank everyone for being here. Ms. Bodine, I
appreciate your making the effort to come to Libby, and clearly
thank everybody this afternoon, those who will be testifying
and others that wish to say something, make statements. The
whole goal here is essentially for the U.S. Government to serve
all of you in Libby the best way possible. You're our
employers. We work for you. I mean you're the--we're the hired
hands. All of us, those of us in Congress and those who serve
in the executive branch of government. So the whole point of
this hearing basically is to help determine for you whether the
job is being done right for all of you; that is, the cleanup
and the CARD Clinic and all the efforts that are so necessary
to redress and turn around the disaster which W.R. Grace caused
with all the vermiculite and related diseases and dislocations
that it's caused to the people of Libby.
The goal here too is to soon have a time and date when all
of this is behind us. That's really what this is about. Figure
out how, as quickly as possible, we can close the chapter on
the vermiculite and asbestos-related-disease problems as much
as possible and get on with rebuilding Libby, new jobs and
businesses, and just--and the times----
(Brief interruption.)
Senator Baucus. That's the goal. I have a prepared
statement I'm going to read, and then we'll just take it from
there. The book of Ecclesiastes teaches us that, ``For
everything there is a season and a time for every matter under
heaven, a time to break down, a time to build up, a time to
mourn, a time to dance, a time to keep silent, and a time to
speak.'' At today's hearing, coming as a long winter gives away
to a new season, it is time to speak up about Libby's
challenges and put your cleanup back on track. It has been 7
years since news reports first exposed the extent of asbestos
contamination in Libby, 7 years since I first met Les Skramstad
over huckleberry pie at Gayla Benefield's home.
That day I made a promise to Les and everyone in Libby, but
especially to Les, because he was the one that I was talking to
at the moment, that I would not stop fighting until Libby gets
a clean bill of health. Our dear friend Les passed on this
winter, but my promise to Les and the people of Libby remains.
It is time to speak up again for Libby, to honor the memory of
those who lost their lives because of asbestos exposure, to
mark the progress made, and to see what remains to be done.
Important progress has been made in Libby in the last 7
years. In the year 2000, we secured money from Health and Human
Services (HHS) to establish the CARD Clinic; we got money for
Lincoln County through the HHS rural health outreach grant
starting in 2003; and we got Lincoln County's health center
funded starting in 2001, with an initial grant of $257,000.
That health center recently got an infusion of $602,000 from
HHS. I'll continue to push for more. We also worked to get
Fannie Mae to give $75,000 worth of grants to the community for
housing. I worked with the Social Security Administration to
make a regulatory rule change so that it is now much easier for
Libby's residents to qualify for disability benefits under the
social security and supplemental security income programs. We
learned the need for that when the secretary-elect was here
last year.
In addition, EPA has completed 794 emergency-response level
cleanups of homes and businesses. Despite this progress, much
remains to be done. In August 2006, I asked the inspector
general to review EPA's work in Libby because we heard reports
that not all that was being done that should be done.
What that report found was truly outrageous. After 7 years,
the EPA has failed to complete the necessary toxicity studies
to determine the safe level of human exposure to Libby
asbestos. That means that, after 7 years and hundreds of
millions of dollars, EPA still cannot say how clean they need
to make the homes and businesses to protect the families in
Libby.
In a subsequent letter, EPA promised me that they would
begin the toxicity studies within 45 days. This hearing is an
opportunity for the community to see what remains to be done
and how--and to hold EPA's feet to the fire to make sure that
they do it. I understand there was a hearing in March where
some of this was laid out, and I want to nail that down more
completely.
I want to thank Ms. Bodine for joining us here in Libby
today. This is pretty important stuff. As Assistant
Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste Emergency Response,
Ms. Bodine is in charge of the Superfund program.
Ms. Bodine, the inspector general report raised many
important questions. Why wasn't a toxicity study started
earlier? When will the toxicity study be complete? How does EPA
intend to correct the misinformation put forward in such EPA
publications as Asbestos in Your Home, those comfort letters?
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your remarks
and what you have to say. Commissioner Marianne Roose has also
agreed to testify.
Commissioner Roose has served Lincoln County since 1997.
She brings a wealth of local knowledge, and I look forward to
her testimony in how we can make Lincoln County healthier and a
more prosperous place to live, work, and raise a family.
Sitting next to her is Dr. Brad Black. Brad is also here to
give us the medical community's perspective. Dr. Black is the
medical director of the Center for Asbestos Related Disease
here in Libby. Dr. Black has devoted his career to treating and
advocating for the victims of W.R. Grace.
It's good to see you, Dr. Black.
Leroy Thom will testify about the continued needs of the
community. Leroy worked for 17 years at W.R. Grace. He's the
current owner of Montana Machine and Fabrication. Leroy is an
active member of the Libby Community Advisory Group. Leroy, I
look forward to your views of how we keep moving towards a
clean bill of health.
Finally, at the end of the hearing, we will have an
opportunity for members of the audience to ask questions and
make statements. I think it's very important that Ms. Bodine,
as well as I, and all of us who are working on this, especially
Ms. Bodine as head of the Superfund program, have an
opportunity to hear from all of you firsthand how your lives
are affected by the work that EPA does or does not do. I hope
that someday soon there will be a new season in Libby, one
where people in Lincoln County no longer wonder if their homes
are safe for their children, a time when businesses move to
Libby without hesitation. I look forward to that day when Libby
finally gets that clean bill of health.
Let me first turn to you, Ms. Bodine. Start out and--I read
your written statement on the plane coming over here. Would
love to hear what you have to say. I know the people of Libby
would like to hear you too. So the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN PARKER BODINE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Bodine. Thank you, Senator Baucus. I want to thank all
the members of the community who came to this hearing as well.
I'm Susan Bodine. I'm the Assistant Administrator of EPA's
Office of Solid Waste----
Senator Baucus. I'm very sorry. I pronounced it Bodeen
(phonetic). It's Bodine. I'm very sorry.
Ms. Bodine [continuing]. Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, which includes the Superfund program. We are the
national program managers, the national directors of the
Superfund program. As I'm sure most of you know, EPA is divided
up into regions, so Region 8 out of Denver operates the program
for the Montana area.
I came into town yesterday. This is my first trip to Libby,
and I greatly appreciate the hospitality, and I greatly
appreciate what a beautiful community and what a fabulous
location you have here in Libby. When I arrived, I had the
opportunity to go around with some of the EPA team and look at
some of the ongoing cleanup work, and I also yesterday had--
actually, this morning had the opportunity to meet with some of
the community members as well. I met Dr. Black and Dr.
Whitehouse, and we had a good discussion at the CARD Clinic.
Then later this morning I had the opportunity to meet with
Mayor Berget, as well as Commissioner Roose and other leaders
in the community, to get a good perspective of the needs here.
I'm sure that we will also hear more today. But I want to thank
people for their willingness to talk to me, and I definitely
appreciated what I heard.
Now, I want you--everyone here--to know that I understand
and folks who work with me understand, as the Senator said,
just what a tragedy it has been in Libby and that this is very
definitely a top priority for the Superfund program. The
incidents of disease that you see here, we don't see that at
our other sites. It's remarkable. We are committed to working
with our State and our Federal and, of course, our local
partners to take all the steps necessary to protect the public
health and the environment here in Libby.
I know that a lot of you know what has happened to date,
and what you're most interested in, and what the hearing is
about is, what's going on now and what's happening in the
future. I do want to review the accomplishments to date. In
particular, I want to recognize the extraordinary efforts of
the EPA Libby team, the folks that are working here in town, as
well as the folks based in Region 8.
As you know, back in 1999, EPA sent an emergency response
team to the community, immediately began collecting hundreds of
samples from the soil, from the dust, from residences, from
commercial facilities, and realized that there was a real
problem. EPA identified where some of the major--the worst
areas first; identified where some of the major locations were
and conducted emergency removal actions at the high school, at
the middle school, and at the elementary school. EPA
immediately took action removing some of the high
concentrations at the processing plants, the--export plant, and
then realized that, we're in here for the long haul and began a
comprehensive screening of--an attempt to screen--virtually all
the properties in Libby.
In 2002 to 2003, EPA inspected over 3,500 properties for
the presence of asbestos-containing materials. In May 2002, EPA
issued an action memo--a removal-action memo--that set out a
process and a program for removing contamination from the yards
and from the homes here in Libby where the sampling showed that
we had asbestos-contaminated material.
Now, through the end of 2006, as the Senator said, we've
done 794 residential and commercial properties, the EPA team
has removed more than 400,000 tons of asbestos-contaminated
material and debris. Through those actions, they have greatly
reduced the risk here, greatly reduced exposure, and I applaud
them for it; I applaud the team for it. They've really done a
yeomen's work. Folks that have been in a Staples recently will
see that they're selling these red buttons that, if you press
it, it says ``that was easy.''
I was thinking earlier today that we need to get one of
those buttons for the EPA folks here that says ``that wasn't
easy,'' because it isn't. This is a very complicated site, and
there are a lot of challenges that they've overcome, and a lot
of challenges that remain.
Now, I know that what you want to hear about is what's
ongoing and what's going forward, so I want to talk about five
significant areas where we have ongoing work and work planned.
First issue, ongoing work, ongoing removals. We are working on
developing a final cleanup standard so that we can identify
what the final remedy is for the site, but we're not stopping
removals. The removal actions, the yard cleanups, the home
cleanups, they have been tremendously successful in reducing
risks, and that work is not going to stop. So this year we're
going to continue that, and the team is planning to do about
160 properties this year.
More ongoing work is additional remedial investigation. We
have some more areas where we need to do some work--some
investigative work. The mine, we need to do remedial
investigation up at the mine. In addition, there's a little bit
more investigation work that needs to be done at the processing
areas, like the export plant and the former mill, the Stimson
mill. The hope is that that work will let us know that we've
cut off exposure there, because if we have completely cut off
exposure there, then we can pick a final remedy for those sites
early. We can pick that remedy soon, if there is no exposure
left. So that's the purpose of the RI work, remedial
investigation work.
Then this year and next year we're going to be doing the--
through a cooperative agreement with the State of Montana--
we're going to be doing the investigative work in Troy. We
expect to investigate 1,000 properties in 2007 and 2008, and to
essentially do the screening in Troy such as what's done in
Libby. That's the second area.
The third area of work in 2007 is work that is both
starting and continuing. First of all, on the exposure side,
we're continuing with the ambient-air monitoring. In addition,
we are doing both indoor and outdoor sampling that's activity-
based sampling. In other words, the team will go in and stir
things up and then do air sampling to see if there are fibers
detected in the air. That's going to help tremendously to let
us know, what's been a success of the work that we've done to
date.
Then the fourth area I want to talk about is the toxicity
assessment and the studies that are supporting that. We have
had underway a noncancer study of Libby asbestos that's been
done through Region 8, and we've also had underway a method--
developing a methodology that will allow us to use some of our
existing work at Libby.
In addition, we want to make sure that we have all the
studies that we need to support a baseline risk assessment and
support the toxicity assessment. So in January of this year, we
convened a meeting down in Research Triangle Park, at EPA's
laboratory down there, and invited 30 scientists to come--these
are scientists from the EPA, but also from folks like ATSDR and
other government agencies. We also heard from Gayla Benefield
and Dr. Henningsen as well so that they could speak to the
scientists and give them their perspective and their
knowledge--the benefit of their knowledge of what's going on
here in Libby.
At that meeting, the group there identified a list of 12
studies that will support the development of a final toxicity
number, a final risk assessment for Libby. That includes the
ongoing noncancer assessment, the ongoing methodology work, as
well as a cancer assessment that the Office of Research and
Development has started. In addition we will do a number of
animal studies and some other in vitro studies which altogether
will support each other--this whole suite of studies support
each other--which then supports the development of a risk
number for Libby.
Then the fifth area I wanted to talk about was additional
work on our analytic methods here. We want to make sure that
our analytic methods are accurately detecting the fibers here
in Libby. We have a series of four studies. These were also
recommended by the group of scientists that we had down at
Research Triangle Park. So those four studies are underway as
well.
Now, all this means is that we have this ongoing work, we
expect to have those studies completed after--it will take 3
years to do all of those studies, which means that we wouldn't
be developing a final--a Record of Decision for the Libby
residential community until that work is done.
As I said earlier, we're looking at whether we think we can
do a Record of Decision at the processing areas early if we've
cut exposure off. But of course risk is both toxicity and
exposure. All this work is happening in parallel, and in
parallel with the ongoing removal action.
So I want to report that to you and let you know that we're
listening, and I understand the magnitude and the scope of the
issue here, and I want to assure you that, at EPA, we are
committed to protecting your community from exposure to the
amphibole, and that we're going to continue to work on it until
we're done. Thank you.
Statement of Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Good Afternoon. I am Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator
of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). I am pleased to appear today to discuss the
Superfund cleanup activities in Libby, Montana. The Libby Asbestos Site
is one of the Agency's top Superfund priorities and we remain committed
to working with our State, Federal and local governmental partners to
take the steps necessary to protect human health and the environment in
Libby.
background
For more than 60 years, a vermiculite mine owned originally by the
Zonolite Corporation and purchased by W.R. Grace in 1963, was one of
Libby's largest employers. The now-closed vermiculite mine once
produced a large proportion of the world's vermiculite--with an
estimated output of more than five million tons from 1963 to 1990. The
processed vermiculite ore mined in Libby was used as a soil conditioner
and in the manufacture of insulation, packaging and other materials.
Over the years it operated, the mine and related facilities
employed a total of about 2,000 workers in Libby. The ore was milled
and beneficiated (partly cleaned of impurities) on the mine property.
After milling, the ore was transported to a screening plant where the
ore was graded prior to shipment by railroad to other processing plants
around the country. It also went to one of two processing plants that
operated in Libby during different periods in the mine's history, prior
to bagging for shipment.
The vermiculite ore contained amphibole asbestos. Exposure to
asbestos resulting from operation of the mine and related processing
facilities has led to serious public health impacts among members of
the Libby community. Asbestos-related health effects include malignant
mesothelioma, an incurable, fatal cancer of the chest cavity which is
associated with asbestos exposure. Further, exposure to asbestos is
associated with an increased risk of all lung cancers, particularly
when combined with smoking. Exposure to asbestos can also cause
asbestosis, a debilitating respiratory illness caused by progressive
scarring of the lung tissue that can also be fatal, and pleural
abnormalities.
site investigations and response
In November of 1999, the EPA sent an Emergency Response Team to
Libby to investigate asbestos contamination in the community. EPA's
first priorities were to assess the risk to public health from asbestos
contaminated vermiculite in Libby and then take action to reduce this
risk.
In December of 1999, EPA began collecting samples--nearly 700--from
air, soil, dust and insulation at residences and businesses. Indoor air
sample results were released in January 2000, first to property owners
and then to the general public. EPA determined that Libby amphibole
asbestos was present at unacceptable levels in certain locations. EPA
immediately began to inspect public schools for possible exposure to
asbestos and to locate areas in and near Libby that were likely to have
high levels of contamination. EPA took emergency removal actions at the
Libby High School, the Libby Elementary School, and the Plummer
Elementary School grounds. Removal actions were also taken at two
former vermiculite processing facilities (the Export Plant and the
Screening Plant).
Between 2000 and 2002, EPA addressed asbestos contamination at the
vermiculite mine road and disposal areas. EPA also removed contaminated
material from community ball fields and conducted sampling of area
residences.
On May 9, 2002, EPA approved a Removal Action Memorandum Amendment
for the Libby Asbestos Site, authorizing additional work at known
locations and sources, including residential contamination in houses
associated with vermiculite insulation. As of the end of 2006, removal
activities have been completed at a total of 794 residential and
commercial properties and more than 400,000 tons of contaminated soil
and debris have been removed. EPA is also conducting cleanup activities
in Troy, Montana. A removal action at Troy High School has been
completed. Removal actions will continue, as needed, to address
immediate risks before the final remedies are selected and carried out
at Libby.
To determine the extent of contamination in Libby from amphibole
asbestos, EPA established a program to inspect all properties. To date,
EPA has screened more than 3500 properties in and around Libby for the
presence of asbestos-containing materials. In addition, EPA, working
with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, expects to begin
the site investigation in Troy by May 2007 to determine which
properties are contaminated with Libby amphibole asbestos and to fully
support the field activities needed for the Troy Area Property
Evaluation (TAPE). EPA plans to conduct property assessments in 2007
and 2008, totaling 1000 properties. EPA also plans to collect
additional remedial investigation data from the Export Plant as well as
the former Stimson Lumber Mill.
npl listing and development of long-term remedies
The Governor of Montana requested that the Libby site be listed on
the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), which authorized each state to designate one site for
inclusion on the NPL. The Libby Asbestos Site (which includes Troy,
Montana) was added to the NPL in October 2002, authorizing EPA to take
action to provide long-term protection at Libby through remedial
actions. To select final remedies that will provide long-term
protection at the Libby site, EPA must complete a baseline risk
assessment that includes exposure data and toxicity information.
To develop additional information about potential exposure to
amphibole asbestos, EPA will continue (and expand) the Outdoor Ambient
Air Sampling Program that began last October as well as initiate a
series of Indoor and Outdoor Activity Based Sampling (ABS) Programs.
The Activity Based Sampling Programs are designed to evaluate the
effectiveness of EPA's current property clean up program, and will also
provide crucial asbestos exposure data needed for a complete baseline
risk assessment.
To develop additional information about the toxicity of amphibole
asbestos, EPA has been working on a toxicological review of noncancer
effects of amphibole asbestos and a reassessment of the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) asbestos cancer health assessment.\1\ In
addition, EPA has been working on an interim methodology to address
cancer risk estimates for amphibole asbestos.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IRIS is a database of human health effects that may result from
exposure to various substances found in the environment. IRIS was
initially developed by EPA staff to provide consistent information on
chemical substances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure that EPA has all the information it needs to support a
baseline risk assessment for Libby, in January 2007, EPA convened a
group of more than 30 scientists from EPA, the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the National Toxicology
Program to identify data gaps and recommend additional studies. The
meeting was hosted by EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The
scientists also considered information from the Libby Technical
Assistance Group.
Based on the recommendations developed from the January 2007
meeting, the Agency has identified and is implementing a comprehensive
program of 12 studies to support the development of the Libby toxicity
assessment and four studies that support important Libby exposure
assessment analytical needs. (The list of studies is attached to this
written testimony.) Detailed work plans are currently being developed,
including consultation with other agencies (e.g., the ATSDR, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the National
Toxicology Program) and external peer reviews. These studies are
expected to take 3 years to complete. In the meantime, clean up work at
the site will continue.
A definitive schedule for Records of Decision (RODs) at Libby is
largely dependent on progress made on the exposure assessment and
toxicity assessment work. However, we anticipate that at some of the
former processing areas, if exposure pathways have been completely
addressed, RODs may be completed in a shorter timeframe. EPA's
tentative schedule will address seven site areas (operable units)
between 2009 and 2011.
december 2006 inspector general report
In December of 2006, the EPA Office of Inspector General (IG)
issued a report entitled, ``EPA Needs to Plan and Complete a Toxicity
Assessment for the Libby Asbestos Cleanup.'' The IG report focused on
EPA's risk and toxicity assessment efforts associated with the removal
of Libby amphibole contamination and on two public fact sheets that
discussed residential exposure issues. In response to that report, EPA
reaffirmed its intent to carry out all the studies needed to develop a
long-term cleanup remedy for Libby. That work commenced with the
January 2007 meeting at EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory, which identified and recommended studies.
In response to the IG report, EPA also agreed to immediately review
and revise materials provided to Libby residents regarding the safety
of living with or handling asbestos. EPA had already discontinued use
of the fact sheets dealing with what to do if you encounter
vermiculite, including the fact sheet, ``Living with Vermiculite.'' EPA
has circulated informational materials for public comment. In addition,
in early March 2007, EPA initiated a mass mailing of letters to
property owners in Libby updating them on the current cleanup schedule
and explaining how cleanup criteria are related to the final baseline
risk assessment. A town meeting was held on March 7, 2007 (in addition
to the regular TAG/CAG meetings) to discuss the work needed to develop
a baseline risk assessment and how EPA plans to incorporate that work
into the cleanups and assessments currently being conducted in Libby
and Troy.
involvement of w.r. grace
W.R. Grace, an owner and operator of the vermiculite mine and
facilities, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April 2001.
In late 2005, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling
that EPA was entitled to approximately $55 million in clean-up costs.
EPA has incurred more than $100 million in response costs since the
District Court's ruling. The United States continues to pursue
reimbursement for Superfund program activities through cost recovery
actions in the Federal Courts.
conclusion
EPA remains committed to protecting public health and the
environment by reducing exposure to amphibole asbestos in Libby and
Troy, Montana. EPA will continue to work closely with our Federal,
State, and local partners as cleanup efforts progress. The cleanup
activities in Libby, Montana, have always been an Agency priority and
will remain one of the Superfund program's top priorities in the years
ahead.
______
Libby Superfund Site Studies
list of toxicity assessment studies
EPA Region 8 Libby Amphibole Reference Concentration Development
NCEA Libby Amphibole Cancer Assessment
EPA Region 8/USGS Preparation of Libby Testing Material
EPA Region 8 Fiber Size Distribution in Libby Vermiculite
NHEERL Dosimetry Model Development. Simulation Studies
NHEERL In Vitro Dissolution Assays
NHEERL In Vitro Toxicity Endpoints
NHEERL Comparative Toxicology in Mice and Rats
NHEERL Inhalation Toxicology in Rats
EPA Region 8/NCEA New Epidemiologic Information from Libby Montana
Cohort
EPA Region 8/NCEA New Epidemiologic Information from Libby Montana
Cohort
NCEA New Epidemiologic Information from Other Cohorts
OSWER Interim Cancer Risk Methodology
list of analytical methods studies
EPA Region 8 Filter Verification Studies
EPA Region 8 Low-Level Soil Method Development
EPA Region 8 Comparison Direct & Indirect Preparations
EPA Region 8 Ambient Air Collection Method Verification
acronyms
NCEA--EPA National Center for Environmental Assessment
NHEERL--EPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory
OSWER--Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
------
Responses from Susan Parker Bodine to Additional Questions from
Senator Baucus
Question 1. Medical care for people that live in Libby is a top
priority. People have died in Libby as a result of exposure to
asbestos, and people continue to suffer serious adverse health effects
from past exposure. Moreover, the threat of continued illness is ever
present, since EPA acknowledges that ``[t]he Libby Asbestos Superfund
site is considered Human Exposure Not Under Control because people can
be expected to come into contact with'' asbestos.
Superfund requires the Federal Government to ``in cases of public
health emergencies caused or believed to be caused by exposure to toxic
substances, provide medical care and testing to exposed individuals,
including but not limited to tissue sampling, chromosomal testing where
appropriate . . . or any other assistance appropriate under the
circumstances [and that] exposed persons shall be eligible for
admission to hospitals and other facilities and services operated or
provided by the Public Health Service'' (emphasis added).
News reports indicate that EPA was moving to declare a public
health emergency in 2001, but that concerns raised by the Office of
Management and Budget and W.R. Grace derailed the declaration. This
raises grave concerns because of the Federal Government's commitment to
care for innocent people who are suffering from exposure to asbestos.
Please provide all EPA records, including any memoranda, letters,
email, meeting notes, telephone logs or other EPA records related to
any EPA consideration of declaring a public health emergency at Libby,
including but not limited to records that describe or relate to:
1. Any involvement of the Office of Management and Budget in the
process of considering whether to declare a public health emergency in
Libby,
2. Any involvement of any other Federal Agency in the process of
considering whether to declare a public health emergency in Libby,
3. Any involvement of W.R. Grace, including any entity with any
financial, corporate, or other business relationship to W.R. Grace, in
the process of considering whether to declare a public health emergency
in Libby, and
4. Any involvement of any law firm in the process of considering
whether to declare a public health emergency in Libby.
Response. Because of the potentially large number of documents
responsive to this request and the need to search multiple U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offices, EPA is unable to respond
to this document request at this time. We expect to provide a further
response concerning this request for documents by August 31, 2007.
However, the attached letter from Julie Gerberding, Administrator for
the Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, is relevant to
your request.
Question 2. List and describe all instances where EPA has declared
a public health emergency related to the release of a hazardous
substance. Please provide all EPA records, including any memoranda,
letters, email, meeting notes, telephone logs or other EPA records
related to any EPA decision to declare a public health emergency.
Response. Section 104(a)(3) limits EPA's response authority for a
release or threat of a release. There is an exception to the limitation
related to public health emergencies. There are two provisions in
CERCLA concerning public health emergencies:
1. Section 104(a)(4) authorizes EPA to respond to, among other
things, releases from products which are part of the structure of, and
result in exposure within, residential buildings or business or
community structures--if EPA determines that a release or threatened
release constitutes a public health or environmental emergency and no
other person with the authority and capability to respond to the
emergency will do so in a timely manner; and
2. Section 104(i) outlines the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry's (ATSDR) health related authorities under CERCLA.
Section 104(i)(1)(D) outlines ATSDR's medical care and testing
authorities under CERCLA in cases of a public health emergency.
EPA has never made a determination that a public health or
environmental emergency exists to invoke CERCLA's exception to the
limits on response under Section 104(a)(3).
Question 3. Please describe the process and criteria that EPA uses
to determine whether to declare a public health emergency. Please
include any draft, interim or final records that EPA may rely on to:
1. Undertake the process of determining whether to declare a public
health emergency, and
2. Declare a public health emergency.
Response. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) provides the process that EPA uses for
implementing CERCLA. Section 300.400(b) of the NCP implements CERCLA
104 (a)(4) which authorizes EPA to respond to releases from, among
other things, products which are part of the structures of, and result
in exposure within, residential building or community structures--if
EPA determines that the release constitutes a public health or
environmental emergency and no other person with the authority and
capability to respond to the emergency will do so in a timely manner.
Response actions are selected under CERCLA section 104(a) and (c).
Please note that under Executive Order 12580, the authority under
section 104(b) to investigate and gather information to determine
whether illness, disease, or complaints thereof may be attributable to
a release of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant is
delegated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), not EPA.
EPA consults closely with HHS and in particular the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) on health related issues under
CERCLA. There are provisions for health assessments and public health
threat evaluations by ATSDR in the NCP (e.g., Section 300.410 ``Removal
Site Evaluation'') and references to the role of HHS in addressing
public health emergencies during response operations (Section
300.135(h)). In addition, NCP Section 300.175(b)(8)(i) includes a
provision that describes ATSDR's role in preparedness planning and
response.
Question 4. A 2003 report by ATSDR recommended the need for
``toxicological investigations of the risks associated with low-level
exposure to asbestos, especially Libby asbestos.'' According to the
2006 Inspector General report, EPA scientists requested the toxicity
study, but EPA's budget office did not approve their request.
Please provide all EPA records, including any memoranda, letters,
email, meeting notes, telephone logs or other EPA records related to
any EPA consideration of conducting toxicological studies of Libby
asbestos, including but not limited to records that describe or relate
to:
1. Any involvement of the Office of Management and Budget in the
process of considering whether to conduct toxicological studies of
Libby asbestos,
2. Any involvement of any other Federal Agency in the process of
considering whether to conduct toxicological studies.
3. Any involvement of W.R. Grace, including any entity with any
financial, corporate, or other business relationship to W.R. Grace, in
the process of considering whether to conduct toxicological studies,
4. Any involvement of any law firm in the process of considering
whether to conduct toxicological studies.
Response. Because of the potentially large number of documents
responsive to this request and the need to search multiple U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offices, EPA is unable to respond
to this document request at this time. We expect to provide a further
response concerning this request for documents by August 31, 2007.
Question 5. In a letter dated December 8, 2006, EPA stated it would
begin toxicological studies of Libby asbestos. Please provide me with
EPA's operating plan and budget for the toxicity studies in FY2007 as
the funding needs and timeline for fully completing all toxicity
studies.
Response. To ensure that EPA has all the information it needs to
support a baseline risk assessment for Libby, in January 2007, EPA
convened a group of more than 30 scientists from EPA, the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the National
Toxicology Program to identify data gaps and recommend additional
studies. The meeting was hosted by EPA's ORD National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL) in Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. The scientists also considered information from
the Libby Technical Assistance Group.
Based on the recommendations developed from the January 2007
meeting, the EPA has identified and is implementing a comprehensive
program of 12 studies to support the Libby risk assessment. The
description of these studies and a timeline for funding are attached.
Detailed work plans are currently being developed and will include
consultation with other agencies (e.g., the ATSDR, National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the National Toxicology
Program (NTP) and external peer reviews.
The studies are anticipated to be completed by September 30, 2009;
however, this date is tentative pending the completion of the detailed
work plans. Results from the studies will be used to complete the
baseline risk assessment, including the comprehensive toxicity
assessment, by September 30, 2010.
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response approved a budget
of $2,649,250 in fiscal year 2007 for the Libby Action Plan. With
recent adjustments due to detailed plans of several analytical studies,
the actual fiscal year budget is $2,581,750 as of May 31, 2007.
Additional funding is anticipated in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Enclosure 3 provides the status and anticipated funding needs for
the various studies. EPA intends to provide monthly updates to this
information, as requested by Senator Baucus during the field hearing.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 555925.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.086
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Ms. Bodine, very, very much.
Thank you.
Is it true that--refresh your recollection here--that in
2003 the report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, ATSDR, recommended a need for, ``toxicological
investigations of the risks associated with low-level exposure
to asbestos, especially Libby asbestos''? Is it also true that
the report stated that, ``The exact level of risk cannot be
determined due to uncertainties in the analysis and toxicology
of Libby asbestos''? Do you remember that report?
Ms. Bodine. I don't have it right in front of me. Yes, I
believe that's--that is my recollection of what that report
says, yes.
Senator Baucus. Right. Is it also true that, in 2006,
inspector general report, the--according to the inspector
general report in 2006, EPA's own scientists requested a
toxicity study, but EPA's budget office did not approve their
request?
Ms. Bodine. I read that in the inspector general's report.
That's the information I have about that.
Senator Baucus. So your only knowledge is based on what you
read in the inspector general report?
Ms. Bodine. I was not here in--I was not an EPA employee in
2003, so I'm not personally familiar with that.
Senator Baucus. I'm talking about 2006.
Ms. Bodine. You're talking about the report in----
Senator Baucus. According to the inspector general's
report, EPA scientists requested a toxicity study, but EPA's
budget office did not approve their request. Why would--if
EPA's own scientist requested a toxicity study, along the lines
of ATSDR recommendation, why in the world would the EPA not
follow through and do that study, or, stated differently, why
would EPA's own budget turn that down?
Ms. Bodine. It's my understanding that--again, that this
was--this wasn't a request that was made in 2006. But it's my
understanding that the decision at the time was to focus on the
removals and addressing immediate risks by removing asbestos-
contaminated material and that there was a team at EPA that was
looking at asbestos issues as a national issue and was
developing a whole series of studies to then examine and study
this asbestos-toxicity issue more broadly. Because of that,
there was not, at that time, a Libby-specific study.
Senator Baucus. Is a toxicity study necessary to do a
baseline risk assessment?
Ms. Bodine. To do a risk assessment, you have to understand
both exposure and toxicity.
Senator Baucus. It's a necessary component?
Ms. Bodine. So if we don't have--generally we, in the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, use the toxicity
numbers that have been developed by the ORD, the Office of
Research and Development. These are called IRIS numbers. So
generally we have existing toxicity numbers that we're able to
use, and then what we generally do is determine what the
exposure is and apply the toxicity number. The problem is that
the cancer toxicity number that the Agency has is based on
chrysotile, and, as we've all learned, the amphibole at Libby
is very different.
Senator Baucus. That's correct. That's all the more reason
why it's so curious that the EPA didn't follow its own
scientists' recommendations and do a toxicity analysis.
Ms. Bodine. The noncancer toxicity assessment, using
specifically the amphibole, has been underway for a while. With
respect to the cancer toxicity numbers, the work that is very
far along is work that's been developed to be able to use the
existing toxicity numbers and then adjust those numbers
downward based on studies--epidemiological studies.
Now, going forward, what we did was get the recommendations
of scientists, both within EPA and other agencies, and got the
recommendations.
Senator Baucus. Put this all in context. Some time ago we
got word, frankly, from some technical people at the EPA that
EPA was dragging its heels, was cutting corners, on any
potential toxicity analysis, just wasn't doing the job. So I
requested--wrote a letter to the inspector general to look into
this and see whether, in fact, the EPA was doing what its own
scientists said it should be doing, and which ATSDR also
suggested that has to be done in order to do risk assessment.
The IG's report concluded, as you all know, end of last year,
that, yeah, they're not doing the job; they need toxicity
analysis, as we suspected was the case. The inspector general's
conclusion was the EPA was not doing analysis. I don't want to
belabor the point, but, as you said, we need a toxicity
analysis as one of the conditions to get the job done here. It
very much looks like the EPA has been cutting corners, that
it's not doing it right the first time; it didn't make the
budget request. I'm a little bit surprised that you didn't know
about all that. It seems to me, if you're the Assistant
Administrator in charge of Superfund, I would expect that you
would know; the bucks stops, you know, with you, and the
Administrator, but certainly the Superfund stops with you.
I'm just quite put out, frankly. Here it is, it's been 7
years, and EPA has been putting in a lot of work, a lot of
cleanup has been good. It feels like, due to budget reasons,
EPA was trying to get away with something by cutting corners
and frankly was caught. Caught by the IG, inspector general.
I'm just wondering--history is history, but that's my analysis
of what happened. The real question now is how to move forward
and get this all done as quickly as we possibly can.
You say it takes 3 years now to do this analysis. I have
several questions about that. My Lord, why didn't you start
this 3 years ago instead of right now? What can we do to speed
up this analysis? I'm also wondering what your budget is? How
many dollars are you allocating to this and over how many
years? How much are you spending on this each year in the 3
years to get it done?
Ms. Bodine. I don't have a 3-year breakdown, but we have on
the toxicity--the 12 toxicity studies--or the studies that are
feeding into developing the toxicity number, we have a budget
that's been developed by the scientists that are working on it.
They're currently developing more detailed study plans. But for
the 12 studies, the total cost is about $4.5 million.
Senator Baucus. Four and a half million for the toxicity
analysis. That includes the 12?
Ms. Bodine. The 12 studies, yes.
Senator Baucus. But you also, in that paragraph in your
statement, talk about four other studies.
Ms. Bodine. Those are another $1.68 million. Those are the
methods--making sure that our analytical methods that we're
using here at Libby are good enough to detect to asbestos here.
Senator Baucus. What's the total request, the total----
Ms. Bodine. The total funding for the 12 studies plus the
four studies, the estimate is about $6.2 million.
Senator Baucus. It's going to cost about $6.2 million to do
the toxicity analysis; is that correct?
Ms. Bodine. Well, the toxicity analysis is really the $4.5
million. The other is the--the analytical methods are making
sure--it's data testing, making sure our data is good. These
are all studies that are going to support developing a final
number, as is the continuing work on the exposure side, that's
also work that----
Senator Baucus. Is that--sorry.
Ms. Bodine. Go ahead.
Senator Baucus. Go ahead.
Ms. Bodine. All the work that we've done to date on
remedial investigation, all the work we're continuing to do,
that helps us know what the exposure levels are. The activity-
based-sampling work that we're going to be doing this year,
that's going to help us know what the exposures are. Then you
take the exposure data and you apply it to the toxicity number
to come up with an estimate of risk.
Senator Baucus. Is that amount budgeted? Is that locked in,
those dollar amounts, you know where you're going to spend it?
Is that a wish list? Or what's the status of that request?
Ms. Bodine. We're committed to doing all that work.
Senator Baucus. You're going to do it, period?
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Senator Baucus. Over 3 years?
Ms. Bodine. Over 3 years I know we're doing all the
studies. The activity-based sampling is not going to take
years, but yes, we are going to be doing all that.
Senator Baucus. Do you need to do the toxicity--must that
be completed before you can do a baseline risk study?
Ms. Bodine. To do a baseline risk assessment, yes.
Senator Baucus. That's necessary to tell the people of
Libby how clean clean is?
Ms. Bodine. Correct.
Senator Baucus. Is there a way to speed up that 3 years?
Ms. Bodine. I don't believe there is, because some of--
there's a sequence. Because remember these studies--some of the
studies are done to then support--to have information that
feeds into other studies. So we have a sequence of studies laid
out and timelines for when they start and when they're
completed. So because some things have to happen before other
things happen, I'm not aware that there are opportunities to
speed it up.
Senator Baucus. More resources, more money was spent?
Ms. Bodine. We identified the list of studies based on what
the scientists told us from the meeting down in Research
Triangle Park and have agreed--we have agreed that this is the
list of studies that we're going to do based on the scientific
recommendation, and that's what we're going to do. We have a
cost estimate for that. It may be more, but we're going to do
them anyway.
Senator Baucus. Would it make sense or not make sense for
you to go back and talk to them and see if there's a way to do
it more quickly, again if more resources--I want----
Ms. Bodine. I understand that. I'd be happy to go back and
ask the scientists again. We have a Gantt chart that is
sequencing them, but I will definitely ask your question and
get back to you.
Senator Baucus. Could you, you know, because we want to
help; we want to get this done and do whatever it takes to get
it done. I'm just curious though: Why wasn't this requested
earlier? I get this funny feeling it was--you went down to
Research Triangle and other places only because, frankly, of
the IG report. That's probably because I asked for that report
and the IG looked into the EPA, and EPA is going to--not to
chastise you--at least said yeah, this has to be done. So why
has this taken such a long time to get started?
Ms. Bodine. There was work underway already on developing
the toxicity number for Libby amphibole specifically. Again, on
the noncancer risk, that work is well underway and is using
data from a cohort of workers out of Marysville, OH. They
worked at one of the processing plants there, and they have
data from those people that they can use to develop a noncancer
risk.
On the cancer side, we had two things going on. One was a
methodology to use EPA's existing number and translate it into
a Libby-specific number. In addition, the Office of Research
and Development has started a cancer study as well also using
Libby amphibole. I don't know why things weren't started
faster, other than to know that, given the situation at Libby
and given the magnitude of exposure, that, when you have that
situation, we go in and we do--we take emergency action. We
don't stop and do a study. EPA goes in and removes the
contaminated material to get the risk down as low as possible
as quickly as possible.
Senator Baucus. History is history, but we can only deal
with the present and future. Let us know what needs to be done.
I'd also like EPA to send me a report, month-end status,
monthly reports.
Ms. Bodine. On the status of the studies?
Senator Baucus. The toxicity studies, with a word or two in
there of what could or should be done to speed this up. Would
you do that, please?
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Senator Baucus. Great. I appreciate that.
I recall a question about a number of response-level
cleanups. Year before last, there were 225 emergency-response
cleanups and the following year there were 16. I've been told
that the EPA plans to complete 135 this year. I'm curious why
the lower number.
Ms. Bodine. I've been told 160.
Senator Baucus. I mean 160. I misspoke.
Ms. Bodine. The properties that we're doing this year are
larger and more complex than some of the properties we've done
in the past. So the removal--when I talked to you before, you
know, the removal action work is continuing while we're doing
the additional sampling work and the additional studies, but
because these properties are larger and more complex, there are
fewer of them.
Senator Baucus. Again, I'm just trying to move things along
here.
Ms. Bodine. I understand that.
Senator Baucus. Next, what cancer-risk level does EPA use
to determine the Agency will conduct an emergency cleanup of a
home in Libby or in Troy?
Ms. Bodine. We have screening criteria that we have been
using. We have a clearance number that is based on a variety of
things, including whether we can detect the asbestos fibers on
surfaces, whether we--if we know that there's asbestos
insulation in the attic, we'll take action. So we have a number
of triggers for taking the emergency action. It's--we have a
document that lays out what the action levels are.
Senator Baucus. Well, is it true the EPA normally protects
people to a--generally the extent of one person in 1 million
have an increased risk of getting cancer? Is that the general
rule? Although EPA may go as low as 1 person in 10,000 in some
cases. Whereas, here in Libby, according to EPA's 2003 draft
final document, the risk is much greater, much higher; that is,
1 person in 100; 1 person in 1,000, which is kind of scary on
the surface. Very unfavorably with the EPA's norm.
Ms. Bodine. Right. The risk range that you are identifying
as the 1 in 10,000 to one in a million excess-cancer-risk range
is a range that's used for remedial action for final cleanup
action. For a removal action, which is not intended to be a
permanent remedy, we have lower numbers. Then you go back and
determine if more work needs to be done.
Senator Baucus. Right.
Ms. Bodine. That's not a final cleanup number.
Senator Baucus. You're implying therefore, or are you, that
when it's permanent, then you're up to 1 in 1 million risk of
cancer?
Ms. Bodine. The Agency--and it's in the National
Contingency Plan, which are regulations for Superfund--uses a
range, and that's as you identified, between 1 in 10,000 and
one and a million. Then it's site specific where the range----
Senator Baucus. The main point being we're a little
concerned here in Libby if your risk is a much greater risk of
cancer, between 1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000. You say it's temporary;
it's not permanent. So we have to ask the question: Why
shouldn't our risk of protection be the norm, which I
understand to be between 1 and 1 million and 1 in 10,000, which
is much more protected than what's happening here in Libby?
Ms. Bodine. That's, again, the difference between the
emergency removals and the final-removal action.
Senator Baucus. What level in the final?
Ms. Bodine. We will be in the risk range. I don't know what
the final number will be. But we'll be informed by the toxicity
studies and the exposure numbers and then----
Senator Baucus. But the standard normal----
Ms. Bodine. Is the range.
Senator Baucus. The range is between 1 and 10,000----
Ms. Bodine. One in a million.
Senator Baucus. So we expect to be within the range, at the
very least, on the final?
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Senator Baucus. Good. Couple questions about funding. Basic
questions, Ms. Bodine. If the Agency had more money over the
last few years, could the Agency have done more work to
investigate and clean up asbestos? If you had more in the past,
would you have done more? That's the basic question.
Ms. Bodine. Libby, as I said, is one of our highest
priorities. It is--when you talk about the national program, we
have all of our sites, it is getting more appropriated money
than any other site. If we had--if there was more money
dedicated to Libby, up to a certain point, yes, more work could
be done. The point is--there's not endless capacity to do
additional work. They are doing--during the construction
season, the team here is cleaning up about a house a day, which
is very--a very high rate of activity. But I would expect
that--again, I wouldn't know how much, but I would expect some
more to be done.
Senator Baucus. I only ask because there's an EPA document
which discussed the 2005 funding for Libby cleanup which
answered that same question. ``Yes, additional funding of 2
million per year will allow cleanup of approximately 50
additional homes per year, which reduced the estimate duration
of the cleanup by approximately 1 or 2 years.'' I don't know if
you're familiar with the EPA document.
Ms. Bodine. I'm not familiar with it.
Senator Baucus. Does that sound reasonable?
Ms. Bodine. Two million for----
Senator Baucus. Two million more per year would allow
cleanup of 50 additional homes a year, which would reduce the
estimated duration of the cleanup by approximately 1\1/2\
years. That's a quote.
Ms. Bodine. I would have to ask the staff that's actually--
--
Senator Baucus. Does that sound reasonable?
Ms. Bodine. It sounds reasonable off the top of my head. I
would have to ask the folks who actually do the work whether
that's accurate.
Senator Baucus. Sure. My office just handed me the
document. Here it is. So we'll pass it on to you.
Ms. Bodine. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. I'm just curious. Why hasn't EPA asked
Congress for money to clean up asbestos to protect folks in
Libby? Why haven't you asked for more money?
Ms. Bodine. We develop our budget based on what we see as
the needs for the Superfund program nationally, and then
after--then we allocate the funding that we receive among the
sites that have ongoing construction.
Senator Baucus. That's the process?
Ms. Bodine. Right, that's the process.
Senator Baucus. Why not ask for more? Your own documents
say 2 million more we could move this thing along a lot faster.
Why don't you ask for more?
Ms. Bodine. What I was trying to explain when I was
answering your question is we don't ask for funding based on
each individual site. We ask for funding based on what we
expect to be the needs for the national program when we do our
budget request. The actual determination for each site is made
later after we know what our budget is as part of our work-
planning process. The funding that we already know we have that
we received from Congress, we then allocate out.
Senator Baucus. In fact, the EPA asked for 7 million less
for Superfund cleanups for 2008 than in the preceding year. Not
only did you not ask for more, you asked for 7 million less. I
might say the Senate recently rejected the proposed cuts to the
EPA for the Superfund program and authorized an additional of
more than 200 million to clean up toxic-waste sites. It's a bit
difficult for us to work together in a partnership when EPA
wants to cut.
Ms. Bodine. The entire Superfund budget funds a variety of
different programs and offices. Within our remedial action
funding, we did increase that amount in 2008. But overall, your
numbers are correct. Overall the dollar amounts went down. It
didn't come out of the remedial action funding.
Senator Baucus. Can you tell us a little bit about the Troy
cleanup, timeline for Troy.
Ms. Bodine. In 2007 and 2008, we are going to be doing the
assessment of properties there, and then we'll take that data
to determine whether we need to do the removals there. Much
like we did in Libby.
Senator Baucus. All right. The bottom line here is we have
a problem, we need a solution, and it seems to me that most
solutions occur when people work together, but also when both,
in good faith, want to get the job done very quickly. I just
encourage you very, very strongly to ask for more money. You
see the need here. I mean it's great. It's been 7 years now.
You're new to the job, but that's irrelevant.
Ms. Bodine. That's correct.
Senator Baucus. You're the person; you're responsible;
you're the top administrator, basically, of this particular
program. So I urge you to be very, very vigorous in asking for
more money so you can get the job done. In the meantime, I want
to work with you and help provide the resources necessary to
get the job done. We're going to get monthly reports now on the
toxicity, and I would appreciate it if you also let us know
whatever you want. I have a telephone. And question: What do
you think we could do together to get this problem solved more
quickly?
Ms. Bodine. I want to thank you for inviting me here,
because I completely agree that it's very important for people
to come here and listen to the community and see for
themselves, first of all, what a beautiful place this is, but
second what an unbelievable situation there is here.
Senator Baucus. You have some great people. I see Paul over
here. I worked with Paul beginning about 2000. I may be
speaking out of place here, but my impression is that the
people of Libby really appreciate Paul's work. He's a
dedicated, hardworking guy. Unfortunately, he left town after 2
years of working here, but he's back. They're clapping because
he's back. Libby likes Paul.
Ms. Bodine. I know.
Senator Baucus. We just--you can take a lot of cues from
Paul. I suggest you just do whatever Paul wants. I think that's
a good note to end on. Thank you. Otherwise, Ms. Bodine,
anything else you want to say?
Ms. Bodine. No. Thank you very much.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much.
Next we have Marianne. (Brief interruption.)
STATEMENT OF MARIANNE B. ROOSE, COMMISSIONER, BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, LINCOLN COUNTY, MT
Ms. Roose. Thank you, Senator Baucus, and other committee
members for allowing me this time today to testify at your
hearing on behalf of the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners.
We are grateful to Congress and especially to you, Senator
Baucus, for following through on your commitment to the
asbestos victims of Libby and Troy and addressing the issues of
concern. We are very grateful for your sincerity, and it is
appreciated by all of us. I would like to offer my testimony by
answering three questions that we believe would be informative
for this hearing.
No. 1, what issues are we facing? The main issue that our
communities are still facing and of which there is still no
answer is, how clean is clean? When this cleanup process was
first started, there was a lot of discussion whether the air is
safe to breathe in Libby and what is a safe level of asbestos.
After 7 years into the cleanup process, there is still no
definitive answer. Homes are being cleaned now, but the
asbestos is being left in the walls. Previously it was felt
that this was safe as long as it was not disturbed. That is now
being questioned by both the public and the EPA itself. There
is a possibility that the EPA may have to go back in and
reclean homes that have already been cleaned. Six years into
this project it was determined that more air testing has to be
done to determine if the air is safe here, even though
originally we were assured that it was. That testing will take
another year to complete while all the time we still have that
question hanging over our head. This leads to rumors, anxiety,
and general distrust of the work that has been completed to
date.
No. 2, what has the uncertainty regarding the cleanup cost
our communities? The uncertainty of not knowing what a safe
level of asbestos is and is the air in Libby safe to breathe
continues to be on the forefront of visitors, organizers of
community events, and people looking to relocate to Libby.
Some recent examples include a reduction in participation
for our annual Nordic Fjord horseshow. Some participants have
declined coming because they are uncertain if the air is safe
and whether the soil in the arena area poses an unsafe
condition for their horses. Even though we have reassured them
that it is safe, the uncertainty of knowing for sure has led to
cancellation of participants. Another example is the
recruitment efforts at St. John's Hospital. We have been told
that there have been several doctors that would have liked to
relocate here due to our area of beauty and lifestyle but are
uncertain whether it is safe to raise their children here.
There are many more examples of these types of public
uncertainty that keep hanging over our head.
No. 3, what can and should EPA do to address the
communities' needs? First let me say that we think the EPA is
doing a good job with the cleanup efforts in Libby. It has been
a process of learning as we go. When problems have occurred in
the past, EPA has been very receptive to changing their
practices or procedures to address those. They continue to
listen to the public and to our concerns and adjust programs to
better serve our communities.
There are some things that we think can be done to help
improve conditions in Libby and also let the world know that
Libby is a safe place to visit or live. Thought should be given
to demolishing homes with reimbursement given to the owners for
homes when the cost of cleanup is substantially more than the
value of the house being cleaned. Considering Senator Baucus
has recently directed Fannie Mae to work with Libby and our
other communities for affordable housing, there may be a
plausible solution that the Federal Agencies working together
could identify that would benefit both the homeowners and the
Government. It seems that it may be more of a taxpayer
advantage to have EPA review the cost-effectiveness of cleanup
compared to demolition and at the same time be able to offer
low-interest loans to these homeowners through the Fannie Mae.
Troy residents are concerned that cleanup efforts have been
delayed in their community. We hope that the effort in Troy
remains on schedule for starting the project this spring and is
not delayed.
Another community need is a research center with a clinical
site that would be able to treat our resident victims locally
with the latest available means. It seems very logical to us
that research and treatment should be done where the source of
contamination is heaviest. We encourage continued support of
the Libby CARD Clinic and its future efforts to establish a
research clinic in Libby, MT.
Also our local emergency-service organizations, especially
our fire departments, need additional protective equipment to
be able to respond to emergencies in contaminated homes. It is
unfair to ask volunteers to respond to these emergencies and
put themselves and their families at risk without appropriate
protective equipment and clothing.
After air-quality testing and other testing is completed,
we also need substantial media coverage outside of the area to
let everyone know that Libby is a safe place to visit, raise
your kids, or to retire here. The current stigma of unsafe
attached to Libby needs to be overcome so that we can continue
to improve our economy, have families look at us as a great
place to live, and be able to get our pride back as a
community.
I want to thank all of you for your time today and extend a
very specific thanks to Senator Baucus for remaining concerned
about Libby and our future. Thank you, Max.
Statement of Marianne B. Roose, Commissioner, Board of County
Commissioners, Lincoln County, MT
Thank you Senator Baucus and other Committee Members for allowing
me this time today to testify at this hearing on behalf of the Lincoln
County Board of Commissioners.
We are very grateful that Congress, and especially Senator Baucus,
is following through on their commitment to address the asbestos issues
affecting Libby and Troy in southern Lincoln County. Your sincerity is
greatly appreciated by all of us.
I would like to offer my testimony today by answering three
questions that I believe would be informative for this hearing.
1. What issues are we facing? The main issue that our communities
are still facing and of which there is still no answer is ``How clean
is clean?'' When this cleanup process was first started, there was a
lot of discussion whether the air is safe to breathe in Libby and what
is a safe level of asbestos. After 7 years into the clean-up process,
there is still no definitive answer. Homes are being cleaned now but
the asbestos is being left in the walls. Previously, it was felt that
this was safe as long as it was not disturbed. That is now being
questioned by both the public and EPA itself. There is a possibility
that the EPA may have to go back in and re-clean homes that have
already been cleaned. Six years into the project, it was determined
that more air testing has to be done to determine if the air is safe
here even though originally we were assured it was. That testing will
take another year to complete while all the time we still have that
question hanging over our head. This leads to rumors, anxiety, and
general distrust of the work that has been completed to date.
2. What has the uncertainty regarding the clean-up cost the
community? The uncertainty of not knowing what a safe level of asbestos
is and is the air in Libby safe to breathe continues to be on the
forefront of visitors, organizers of community events, and people
looking to relocate to Libby.
Some recent examples include a reduction in participation for our
annual Nordic Fjord horse show. Some participants have declined coming
because they are uncertain if the air is safe and whether the soil in
the arena area poses an unsafe condition for their horses. Even though
we have reassured them that it is safe, the uncertainty of knowing for
sure has led to cancellations of participants. Another example is the
recruitment efforts at St. Johns Hospital. We have been told that there
have been several doctors that would have liked to relocate here due to
our area beauty and lifestyle but are uncertain whether it is safe to
raise their children here. There are many more examples of these types
of public uncertainty that keep hanging over our head.
3. What can/should EPA do to address the communities' needs? First
let me say that we think the EPA is doing a very good job with their
clean-up efforts in Libby. It has been a process of learning as we go.
When problems have occurred in the past, EPA has been receptive to
changing their practices or procedures to address those. They continue
to listen to the public and to our concerns and adjust programs to
better serve our communities.
There are some things that we think can be done to help improve
conditions in Libby and also let the ``world'' know that Libby is a
safe place to live or visit.
Thought should be given to demolishing homes, with reimbursement
given to the owners, for homes where the cost of clean-up is
substantially more than the value of the house being cleaned.
Considering Senator Baucus has recently directed Fannie Mae to work
with Libby and our other communities for affordable housing, there may
be a plausible solution that the Federal agencies working together
could identify that would benefit both the homeowner and the
government. It seems that it may be more of a taxpayer advantage to
have EPA review the cost effectiveness of clean-up compared to
demolition and at the same time be able to offer low interest loans to
these homeowners through the Fannie Mae program.
Troy residents are concerned that clean-up efforts have been
delayed in their community. We hope that the effort in Troy remains on
schedule for starting the project this spring and is not delayed.
Another community need is a research center with a clinical side
that would be able to treat our resident victims locally with the
latest available means. It seems very logical to us that research and
treatment should be done where the source of contamination is heaviest.
Also, our local emergency service organizations, especially our
fire departments, need additional protective equipment to be able to
respond to emergencies in contaminated homes. It is unfair to ask
volunteers to respond to these emergencies and put themselves and their
families at risk without appropriate protective equipment and clothing.
After air quality testing and other testing is completed, we also
need substantial media coverage outside of the area to let everyone
know that Libby is a safe place to visit, raise your kids, or to retire
here. The current stigma of ``unsafe'' attached to Libby needs to be
overcome so that we can continue to try to improve our economy, have
families look at us as a great place to live, and be able to get our
pride back as a community.
I want to thank all of you for your time today and extend a special
thanks to Senator Baucus for remaining concerned about Libby and our
future.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much. Who wants to go next?
STATEMENT OF BRAD BLACK, M.D., LINCOLN COUNTY HEALTH OFFICER,
MEDICAL DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR ASBESTOS RELATED DISEASE
Dr. Black. I also want to thank Senator Baucus and the
committee for making the effort to come to the community to
bring this hearing where the people are and where people have
been affected. As you all know, my name is Brad Black, and I've
been a physician in the practice of medicine in the Libby
community since 1977. In 1983 I also became the Lincoln County
health officer and continue to this day to serve in a
consultative role.
It was in the late 1990s when cases of asbestos-related
diseases were identified in Libby residents whose only source
of asbestos exposure was environmental. Soon thereafter, the
suspicion of widespread environmental exposure was realized and
the potential of a very large health impact appeared likely to
develop. With the support of Senator Max Baucus, the community
responded by developing a center for asbestos-related disease.
This infrastructure was developed to meet the anticipated
special needs that would evolve out of the asbestos screening
and ongoing monitoring of the exposed Libby population.
Since the clinic opened in July 2000, we have seen over
1,800 people with varying degrees of asbestos-induced problems.
The CARD has put programs in place for community outreach
education and case management. It has been very humbling and
painful to see the people--the number of people afflicted with
disabling lung disease, cancer, and mesotheliomas in our
community. In addition to the previous Zonolite workers and
family members, those who played in ore piles and lived and
worked in the community have been affected. For us every day is
a constant challenge when we reflect on the failures in the
public-health system that were partly to blame for the
subsequent asbestos exposure and illness.
That compels one to work harder to ensure that affected
people receive appropriate and adequate care, and furthermore
the critical need to prevent further asbestos-induced disease.
My experience in working at CARD over the last 7 years has
enlightened me to meet the issues regarding Libby asbestos. It
repeatedly appears to cause a debilitating lung disease with
lower exposures, far below what would be received in an
occupational setting. In addition to the debilitating lung
disease, we have also documented 10 mesotheliomas since 1996
that have resulted from low environmental exposure. The fiber
not only has the propensity to induce pleural fibrosis and
mesothelioma but also has the characteristic of causing severe
pleurisy with progressive scarring. These observations stand
out and are associated with a mixture of asbestos fibers not
previously studied. There is a significant amount of
uncertainty about how much exposure to these fibers results in
the observed health problems. This uncertainty will continue to
linger over any asbestos cleanup in Libby until we have
improved reassurance that we are working toward a safe
completion. Extensive toxicologic studies planned by Region 8
EPA scientists appear to address the main concerns that I have
in order to better understand the exposure risk due to Libby
asbestos.
In order to remove the current levels of uncertainly, I
feel we need to pursue research directed at three key areas
that have also been well described in the NIOSH draft roadmap
for research. These are highly pertinent to the Libby asbestos.
One of these is to improve the techniques for sampling and
analysis of mineral fibers and other particles. Two,
determination of importance of different mineral fibers and the
fiber-like cleavage fragments as to the potential toxicity.
Three, better understanding of the mechanisms of the toxicity
of these mineral fibers and these fiber-like cleavage
fragments.
I think the planned epidemiologic studies are a very
important contributor to understanding exposure risk involved.
The CARD has extensive health-assessment data accumulated over
the past 7 years. The epidemiological studies of a subset of
the CARD clinic population would involve assessments of
morbidity of the subset of the population and ongoing extensive
health monitoring, developing a better exposure assessment, and
correlate with each health outcome should provide improved
understanding of exposure risk.
The knowledge gained from these toxicology studies will not
only be critical to Lincoln County asbestos cleanup, but also
help protect individuals who have exposure to Libby asbestos
around the United States. The successful completion of these
vital studies will require CARD infrastructure support to
expand capability of database development, data entry, added
testing equipment and staff and space.
In summary, it is my role as Lincoln County health officer
to ensure that no residents are at increased risk of developing
asbestos-induced health problems. The currently planned studies
as delineated by Regional 8 EPA with sufficient funding through
completion should provide that reassurance.
I also never want to leave off--and I know this is not
pertinent necessarily to the discussion today, but the emphasis
on the lack of healthcare funding and the failures of the
promises made by W.R. Grace are sitting in front of us, and to
not talk about that every time we talk about our community and
asbestos is wrong. We have citizens that are not being treated
right, and it continues to worsen. So I bring that up as an
ending note, because I just can't leave it out. I respectfully
submit this to the committee and thank you for this
opportunity.
Statement of Brad Black, M.D., Lincoln County Health Officer, Medical
Director, Center for Asbestos Related Disease
My name is Brad Black. I have been a physician and practicing
medicine in Libby, Montana since July 1977. Since 1983 I have served as
consulting Lincoln County Health Officer. I have a very extensive
history in the background leading up to the realization of the
extensive environmental exposure of asbestos to this community.
Since July 2000, I have served as medical director for the Center
for Asbestos Related Disease (CARD). This is a locally developed clinic
that is under the direction of a volunteer community board. The center
was developed with the knowledge that there was a very extensive
exposure to asbestos involving countless numbers of individuals that
are both current residence as well as individuals who have left the
community and relocated to other areas of the country.
The local medical community in Lincoln County recognized that there
would be a need for an organized and central location for respondents
who participated in the asbestos health screens done by the ATSDR to
have their screening results interpreted for diagnosis, education,
counseling and treatment. In December 1999 Montana Senator Max Baucus
secured a grant from Health Resources and Services Administration. With
these resources the clinic was formed to meet the special community-
wide medical needs for those affected by exposure to asbestos.
A cooperative venture between the local Libby hospital,
professional medical community, Lincoln County Health office and
Federal agencies created the Center for Asbestos Related Disease, Inc.
Dr. Alan Whitehouse, a practicing and board certified pulmonologist
from Spokane, Washington, had been treating a large number of
individuals with asbestos-related disease due to the Libby Amphibole
for numerous years prior, became a consultant to the CARD at the
opening of the clinic. Through his dedication to his work and to the
Libby community, he continues to travel to Libby monthly to provide
specialty pulmonary consultation support for the CARD.
I personally have spent the last 7 years entrenched in specialty
pulmonary care related to ARD working alongside Dr. Whitehouse. I also
have dedicated myself to continued learning, attending multiple
conferences and professional meetings attended by prestigious asbestos
experts, practicing physicians and researchers known both nationally
and internationally. Several of these experts have reviewed numerous
cases from the CARD cohort.
During these last 7 years, the amount of complications related to
asbestos exposure and disease has been humbling. It has truly been an
education and privilege to be involved in the evaluation and care of
these individuals.
Since 1996 there have been at least 10 cases of mesothelioma caused
by the environmental exposure to the Libby asbestos. The total number
of mesotheliomas that have occurred since I have been in Libby have
totaled 29. For a population of this size that is highly unusual and
further indicates the extreme toxicity of the Libby Amphibole fiber in
causing these types of cancers that are specific to asbestos exposure.
Additionally, there are numerous individuals that vacationed and
recreated in and around the vermiculite ore piles that have developed
disabling pulmonary disease.
We currently follow close to 1,800 patients with varying degrees of
asbestos related abnormalities and disease. We continue to evaluate at
least 20 new patients per month due to history of exposure or
developing symptoms. There are a number of observations that are
striking and of concern in this patient population. Of greatest concern
from a public health stand point and from the superfund asbestos clean-
up project, is the relative potency and toxicity of this mixture of
Amphibole asbestos. The frequency of lung disease and cancer from
environmental exposure is overwhelming. The numbers of cases that
relate to environmental exposure out-number the individuals who were
Zonolite workers or family members of workers in the past.
The cumulative time and exposure levels of non-mine related
affected individuals who have rather profound lung disease demonstrate
a remarkably lower level of exposure than they would be for individuals
traditionally exposed occupationally to asbestos. Not infrequently,
those who recreated in and around vermiculite ore or were family
members of vermiculite workers ended up with more severe lung disease
than the individuals who worked at the Zonolite facility. It has become
obvious that with these observations of the high number of
mesotheliomas due to environmental exposure to asbestos along with
disabling lung disease, that the potency of the Libby Amphibole fiber
needs further evaluation and scrutiny.
Basically we do not know what the exposure risk is to this type of
asbestos. It has never been studied previously and the clinical
observations are quite concerning. At the current time there are plans
for toxicology studies that will be addressing the issues of this
concern. EPA Region 8 scientists have presented me with intent of
activities which would include the following important considerations:
1. Complete and comprehensive exposure assessments which are
essential to gain a better understanding of exposure risk.
2. Follow up of epidemiologic work at both the Libby site as well
as the Marysville, Ohio site. Extensive health data is available
through the CARD including ongoing cumulative surveillance and
monitoring of health status and disease progression compiled in a
cohesive process. The opportunity to do extended investigation over
time of the health effects from asbestos exposure, as well as
collection of tissue sampling at appropriate times, could greatly
enhance the ability to understand and define the exposure risk.
3. Development of analytical and toxicology studies that are
comprehensive in its analysis should be directed toward those that are
set forth in the draft asbestos road map done by NIOSH and submitted
for review. The important points of this study would involve
development of improved sampling and analytic methods for detection of
asbestos and other mineral fibers. Development of information and
knowledge on exposures to asbestos and other mineral fibers and fiber-
like cleavage fragments and the health outcomes of those exposures. The
Libby population was highly exposed to both natural asbestos fibers as
well as fiber-like cleavage fragments, which have unknown toxicity
potential, which clearly need to be studied in this population. There
needs to be a broader understanding of the important determinacy of
toxicity for fibers and for fiber-like cleavage fragments that are in
the Libby Amphibole mixture.
In summary, I would like to state from my background as a long term
Libby resident, practicing physician and as an exposed member of the
population. I am aware of the historic failures to help protect the
public and certainly have been humbled by the occurrence of asbestos
induced disease in our community. We do not need to have further
failure in the area of public health. It is essential at this time that
individuals in our community are reassured that both current and future
residents will no longer be at health risk from asbestos for long term
living in this area.
I'm certainly hopeful that the current activities in cleanup and
asbestos abatement have satisfactorily provided prevention of hazardous
exposure at the present and long into the future. The health outcomes
observed however certainly demands that we make sure we are proceeding
in the right direction to clean up asbestos in our community.
It is essential at this time that the EPA funds and executes a
comprehensive Amphibole asbestos toxicity assessment to assure both
myself and our community that all risk to asbestos exposure is no
longer an issue. This is especially important to the younger
individuals who are and will be living in the community in the future
where lower level asbestos accumulated over time has to be taken in to
consideration. It is only when we have completed this toxicity
assessment that we can be assured and confident we have protected human
health.
Libby residents no longer need to have uncertainty when their
health is an issue. What we learn from the toxicity assessment will not
only help our community but also serve to better define health risks
for many people around the nation and world that could come in contact
with Zonolite insulation products. As you may or may not know this is a
much bigger health and economic concern that goes beyond the extensive
issues that have been observed in Libby.
I thank you for the opportunity to give input to the committee and
am most confident that you are following up to make certain that Libby
is taken care of in the appropriate manner for the long term health and
safety of individuals.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Brad, very much. Leroy, it's all
yours.
STATEMENT OF LEROY THOM, BOARD MEMBER, LIBBY AREA TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE GROUP, INC.
Mr. Thom. I'd like to thank Senator Baucus and the
committee also for inviting me to testify today, I think. My
name is Leroy Thom, I'm a local businessman, I'm a former
worker of the mine, and I'm a member of several committees and
organizations that are related to the cleanup issues here in
Libby.
As a community, we have seen Senator Baucus' commitment in
his many trips to Libby and his many efforts to wrestle with
the issues with this very complex issue. As many times as Max
has been in Libby, I'm surprised that the Mayor hasn't given
him a key to the city. Not that Max would need one, because our
community is one that has no locked doors or gates. We are a
community that trusts that everything is and will be done
right. Generally that is the case. However, in the case of the
issue before us today, some things have gone awry, and that's
why we're here today.
This issue started in 1999, and, in 2000, EPA started
emergency-response cleanup. In 2002, Governor Martz fired a
silver bullet, and Libby was listed as a Superfund site on the
national priority list. To that point, everything was great. In
2003, promises and commitments were made to fully and
completely clean up Libby. At this time Region 8 had made plans
to do both toxicological studies and exposure studies, probably
the two most important tools that Region 8 would need to ensure
a safe and effective cleanup. These studies, as of today, are
still not done. Why has--why? This has been asked many times by
people, and the answer is it wasn't funded.
In 2006 there was a push to get a record of decision so the
EPA could move from emergency response to remediation of the
cleanup. This ROD would have bypassed the risk assessment and
have no basis to ensure that any cleanup would be safe. So
we're here today with concerns. What is clean? Are the areas
and homes where contamination has been left behind going to
come back to create the same health risks that were there
before a home or property was cleaned? Is EPA going to have to
revisit these properties again?
We know today Region 8 has a new team, a team that, by all
accounts, seems to be an experienced and well-rounded team, and
it sounds like we will be getting a tox study and a risk
assessment that has validity. As we heard today, that may take
3 more years.
So what do we need to do? We need closer oversight with
improved cooperation between EPA and the community, we need
improved support from EPA headquarters to Region 8, we need
improved science, better communication, research into and
involving healthcare, continued review and access of all
technical documents that relate to this site in Libby, and,
most importantly, proper funding to ensure that this project
gets back on the track it has been derailed from. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.002
Senator Baucus. Thank you. Marianne, you raised a very
interesting point about maybe it's more effective and smarter
use of taxpayers' dollars to help people go on with their lives
if some of these homes are demolished. It might cost a lot more
to clean up than it would be to demolish and get a new one.
That's an excellent idea.
Are people working on this? Is somebody trying to flush
this out a little bit?
Ms. Roose. I can tell you it has been addressed to the
commissioners and I'm sure many others several times, and the
answer to us has always been they don't buy new homes; they do
not replace them.
Senator Baucus. I don't know if your microphone is on.
Ms. Roose. That question has been asked many times,
Senator, and----
(Brief interruption.)
Ms. Roose. One more time. That question has been asked many
times, and I know that, throughout the community, when we've
seen some of the older homes that were full of asbestos being
cleaned, and the question has been: Why would they do that when
it would be much more cost-effective to build a new home or to
get a modular, and healthier and safer? We were told that was
not a part of the program.
Senator Baucus. Is that something that you think some of
people in Libby would like to pursue?
Ms. Roose. Yes, I do. You can ask the audience. But it's a
question----
(Audience clapping.)
Ms. Roose. Max, I believe there's probably folks in
projects who have talked to you about the numbers of dollars
that the cleanup has cost on an older home, and it would have
been much more cost-effective and healthier and safer.
Senator Baucus. But EPA says it doesn't have the authority?
Ms. Roose. We were always told that's not a part of their
program.
Senator Baucus. It's not a customary part, but let's look
into that and see. That's a very interesting idea.
Ms. Roose. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Brad, could you explain a little more to me
about, I guess, gaps in knowledge--find my notes--that you were
talking about; namely, better understand the pathways of
disease and so forth that might, what, help you in your work or
help with the cleanup or what? I wasn't quite certain.
Dr. Black. I think that one of the parts of the toxicology
study was to actually do epidemiologic work; that is, work
looking at health outcomes and then trying to reconstruct
asbestos exposure in these clients of the clinic that we follow
and try to get a better understanding of the amounts of
exposure that led to the levels of disease that we observed in
those patients. If we do that over enough of them and follow
them, we get a better feel for the potency of the fibers and
how much it takes to create significant lung disease.
Senator Baucus. That would then help develop the baseline
risk assessment and determine how clean is clean; that is, one
of the ways?
Dr. Black. It's one piece that complements the others,
which also--and I mentioned in there--you know, we got a
different fiber that's never been studied. We see that it takes
less of it to cause significant lung disease. We don't
understand--you know, we only measured the large long fibers,
because it's much easier to measure long fibers.
Senator Baucus. Who would do these studies, do you think?
Who would be the best person, the best Agency, the best outfit
to do this work?
Dr. Black. The EPA. They're the ones who do it. They need
to be on this and helping us figure out are we looking at the
right fibers. You know, we have all these short fibers that are
mixed in there, and a lot of those are under the normally
regulated----
Senator Baucus. Have you talked to them about that?
Dr. Black. Yes.
Senator Baucus. What do they say?
Dr. Black. I think we're in line with that.
Senator Baucus. Do they agree?
Dr. Black. Oh, yeah, I think so. Is Paul around here to
stand up and say yes?
Mr. Peronard. Absolutely. It's one of the 12 studies Ms.
Bodine mentioned earlier working with the CARD clinic and ATSDR
to do this focus reassessment of the----
Dr. Black. Right. Then hopefully to break down these
fibers, decide if the fraction of the small fibers are--try to
determine the toxicity of those types of fibers in comparison
to the long fibers and get a better feel for really what's--
what are the fibers that are causing all the disease here, and
why is the pattern we're seeing different? You know, why is the
pattern of disease different? It may sit with some of these
issues related to fiber----
Senator Baucus. I'm no expert in all this, but is there a
right balance between the toxicity studies and the
epidemiological studies? Is that--does there need to be a
balance there?
Dr. Black. Yes, there does. There are pieces out of each of
these we need to answer specific questions.
Senator Baucus. Do you think the balance of the EPA is
about right, or would you move it one direction or another?
Dr. Black. I sense that we're hitting all the areas, and
from my end and my knowledge, it looks to be balanced out
fairly well.
Senator Baucus. Do you have any advice--you heard Ms.
Bodine talk about the study, Paul alluded to it, the 12 parts
of it to be done in 3 years. Do you have any advice here now
that they should do that study? While you're here, it's an
opportunity to give some advice. What do you think?
Dr. Black. I'm like everybody else. I was one that thought
these were being done and didn't realize that until I sent a
letter to you so stating that I was disappointed that we were
this far behind, our community didn't deserve to have things
delayed. My understanding has been the same as yours, is if
there was more funding, things would move along faster.
I keep hearing about restricting budgets and restricting
budgets. So suddenly the next thing we know, the tox studies
were dropped out. This was from my perspective. I think if
somebody--if we don't get a sustained funding and we keep
getting things cut and this and that and the job that--you
know, we have to go back review this again and find out, oh,
it's not being done right. I think it's a tragedy to Libby. I
think, from what we've been through here, we deserve better. I
think we need a steady support to get the job done here. We
watch money go a lot of places, and I don't think we've had any
events in our country that match Libby's.
Senator Baucus. I'm not aware of any. I've not heard of
any.
Dr. Black. To see what we're witnessing now, and it's--you
feel like people are suddenly forgetting Libby again. This
dropping of toxicology studies was just another example. It's
set very wrong. It set very wrong in me and----
Senator Baucus. That's what Les Skramstad said: Don't
forget us. After a while it tends to sometimes be forgotten.
I forgot to ask Ms. Bodine this question. If she wants to,
she can come up and give an answer.
What's your thought of what happens after 3 years? I mean
are we going to start cleanup--if we reach our baseline risk
assessment, then at that point do we have our record of
decision, and that means--what happens after 3 years? We're
trying to speed up the 3 years, but what----
Ms. Bodine. The studies will be done, and then we'll be
able to have the toxicity information that we then apply the
exposure data to, and that then allows us to develop cleanup
numbers specific to Libby. Based on that--again, we're going to
have to look and see what that means. Based on that, we would
develop the final remedy.
Senator Baucus. How long will that take?
Ms. Bodine. The estimate for that is 2011, for the Record
of Decision, for the final Record of Decision, for the
residential area. As I mentioned earlier, if we completely cut
off exposure, we can--for some of the other areas, like the
processing plants, we would be able to do it earlier.
Senator Baucus. You're saying 4 years from now? We're 2007.
2011. Four years.
Ms. Bodine. Right.
Senator Baucus. What does that mean? That is, when will
Libby be cleaned up properly?
Ms. Bodine. I can't answer that, because I don't know what
all that information is going to tell us, because the remedy is
going to be informed by the results of the risk assessment.
Senator Baucus. Now----
Ms. Bodine. So either we will know that we don't have to go
back and do any of these homes or we will know that there is
more work to be done. But at this point I can't tell you,
because I don't--we don't know that.
Senator Baucus. So it's possible that the Record of
Decision could say or the toxicity analysis could say we have
to go back and do some of these areas all over again?
Ms. Bodine. It's possible that we would go back--we would
have to go back in and retest, and if the number was--if what
we were finding in a home was higher than what our risk
assessment was telling us, we would have to do more, yes, that
is definitely possible.
Senator Baucus. Assuming that the toxicity analysis is
leaning toward going back again due to the Record of Decision,
that in and of itself does not mean Libby is cleaned up just
because the Record of Decision--
Ms. Bodine. That means we know we have the plan.
Senator Baucus. Your best guess of what that plan might
contemplate?
Ms. Bodine. I don't want to speculate.
Senator Baucus. We're not going to hold you to it. I just
want to hear--you're doing the best you can.
Ms. Bodine. I really don't want to speculate.
Senator Baucus. We need to know though. We need a plan.
Ms. Bodine. Right, but you--we all agree we need this--we
need the information, we've got--we're going to get good
information on--we've already started developing on the cancer
and the noncancer, we're going to have the--informed by the
exposure information that we're going from the lung tissue that
Dr. Black, which will help us then know what the exposures
were. That all goes--all feeds up in--and that will be
corroborated by animal studies. That will all feed up to know
what level of exposure is within our risk range that we talked
about earlier. But I can't tell--I can't tell you now what the
answer is. I can't tell you what the outcome is before we've
done the studies.
Senator Baucus. I understand. I'm giving you a lot of
assumptions that helped lead us to our earlier conclusion.
Namely, toxicity analysis, let's assume, is great, no problem;
we know what we have to and don't have to go back and do
anything all over again. Assume that for the moment. Just
assume. Then Record of Decision baseline----
Ms. Bodine. Then we would look at our data and make sure
that what--that if it was a place where there was still some
exposure, that it was below the level that we had determined
was an acceptable risk.
Senator Baucus. I don't know if I'm alone in trying to
figure all this out.
Ms. Bodine. I appreciate that.
Senator Baucus. I think a lot of other people are trying to
figure it all out. It might be helpful just to lay it all out
unvarnished, just--I mean with some dates. I mean be dead
honest.
Ms. Bodine. But I----
Senator Baucus. I know. With some high and lows and with
some parameters, with some good-case and, you know, not-so-
good-case scenarios so we know what we're doing. I think, to
some degree, we're going to have to find solutions thinking out
of the box here.
This is just going on way too long. I don't know what it
all is. Marianne talked about some of the housing that may be
part of it. It just seems unconscionable, frankly, that
something that began, you know, late 1990s--1999, here we are
2007, and we're not going to, at the earlier, have this--close
this chapter until 2011. Maybe even later after that. I think
it behooves us, all of us in this community--you, me,
everybody--to a little bit go back, if not to the drawing
board, at least really start thinking big here, outside of the
box. Come on, let's--we can't just keep doing things the
ordinary way. We have to find unordinary ways, extraordinary
ways, to get the results.
Ms. Bodine. We want to make informed decisions based on
information--
Senator Baucus. I totally agree with that.
Ms. Bodine. I don't want to speculate or give you a worse-
case scenario that may prove to be totally, completely
unfounded, because I think that would be damaging to the
community.
Senator Baucus. Is it possible that because EPA has only
been cleaning to a level cancer risk of 1 to, what, to 100 in
some cases----
Mr. Peronard. That's not actually right what you just said,
sir. This is the second time. If you look at the document, what
we describe in there is that the trigger conditions that exist,
we think are the 1 to 100, 1 to 1,000. Our cleanups are going
to be below that target, given the uncertainty of the risk
assessment. So it's not fair to say our cleanups are the 1 to
1,000 level. They're probably actually well below that. It is--
you're sort of missing the comparison there. Some conditions
right now are patently unsafe. When we're addressing those, and
we get something that is much safer as a product, it does not
leave a 1-in-100 risk behind----
Senator Baucus. That's correct.
Mr. Peronard. It's probably substantially below that.
Senator Baucus. That's right. I think we established that
earlier when Ms. Bodine was talking earlier; namely, we were
talking the greater risk level in the early stages; we were
talking much lower risk level in the later stages. I think
that's understood here. At least that's my understanding. Is
that right or not right?
Mr. Peronard. I mean you would always want to push risk
levels down as far as you can get them. The reason there's a
range is you balance that with uncertainties that surround your
cleanups, which God knows we got here, and your ability, the
practicability to implement the remedies. The only point I was
trying to make is not confusing the existing conditions for the
homes we targeted, which are clearly unacceptable with what the
end product is of the cleanups that we've done, which are
substantially lower in terms of risk.
Senator Baucus. I thought I made that clear earlier, but
I'm glad you're making it more clear. I appreciate that.
Anyway, OK, so you're going to get to those higher levels
when you finish, correct?
Mr. Peronard. Correct.
Senator Baucus. Paul, anything else you want to say. You're
more knowledgeable here than a lot of people.
Mr. Peronard. We do the cost analysis on demolitions all
the time. We've actually done, since I've been back in the
project, four demolitions. They always cost us more money than
cleanups, and they typically leave the homeowner in a worse
situation financially, when you look at what we're allowed to
compensate for under the Uniform Relocation Act and what their
insurance coverage is.
So we typically, as a practical matter, don't like doing
demolitions. They cost a lot of money. A lot of it has to do
with the sampling you have to do to make sure you don't spread
it to the next house. A lot of it also gets into the fact we
don't get to put people out onto the street, and the
replacement housing costs kills us. The other part of that is
standard regulations only allow for demolition in lieu of
asbestos removal if the house is structurally unsound. That, by
the way, is when you get a house that's of zero value is about
the time you start seeing a break-even point from a monetary
standpoint. I'm with you. We want to spend dollars wisely.
Everybody makes the assumption that demolition would be much
cheaper. I can you tell you 99 times out of 100 that's
absolutely untrue as well.
Senator Baucus. It's untrue under current law. There's
always an opportunity to change the law. There could be other
reimbursement, more reimbursement, more aid, more assistance to
people. That's kind of what I'm getting at in thinking outside
the box here. I'm trying to get us not to think in usual ways
of doing things only. All that is important. We need the data,
as we've established. I mean this requires, I think, some
pretty special, creative thinking. I'm just asking all of us to
kind of dig deeper, think more creative. That's all I'm asking.
Could you maybe, Leroy, give us some thoughts on--
apparently the EPA sent out some letters that some people
thought were a little improper, so-called comfort letters or
learning to live with vermiculite and so forth. If you could
just talk about that a little. Has that been cleaned up or
cleared up? I understand you sent out another letter this
month. I've not seen them. But I'm just curious on that
subject. What is the status?
Mr. Thom. I believe that the living with vermiculite
brochure was removed by EPA after several years of requests
from Libby on and off from the community. There are some
comfort letters out there that are being looked at, I know,
from the TAG perspective, and that there are new letters that
have been rewritten.
Senator Baucus. Have you seen them?
Mr. Thom. Yes, I have.
Senator Baucus. Are you satisfied?
Mr. Thom. I think basically we're satisfied.
Senator Baucus. Good. OK. Anybody else have something to
say before I go to the audience? Ms. Bodine, do you want to
finish up?
Ms. Bodine. No. This is useful.
Senator Baucus. Thank you for coming. It's not easy to get
to Libby. Thank you very, very much.
Let's get to the audience now. Who has questions? If you
could just speak your name, and say what you have to say.
Mr. Williamson. My name is Lloyd Douglas Williamson. I am
one--I feel disrespectful to the American flag that we didn't
stand by and stand with it. I still think there's time to do it
in this situation here.
The second thing, what the doctor and his friend has done
to us, and not being told and listened to by your program did a
lot, but he knew a lot from people, and he knew a lot more than
a lot of people know.
Now, my third item is on this--my third item is: Why don't
you believe in why Libby has to say their points here? I'm a
contractor, been a contractor all my life. Not 100 percent. But
this situation that was done leaving these facilities out there
and saying that it was all right to take and to build houses
that were completely 80, 90 years old and to save that and
prolong it, that was one of the most stupidious situations I've
ever seen in my life. That stuff is still killing people. We
have to wait 3 years before we go on here. Three years, yes. I
believe my figure said 2010. That means that it takes that
long, in 2007, with computers, and we absolutely don't know
anything about this which was done. Eight years ago, nine years
ago, it was told that this was bad stuff. The Government was
here and told us exactly what that was. It was bad, we believed
it, and it's just as bad now. Thank you very much.
Senator Baucus. That raises a question I have for, again,
Ms. Bodine. I'm sorry. As public servants, it's our job to
answer questions as best we can. What can be done in the
interim? This gentleman prompted a question in my mind with his
question. While we're working on the 3-year study, trying to
speed it up, et cetera, doing the epidemiological studies and
things Dr. Black was talking about, are there structures that
can be cleaned up in the interim so we're not just sitting
around waiting? I know you're going to do 160 sites this next
year.
Ms. Bodine. We're not sitting around. We're going to
continue with the removal actions as we have been. So we're
definitely not going to be sitting around. To address remaining
risks that may be left over--we'll find out--but that may be
left over from removals, we're also setting up a program with
an environmental-resource specialist so that people know who to
call to ask questions. Right now they call Mike. We'll have
another person on board whose job is going to be to be a
resource to the community so that, if they encounter asbestos,
they encounter vermiculite, that they have a person to go to to
know how to handle it safely.
Senator Baucus. Are the 160 sites identified?
Ms. Bodine. I don't believe so.
Mr. Cirian. We do have them identified. As an overall
group, we have all the properties identified, up to the ones
that wouldn't let us do the contaminant screening studies. But
we do have to put them into a task order, and we have the first
three task orders specifically identified for coming up, and
the rest of them are being done with designs and everything to
move that forward.
Senator Baucus. Could you give me a list of those sites,
please.
Mr. Cirian. Yes, sir.
Senator Baucus. We have a list of people signed up who want
to testify. I think it's only proper that they be allowed to
speak first and anybody else afterwards. Gayla Benefield.
Ms. Benefield. Yes, Max, boy, we've come a along ways,
haven't we.
Senator Baucus. We have. Since your living room.
Ms. Benefield. Yes, since my living room. But, by golly,
the tough survive, because we're still here. Actually, I want
to speak on behalf of Les and the family. The first time you
met Les, you shook his hand. He didn't feel it was necessary to
have a signed statement or anything else. You shook his hand.
He always said you stood by your word as a gentleman. I spoke
to Les just before he died, and Les made me promise that I
wouldn't give up, and he said he had spoken to you, and you
wouldn't give up. That's the biggest thing. I want you to be
assured that we're not going to give up here in Libby, we're
going to continue on. We don't have Les around to shake hands
with, but we hold you to that handshake. We had this made up.
This is just a picture of a working man. That is our friend.
Senator Baucus. This is wonderful.
Ms. Benefield. I thought you would like it.
Senator Baucus. It is a silhouette of Les. It's just
wonderful.
Ms. Benefield. It's his feather, it's his microphone.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Ms. Benefield. When you think of Les, I'll tell you what--
I'm going to gripe today--you have to think carpets, walls,
crawlspaces. Something Les never quite understood was why they
would put a limit of $10,000 on a home. We're talking about a
human life. We're talking about safety in human life for the
rest of our life. Les was worried about future generations, and
if it's going to take more than that to clean a home or why
aren't we doing it faster. But all Les was worried about was
not himself, not my generation, but future generations.
Senator Baucus. That's very true. Over and over he made
that point to me.
Ms. Benefield. Just remember, walls, carpets, crawlspaces,
and that was Les.
Senator Baucus. Thanks so much. He was a real inspiration
to all of us. Let's all give a round of applause to Les. I know
he can hear it.
(Audience applauded.)
Senator Baucus. Ms. Bodine, you would have loved Les. He
was quite a guy.
Next I have Gordon Sullivan.
Mr. Sullivan. Senator Baucus, thank you for coming today,
and everybody who spoke. I was the past technical advisor for
the Libby community. I've lived in town here for 10 years. My
wife has lived here for over 25 years. We're business owners.
Now I'm an outdoor writer and I work in Libby.
When I hear Dr. Black talk about mesothelioma exposures or
diagnosis in a certain period of time, that causes my heart to
jump, Brad, because exposure started for me the day I got my
house back from the EPA.
Early on Paul Peronard came to me and said, ``you know,
we're going to need some houses to clean up here in Libby.'' I
stepped forward on behalf of my family. My house is the only
thing I have, my house and my health. The day I got my house
back, the next day I got hit in the face with a coffee can full
of asbestos-containing insulation. The exposure went on and on
and on until I crawled in the basement that they had contracted
to clean but never cleaned, and I found electrical receptacles
taped off with raw vermiculite behind them. I found floors with
sparkling vermiculite imbedded in them by polyurethane. Then
last summer, after I thought my property was clean, I went out
and rototilled about 2500 square feet in my yard, and I came up
with tailings that could go anywhere from 10 to 20 percent.
In that 2,000-square-foot path, there are two of your
sample spots over, Ms. Bodine. I can't tell you what it takes
to trust an organization like the EPA, but Paul and Mike and
everybody at the EPA has all acknowledged that there were
mistakes made in our house. None of them have talked about the
exposure caused to me and my family or the people who visit us
in our house. They don't talk about that. They talk about
coming back and cleaning our house up again. I can't tell you,
Ms. Bodine, how difficult it is for me to trust you again. I
just can't do it. It will take some guy like Paul to get my
trust back.
Incidentally, Senator Baucus, in 2006, October 2006--would
everybody that was in the Denver Lite conference on Libby, MT,
down in Denver raise their hand? Everybody who sat in that
conference. I think you did, Paul, Courtney.
We had a commitment, on October 2004, for a risk
assessment. We had been working on a risk assessment for months
and months and months before that. When we left that
conference--and Gayla, you can help me on this--they promised
us, Senator Baucus, that we would have a risk assessment in 6
months. Am I right Gayla? Leroy?
Mr. Thom. Yes, you are.
Ms. Benefield. Yes.
Mr. Sullivan. How many promises does it need? How many
promises does it take? We would like to think there's a new day
coming in Libby, MT. I especially would like to see that
happen, because now they're coming back to clean my house up a
second time, and I don't trust you, Ms. Bodine. I'm sorry to
say that, but I don't trust you.
Incidentally, Senator Baucus, in about 2003 the TAG went to
work with the EPA and started to look at the demolition of
houses. In October 2004, we submitted to the EPA a 106-page
community-response document that specifically dealt with the
use of PLM as an analytical tool, the demolition of houses and
the potential of replacing them, we challenged the EPA's cost-
benefit-analysis theories. Paul, you might throw into your
calculations the fact that, when you do your cost-benefit
analysis on replacing houses, you don't put in the most
expensive component; that's operation and maintenance. Do you,
Paul? Because we don't know what the long-term operation and
maintenance on every house in Libby, MT, will be. Do we Paul?
Mr. Peronard. No, sir.
Mr. Sullivan. Senator Baucus, we've covered a lot of ground
inside this city. We've had some good leadership. But the fact
is that we've not been dealt with in good faith. I was one of
the four people that participated in the article that started
the inspector general's investigation. I spent endless time
with Cory Rumple, I spent endless time with Sean Hurdle
(phonetic), the next inspector general. The fact is, Senator,
we've never gotten Cory Rumple's report have we?
Senator Baucus. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Sullivan. We won't, will we?
Senator Baucus. We'll find it.
Mr. Sullivan. That's another issue of good faith.
Senator Baucus, I thank you.
Senator Baucus. You're welcome. Thank you very, very much.
Next, Clinton. Good to see you, Clinton. For the recorder,
it's Clinton May.
Mr. Maynard. Clinton Maynard.
Senator Baucus. Maynard. I'm sorry.
Mr. Maynard. Senator, thanks for coming here, and members
of the hearing committee.
Max, what the risk assessment is going to give us is the
number that--the level where we start seeing disease, that's
what risk assessment is going to give us. It cites specific
information and gives us at what level of exposure do we start
seeing disease. OK. I just wanted to clarify that so that what
I'm about to say here makes a little bit more sense. I'm going
to censor my prepared statement here, because I think we're
moving in the right direction here. I think, Senator, thinking
out of the box is correct. Thank you.
I would like to begin by dispelling the myth that we don't
know what we are dealing with here, this amphibole asbestos.
Researchers discovered 46 years ago that, if one wants to see
what mesothelioma looks like, all you have to do is dose some
rats with amphibole family mineral fiber. There is, in fact
ample science in place for us to know when we are being lied
to, and we can recognize a bogus cleanup when we see one being
imposed upon us.
Senator Baucus, you recently expressed outrage at the IG
report. Thank you, sir. You spoke of people being held
accountable. Well, sir, I would expect that, if you go down
that road, you will find that no one will be held accountable,
and you will see a lot of fingers all being pointed in the same
direction. The Integrated Risk Information System IRIS, the
rule book, is wrong. IRIS incorrectly assesses fiber type. This
allows for those who would to twist the truth to an
unrecognizable and dangerous state. IRIS is the scapegoat. IRIS
does not reflect the best-available science. Please fix it now.
We are 7 years into this now, and the office of the
inspector general has had to recommend that we have a risk
assessment. What's wrong with this picture? It's called
suppression of science to the further detriment to this
already-exposed population. So who is it that might benefit
from suppression of the sites? Well, W.R. Grace & Company. The
citizens have called foul and have been proven right--proven to
be right. I have heard and I believe that EPA science personnel
have been shut out of the discussion over these many years now.
Unacceptable.
Senator, please insist that science steer the ship from
here on out, and please also insist that the public is not only
heard but listened to. If our Nation does not recognize and
address preventable exposure to amphibole mineral fiber in
Libby and nationally, well, I guess we're all a sorry lot.
Finally, I believe that we have reached the point in all of
this that Libby is in desperate need of funding for legal
assistance, with no strings attached. See what you can do for
us. Thank you all for your time.
Senator Baucus. Clinton, thanks so very much. You hung in
there. You were at some of the meetings in the past. It's great
to see you, but, on the other hand, I wish that we were getting
this thing solved so you wouldn't have to come up and speak so
often. Thanks, Clinton.
Next we have----
Mr. Flynn. My name is Kevin Flynn.
Senator Baucus. Kevin?
Mr. Flynn. You know me, Max.
Senator Baucus. I guess I do now.
Mr. Flynn. I'm a fourth-generation asbestos worker out of
New York City. I live in Billings. Max has been to my house.
Those jobs you fight for, Max these aren't here; you're not
fighting for these jobs.
What I want to tell you is that the companies that you
hire, that are your low bidders, two of them IRS Environmental
and Marcose (phonetic), between the two of them have over 75
OSHA violations in the asbestos industry. Did you know that?
Ms. Bodine. No.
Mr. Flynn. It scares me. See, my family put that stuff in
the Empire State Building, and I take it out all over the
country. It scares me to talk to you about emergency removal.
It scares me about high activity, because what you do is you
lower your 29 CFR, Code of Federal Regulations, the rules that
tell us how to remove asbestos. When you lower those standards,
what happens? The worker's exposed because safety records go
out the window, the way they remove it goes out the window.
There's nothing high rate about removing asbestos.
What scares me the most is, you don't have nothing to
compare Libby to? I can. The Twin Towers. When the twin towers
came down, it was nothing but asbestos, the whole cloud of
dust, the whole air was filled with asbestos. The EPA lowered
the standards to clean that place up as fast as possible.
Again, there's nothing fast about removing asbestos nothing,
because that kills you. I'll tell you what, the workers that
cleaned that place up and the public are as sick as when it
fell today, but only faster, because there was more of it.
You need to take a look about--at best-value contracting,
the most-responsible bidder the most-responsible lower bidder.
Your contractors right now with no level of toxicity to tell
what's in the air, are just throwing dirt around. They're just
moving dirt from here and moving dirt from there. It's been
proven a few times already. I know that.
Nice seeing you again, Max. Thanks.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Kevin, very much. Thank you.
I have also now a Bill Caldwell.
Mr. Caldwell. Thank you. I have my 2-minute talk here, and
I'll give you a copy of it. My name is William D. Caldwell.
Senator Baucus. Anybody who has prepared remarks, they'll
all be included in the record automatically.
Mr. Caldwell. My name is William D. Caldwell, and, along
with my wife, Marjorie, reside at 580 Greers Ferry here in
Libby. I thank you Senator Baucus for this opportunity to
comment on the asbestos-cleanup efforts here in Libby.
During the fall 2002, our home and lot were tested for the
presence of asbestos, and in October of that year, Paul came
out and visited with us in our kitchen and presented us with a
report stating that our house was free of asbestos and that
contamination did exist in our garden and in certain flower
beds and around the grounds outside. Mr. Peronard advised us
that we should discontinue the use of the garden until the EPA
could clean it up which we've done. That was nearly 5 years
ago, and in spite of repeated inquiries, we've been unable to
obtain any kind of schedule as to when decontamination of our
property would take place. While always courteous, ``not this
year; maybe next,'' is the extent of the answers that we've
been given. I understand and I don't question that unexpected
higher priority kinds of operations do come up, such as the
high-school-track area, and things do happen and plans need to
change. But I think it's slowed the work on residential sites,
but I also understand that failing to plan an entire task often
results in wasted effort and needless expense.
Interesting that the term planning has come up several
times here today. This is just an example. I'm not widely
experienced in the asbestos issues that are here in Libby, just
from our own personal observations. But as an example, about 3
years ago a property very close to ours--actually, our
adjoining back-door neighbor--was cleaned up. Then last year
another property that adjoins our garden next to us was cleaned
up. Presumably sometime in the future our property is going to
be cleaned up. So just from an operational point of view, it
strikes me that there are a lot of efficiencies that can be
obtained by looking at the total task and grouping things that
make sense to be grouped. There are savings to be made, in
terms of equipment mobilization, in terms of--for the
contractor. It makes it less expensive for them to move
equipment in. If they have to come back to the same place year
after year moving equipment and supplies, it costs money. It
also costs the EPA administrative--their contract
administrators additional time in dealing with some of these
things.
Just from an overall efficiency point of view, it seems
that there could be some advances made by looking at the whole
job and at least providing us as residents, with some knowledge
when our property is going to be attended to. You know, ``Well,
not this year; maybe next,'' is not a really good answer. I
mean we know how many properties are out there that need
attention. As I said before, surely that number can change, but
we do have quite a bit of knowledge about it.
Perhaps even more importantly, cleaning up certain
properties and leaving adjoining properties untreated for
several years seems to invite recontamination of the previously
treated property. In short, failure to plan the entire job is
not only frustrating to the affected residents of Lincoln
County but invites inefficiency and excessive costs.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Bill, very much.
Mr. Caldwell. You're welcome.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
I would like Ms. Bodine or Paul or somebody maybe to
comment on that. Bill clearly has raised an issue here, and he
clearly is trying to find a reasonable solution here. So I'm
just wondering the degree to which there is a public schedule
so people know what it is. I'm sure things change a little bit
from time to time. Is there some kind of process for the people
to get more involved in what the schedules are so--after all,
this--I don't want to be corny about this, but these are our
employers, and you know, we're working for them. We need to
find a system that works for them.
Mr. Peronard. We have a couple of different prioritization
schemes for how we target select houses but you can stop and do
the math real quick. We're short--just short of 1,500
properties right now that are in the cleanup queue to do. If
you get to do say an average of 200 a year, which is about what
our pace has been--a little less this year; a little more some
other years--somebody is going to wait 7 years. At the current
funding level, current pace of cleanups that's inevitable. When
we go into target properties for cleanup, especially the first
2, 2\1/2\ years, we try to target prioritize by asbestos
concentrations, conditions of the house, try to put places with
active leaks ahead of places that just have it in the attic,
for example. We started doing a little bit of geographic
grouping last year, because we've gotten rid of most of the
obvious targets.
We run into a problem doing the geographic groupings, and a
lot of this has to do with, when you start dealing with
individual homeowners, we want to do these four properties that
are in the queue, we want to do them this date and this
schedule. We actually have a hard time accommodating folks.
``We can't do it this month, because my son is getting
married,'' you know ``we've got vacation plans, we won't be in
the area.'' So we end up taking these geographic groupings and
breaking them down largely to accommodate homeowner schedules.
I'm sorry Mr. Caldwell--folks up here in Libby are infinitely
reasonable. That has always been the case. I'm sorry somebody--
I wouldn't want to be in the position of being at the tail end
of the list but there is going to be a tail end of the list,
and I frankly, don't see a way around it at the current pace of
production.
Senator Baucus. Are these criteria and priorities and
groupings commonly known to the community? Does everybody know
what they are?
Mr. Peronard. When we launch----
Senator Baucus. Not the criteria, but that sites the
houses.
Mr. Peronard. When you--when we----
Senator Baucus. I can ask the people in the room here. Bill
doesn't know. Others don't know.
Mr. Peronard. We have put out--when we started the
residential cleanup program in 2000, we actually put out a list
of triage criteria at a couple public meetings. You know, they
were fairly widely attended, but it was back back in 2002, when
we talked about the worse first and how we were going to sort
them. The properties we're doing now all tend to be the less-
obvious candidates. They're all about the same, in terms of
contamination level and the types of property we're doing. Some
are bigger than others, some have more gardens involved, but we
don't have the really--a lot of those screamers left anymore,
where it's dropping in the ceiling now. Those do tend to be the
ones--you know, somebody comes in, ``Hey, I started a
remodeling job, and I dropped the stuff in my kitchen,'' those
are the ones that get sped up and moved up in the schedule,
because there's an immediate exposure----
Senator Baucus. I understand. It just seems to me--all of
us have to bend over backwards to find new ideas. It just seems
to me that some of the questions here is trust, you've heard,
and some of it is frustration, as you've heard. Ignorance
breeds fear. People that don't know something, naturally it's
fearful. I'm just trying to explore with you if there's some
way to deal with all of that, particularly on the scheduling
part of it, some ways where you can reevaluate the community,
have a town meeting or something: Here's what we're doing;
here's the list. Some people are going to like it; some are not
going to like it. Go through it all. As you said, people in
Libby are reasonable. They're going to know basically, their
house is not quite as bad as some other. I'm just trying to
find some way here that we can really communicate really well
with the people in Libby to deal with the schedule. That's all.
We have more witnesses here. I have to get through them
all. Edna Johnson.
Eileen Carney. Thanks, Max. Edna asked me to read her
statement. She's the lady in the wheelchair.
I'd like to use this opportunity to tell how asbestosis has
affected members of my family. So far we have lost five
relatives who have died from it, and several of us have
suffered from having it. My brother and his wife have been on
oxygen for over a year. She can't drive anymore. Neither of
them worked at the Zonolite mill, but grew up in Libby since
1926 and breathed the air that killed since 1920, when they
began to mine--process the vermiculite ore. I was born in Libby
in 1930 and grew up here, as did all my four children and 11
grandchildren. Several of my grandchildren have lupus and
rheumatoid arthritis and got it in their 20s and 30s. They have
pulmonary breathing problems and have to use breathing aids,
such as a nebulizer, as I use every day. Sometimes my whole
chest, heart, and lungs hurt when I breath, and it lasts four
hours or so. But I know lots of Libby people who are much worse
off than me and are on oxygen struggling to breathe for 4 years
before dying. Our family has lost two brothers-in-law, a cousin
and his wife, and a nephew, most of whom died from asbestosis
at a young age. Now my brother and his wife are declining
rapidly. A lot of my young sons-in-law have it now.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Others who wish to speak. We have a couple minutes here.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Wood. Sorry, I didn't sign up to speak so I'll just
take a quick second here. My name is Tom Wood.
Senator Baucus. Say what you want to say.
Mr. Wood. I pack a lot of weight around this town, Max. I'm
chief of the Libby volunteer fire department, and I want to
thank Kirby from your office who has been very helpful to us
the last few months and I want to thank Commissioner Roose for
her statement.
We have a very, very big problem in the asbestos still in
these buildings, folks. We talk about taking it out of the
roofs. It's still in the walls. We have between 120 and 150
fire calls a year as a volunteer fire department. We're
breaching these walls all the time. Our people are covered with
vermiculite when we leave the fire scenes. Across the street,
there's still a roped-off area of a fire of about 2 months ago.
Three o'clock in the morning, 20 F it's a little bit chilly
out to have to wash all your people down with fire hoses and
wash your equipment before you can leave the fire scene because
it's covered in vermiculite. It's a problem, and it's something
that we desperately need some help with funding to buy the
proper equipment that this little town can't afford. We're
looking at a half-a-million bucks or more to get the equipment
that is needed. We can't wait 3 years. We can't wait 3 more
minutes. We've had three major house fires, one of which an
individual passed away in the fire. When we brought the
individual out, we had to have the ambulance decontaminated
because there was vermiculite in the fire. It's costly, there's
things that--we need some help. I believe you have it in your
appropriations.
Senator Baucus. You're right.
Mr. Wood. We really appreciate any help----
Senator Baucus. We discussed just now how you made a
request, and we're going to try to get additional funds.
Mr. Wood. Thank you. I don't know that the community is
even aware of the problem we have with this. We try to not be
political as a volunteer fire department, but we really need
to. I got to looking Max--I'll make this real short--over the
last couple of years, we've buried, I believe, seven of our
volunteer firemen that have got too old and retired. Five of
those are from asbestos issues. One of them worked at Zonolite.
The other four didn't. So they're getting it from someplace,
and it could very well be from these fire scenes that these
guys are attending. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much. Thank you.
What I'd like to do, Ms. Bodine, is you and I kind of
share. I can--ask each other--we can each say what we've
learned here. Some things you learned and I'll mention some
things I learned. I'll just give you the first opportunity.
Ms. Bodine. Thank you. I have learned how deeply the
asbestos exposure has affected the community. It's one thing to
read about it, but it's another thing to come and talk to
people and hear about it firsthand. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. You're welcome. Couple things I've learned.
One is we just need more money.
We have to move more quickly, and I'm again urging the EPA
to make a larger request to the Administration in all the
budget requests that you make. We just need more money here.
That's simple. That's clear. That's obvious. We just need to
speed up this process. It's been since 2000. We have to find
some way, I mentioned, thinking outside of the box, some way
for all of us together. I put the burden on you, and I put the
burden on me, frankly, to try to figure out how to do that,
because, after all, you're the implementer you and Paul and
contractors and so forth, you're ones that do the actual work.
Number 3, I learned we're going to do this toxicity study.
That's good news. Working with Dr. Black, ready to make that
happen. I'm a little concerned how long it's going to take.
But, again you're going to give me a monthly report. So we can
kind of work with that and see what we can do to make it work
even better.
One thing we did not touch on at all, and it's a huge
tragedy, as Dr. Black referred to, and that's the medical needs
in this community. We're going to have to--that's a whole
separate subject. That's not really EPA. But the more you help
in your work, on the margin, on the edge, that's going to help
us on the medical side too. We're going to certainly deal with
the medical side as well.
One thing I'm going to do--this photograph touches me so
much. I'm going to put it in my personal office so I see it
every day and my staff sees it every day. I'm going to do
something else. I'm going to give you a copy, and I'm going to
ask you to put it in your personal office. You and I together
get this done.
Ms. Norita Skramstad. Max, I just want to say thank you for
the honor that you bestowed on Les. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. This is what it's all about. Thank you very
much everybody. Do we have somebody else?
Ms. Priest. I'm Alice Priest. Everybody--well, not
everybody, but the majority are complaining the EPA don't do
this and the EPA don't do that.
Senator Baucus. You have to put the microphone close to
you. Right up next to your mouth. Almost bite it.
Ms. Priest. So many of them here today are against the EPA:
They don't do this right, they don't do that right, they--well,
I'm for the EPA. If you want to see it, how the EPA works,
Senator Baucus before you go back, go down on West 1st Street,
and they're working on a place there, and it will surprise you
how hard they work. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. I'm sure that's the case. We're all for the
EPA. We just want to make sure we get this job done as quickly
as possible.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Parker. I can probably do without that thing.
Senator Baucus. You could. You have the big voice.
Mr. Parker. My name is Mel Parker, and my wife and I own
the treating plant up there on the river where W.R. Grace used
to have their exfoliation and where all of the ore came in from
the mine site there. They came in in the year 2000, sir, and
they just got done cleaning it up in 2006, which was last year.
A couple of things have come up. We recognized, as the EPA was
cleaning up our property with its contractors that there was
problems dealing with us that we tried to handle on our own,
but we could see an overlap, in that when it came to doing the
residential areas, that we were going to run into basically the
same problems. What we are concerned about here now is that
they have broken the Libby area up into operating units and--
for example, Stimson is one, our screening plant is another,
the mine is another one here, the export plant, and Stimson.
What I can't understand, is it because we don't have the risk
assessment done on toxicity and exposure, they are talking
about? Ms. Bodine is talking about being able to get a
resolution on some of those areas before they get a completion
done on the residential areas within this Unit No. 7, whatever
the Libby area is. What I can't understand is, how can we have
any resolution at all on what the risk assessment is before it
is completed? Not just giving us resolution now and the export
plant resolution and the mine site resolution, but holding off
until they get done with those before they go on to give the
record of decision to the City. It seems to me, and perhaps
there's an answer to this, as to why we are going to get a
record of decision before the residents within the Libby area
are going to get a resolution.
Senator Baucus. That's a good question.
Ms. Bodine. I actually mentioned, when we were talking
about the fact that we were hoping to do some record of
decision earlier, there are two components to a risk
assessment: Exposure and toxicity. If you cut off exposure,
then your risk is zero; you have no exposure. So whether your
toxicity number is here or here, it's not going to matter
because you don't have exposure. So the hope is that for some
areas, we will be able to go--and we're going to do some more
remedial--some more data collection this year. We will be able
to go in and confirm that we've cut off exposure, which would
then allow us to go forward.
Senator Baucus. Does that answer your question?
Mr. Parker. No, sir, it doesn't.
Senator Baucus. Let's try again.
Mr. Parker. Let's take up at the mine site all right. The
mine site is where the ore all came from originally. There are
corridors coming out of the mine area. One of them would be
down Rainy Creek which is right where we are, and that affects
basically two particular operating units. If you go down toward
Troy and you get just past the four lane, you can look off to
your right, and you will see Vermiculite Mountain. That
material used to come down through there, and then, with the
wind coming from Troy up that canyon, it would blow it back
into Libby. So consequently, until you finish up the mine site,
I can't truly understand how on earth you're ever going to get
a risk assessment that can be done in one place and not another
when you're impacting at least four different operating units.
Ms. Bodine. If our data shows that there's still exposure
at--again, at whatever operable unit then we're going to have
to wait until we have the toxicity number to apply to the
exposure. But if we have another operable unit where we can
show that we've cut off exposure, then we are hopeful that we
will be able to proceed more expeditiously, more quickly, as
you have asked. So I don't have an answer, because it will
depend on what the data says on whether there is exposure. For
your particular plant, I don't know--if there is ongoing
exposure, then it would have to wait. If there isn't, then
that's something----
Senator Baucus. If you're as familiar geographically with
the area, and Bill--Paul is. Maybe, Paul, you can help Bill
here.
Mr. Peronard. With Bill's property screening--conceptually,
Ms. Bodine is absolutely right. The big piece that we have to
figure out for the screening plant, for example, is really its
relationship to the mine and the ambient air coming off the
mine. Now Ms. Bodine did not mentioned that as one of the
possible earlier candidates. We haven't even started the
ambient-air sampling. We started the ambient-air sampling in
Libby covering the export plant and the former Stimson mill,
and we're going to push out to the processing areas and the
mine site this summer. So we'll start collecting that exposure
information.
The idea is, with the big sources removed at places like
the export plant, presuming--and this is presumption--wait for
the data to see--if the ambient-air numbers come back on the
low side, then we might be able to move forward those outside
of the toxicity-assessment process. That's--that's subject to
what the data says.
But, Mel, you're right. You have to collect that
information to cover those exposure pathways. For each of the
operable units, including the screening plant, we have a
conceptual site model trying to identify what exposure pathways
we think are out there and what data we need to collect to get
those. The idea is for these places where we've done rather
significant cleanups, that the biggest contributors to the risk
and exposure we've already remediated.
Senator Baucus. Mel, now what do you think?
Mr. Parker. I can understand what he's saying. What was
just mentioned to me was the analytical procedure that they're
going to do that. Now, I believe they're going to use a PLM,
which is a polarized light microscopy to do that, but yet that
has not been proven to be the analytical procedure that they're
going to use to finally come up with a risk assessment. So here
we are going through before we get a ROD and trying that on
different operating units but not coming up with a correct
solution, you might say to the ROD.
Senator Baucus. We're not going to resolve that totally
here. I do have an idea. Right after this meeting, if you could
talk to Paul, and then--after you talk to Paul, get back to me
as to whether you're satisfied. I'm going to give you some
addresses here and some information that you can get back to
me.
This, I think, has been helpful. We kind of have our
marching orders. We know what we have to do. Let's altogether
do it. That's all there is to discuss. I am going to give
everybody my personal private email and my personal telephone.
I'll wait until you get a pencil and paper. This is my personal
private email. It's not my office email. So when you write me,
it's personal private, you know, only I see it, which means, if
you don't get a response, you know who to blame. I will
respond. But I'll also give it to my office, to my staff, to
help work on it, to get a solution. Here's my email address,
personal private. Ms. Bodine, you and I can go back and forth
with this too. I can get yours. Here's mine. Personal private.
maxbaucus, one word lower case m-a-x-b-a-u-c-u-s.
[email protected]. It's [email protected].
Telephone number is 202-224-4375. I just urge you to write me,
talk to me as we work all these issues through. I'm as
committed today as I was when I was in Gayla's living room.
We're going to get this done and done the right way.
I have four rules in my office. Here are the four rules:
No. 1 is remember the people we serve; Rule No. 2, do it now;
Rule No. 3 is do it right the first time, and Rule No. 4 is
make it fun. So let's together remember who we're serving, do
it now, do it right the first time, then make sure we have a
good time doing it, because it's the right thing to do. Thanks
everybody very, very much.
[Whereupon, the proceedings concluded at 3:31 p.m.]
[Additonal statements submitted for the record follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 55925.093