    Hazardous Materials: EPA May Need to Reassess Sites Receiving
    Asbestos-Contaminated Ore from Libby, Montana, and Should Improve
    Its Public Notification Process (12-OCT-07, GAO-08-71).

    Between 1923 and the early 1990s, a mine near Libby, Montana,
    shipped millions of tons of asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore
    to sites throughout the United States. In 2000, the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) began to clean up asbestos contamination
    at the Libby mine and evaluate those sites that received the ore
    to determine if they were contaminated. Under Superfund program
    regulations and guidance, EPA regional offices took steps to
    inform affected communities of contamination problems and agency
    efforts to address them. GAO was asked to (1) describe the status
    of EPA's and other federal agencies' efforts to assess and
    address potential risks at the facilities that received
    contaminated Libby ore and (2) determine the extent and
    effectiveness of EPA's public notification efforts about cleanups
    at sites that received Libby ore. GAO, among other steps,
    convened focus groups in three of the affected communities to
    address these issues.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-71
        ACCNO:   A77309
      TITLE:     Hazardous Materials: EPA May Need to Reassess Sites
    Receiving Asbestos-Contaminated Ore from Libby, Montana, and
    Should Improve Its Public Notification Process
         DATE:   10/12/2007
      SUBJECT:   Asbestos
    	     Contamination
    	     Environment evaluation
    	     Environmental cleanups
    	     Environmental monitoring
    	     Federal regulations
    	     Federal/state relations
    	     Hazardous substances
    	     Health hazards
    	     Pollution
    	     Pollution control
    	     Public health
    	     Regulatory agencies
    	     Risk assessment
    	     Risk management
    	     Policies and procedures
    	     Montana

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-08-71

    This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
    Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
    of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
    attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
    the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
    descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
    end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
    but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
    version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
    replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
    your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
    document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

    This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
    in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
    may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
    material separately.

    Report to Congressional Requesters:

    United States Government Accountability Office:

    GAO:

    October 2007:

    Hazardous Materials:

    EPA May Need to Reassess Sites Receiving Asbestos-Contaminated Ore from
    Libby, Montana, and Should Improve Its Public Notification Process:

    GAO-08-71:

    GAO Highlights:

    Highlights of GAO-08-71, a report to congressional requesters.

    Why GAO Did This Study:

    Between 1923 and the early 1990s, a mine near Libby, Montana, shipped
    millions of tons of asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore to sites
    throughout the United States. In 2000, EPA began to clean up asbestos
    contamination at the Libby mine and evaluate those sites that received
    the ore to determine if they were contaminated. Under Superfund program
    regulations and guidance, EPA regional offices took steps to inform
    affected communities of contamination problems and agency efforts to
    address them.

    GAO was asked to (1) describe the status of EPA�s and other federal
    agencies� efforts to assess and address potential risks at the
    facilities that received contaminated Libby ore and (2) determine the
    extent and effectiveness of EPA�s public notification efforts about
    cleanups at sites that received Libby ore. GAO, among other steps,
    convened focus groups in three of the affected communities to address
    these issues.

    What GAO Found:

    Since 2000, EPA has evaluated 271 sites thought to have received
    asbestos-contaminated ore from Libby, Montana, but did so without key
    information on safe exposure levels for asbestos. Based on these
    evaluations, 19 sites were found to be contaminated with asbestos from
    the Libby ore and needed to be cleaned up. EPA or the state of
    jurisdiction generally led or oversaw the cleanups. In general, a
    cleanup would be performed if sampling results indicated asbestos was
    present in amounts greater than 1 percent (based on the percentage area
    in a microscopic field) in soils or debris or greater than 0.1 asbestos
    fibers per cubic centimeter of air. However, these standards are not
    health-based and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
    found that the sampling and analysis methods EPA used at most of the
    sites it examined were limited and have since been improved. The EPA
    Office of Inspector General reported in December 2006 that EPA had not
    completed an assessment of the toxicity of the asbestos in the Libby
    ore. Until it completes this assessment, EPA cannot be assured that the
    Libby site itself is cleaned to safe levels, nor will it know the
    extent to which the sites that received Libby ore may need to be
    reevaluated. EPA has agreed to complete a risk and toxicity assessment
    by the end of fiscal year 2010.

    EPA regional offices did not implement key provisions of the agency�s
    public notification regulations at 8 of the 13 sites for which EPA had
    lead responsibility. At four sites, for example, EPA either did not
    provide and maintain documentation about the cleanups for public review
    and comment or provide for a public comment period. Also, although EPA
    guidance emphasizes that simply complying with the public notification
    rules is often insufficient to meet communities� needs, at five sites
    EPA did not go beyond these provisions. Reaction among community
    members to EPA�s public notification measures was mixed. At two of the
    three sites in which GAO held focus groups with affected community
    members, participants were critical of EPA�s efforts to inform them
    about the cleanup of the asbestos-contaminated sites in their
    neighborhood. These included participants in Hamilton Township, New
    Jersey and Minot, North Dakota who noted that newspaper notices did not
    identify asbestos as the contaminant in question and contained unclear
    and bureaucratic language. On the other hand, participants in Dearborn,
    Michigan praised EPA efforts to, among other things, hold public
    meetings and hand-deliver written notices.

    What GAO Recommends:

    GAO recommends, among other things, that the EPA Administrator (1)
    consider the results of EPA�s asbestos risk and toxicity assessment to
    determine whether any affected sites need to be reevaluated and (2)
    review regions� implementation of public notification provisions and
    guidance to ensure that they appropriately determine the extent of
    outreach needed. EPA expressed general agreement.

    To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
    [hyperlink, http://GAO-08-71]. For more information, contact John B.
    Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov.

    [End of section]

    Contents:

    Letter:

    Results in Brief:

    Background:

    Federal Agencies Have Assessed Sites Thought to Have Received Asbestos-
    Contaminated Ore but Did So without Critical Information about Safe
    Exposure Levels:

    EPA Regions Did Not Consistently Implement Public-Notification
    Provisions and Adhere to Guidance:

    Conclusions:

    Recommendations for Executive Action:

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

    Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:

    GAO Comments:

    Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

    Tables:

    Table 1: Information on Sites That Were Identified As Receiving Libby
    Ore, by EPA Region:

    Table 2: Summary of Public-Notification Activities beyond the NCP
    Provisions As Reported by EPA:

    Figures:

    Figure 1: Asbestos Fibers in Libby Vermiculite Ore:

    Figure 2: Nationwide Distribution of Libby Ore by County (in tons):

    Figure 3: Raw and Popped Vermiculite:

    Figure 4: Closeup of Vermiculite Insulation in an Attic:

    Figure 5: Nineteen Sites Receiving Asbestos-Contaminated Libby Ore That
    Were Identified for Cleanup:

    Figure 6: ATSDR National Exposure Review Phase 1 Sites:

    Figure 7: Vermiculite Ore Processing Sites Where EPA Was Responsible
    for Public Notification:

    Figure 8: Content and Placement of the Hamilton Township Notice:

    Figure 9: Content and Placement of the Dearborn Notice:

    Abbreviations:

    ATSDRAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
    CERCLAComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
    Act of 1980
    EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
    HDOH: Hawaii Department of Health:
    IRIS: Integrated Risk Information System:
    KYDEP: Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection:
    MDEQ: Montana Department of Environmental Quality:
    MPCA: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:
    MSHA: Mine Safety and Health Administration:
    NCP: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan:
    NJDEP: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection:
    OERR: EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response:
    OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration:
    OSWER: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:

    [End of section]

    United States Government Accountability Office:

    Washington, DC 20548:

    October 12, 2007:

    The Honorable Tom Davis:
    Ranking Member:
    Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
    House of Representatives:

    The Honorable Christopher H. Smith:
    House of Representatives:

    Between 1923 and the early 1990s, a mine located near Libby, Montana,
    shipped millions of tons of vermiculite ore to hundreds of locations
    throughout the United States. The vermiculite ore mined in Libby
    contained high concentrations of naturally occurring asbestos.
    Vermiculite is used in the manufacture of products such as building
    insulation, fireproofing material, and some gardening products. At some
    of the facilities that received Libby ore, manufacturing processes
    released the asbestos into the air. Some workers and others who inhaled
    the asbestos fibers developed serious, in some cases fatal, asbestos-
    related respiratory illnesses. In November 1978, a company in
    Marysville, Ohio, that processed Libby ore to make fertilizer products
    reported to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that its
    employees were suffering lung problems believed to be related to the
    asbestos in the ore. According to EPA, a number of factors prevented
    the agency from addressing the issue at the time, including competing
    priorities for funding and fragmented authority and jurisdiction among
    federal agencies for regulating substances contaminated with asbestos.

    In 2000--more than 2 decades later and in the wake of a series of
    newspaper articles highlighting health and environmental concerns
    associated with the asbestos-contaminated ore--EPA began cleaning up
    asbestos contamination in the Libby area under the authority of the
    Superfund program, which was created by the Comprehensive Environmental
    Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).[Footnote 1]
    In early 2000, EPA began identifying the sites that may have received
    Libby ore and conducted site evaluations under CERCLA to determine if
    any of the sites were contaminated with asbestos from the ore and
    needed to be cleaned up. Either EPA or the state of jurisdiction has
    had primary responsibility for planning and implementing or, in some
    cases, overseeing cleanups at these sites. To help EPA assess the risks
    posed by potential asbestos contamination at sites that received Libby
    ore, the Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Toxic
    Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has performed evaluations of
    human-health effects that may be associated with past or current
    exposure to asbestos at selected sites.

    Under the regulations implementing CERCLA, known as the National Oil
    and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), EPA must
    generally take a number of steps to notify communities when it cleans
    up and removes hazardous materials from sites (removal action). These
    steps include designating a spokesperson to notify communities about
    the cleanup, creating a record documenting the basis for the cleanup,
    and making the record available to the public for review and comment.
    EPA has delegated responsibility for carrying out the public-
    notification procedures to its 10 regional offices. EPA has also issued
    policies and guidance establishing public-notification procedures that
    EPA regions should follow to help ensure early and meaningful community
    involvement. Even so, in some of the communities where EPA cleaned up
    asbestos contamination from Libby ore, concerns have been raised as to
    how well EPA regions followed NCP provisions and guidance for notifying
    the public.

    In this context, you asked us to (1) describe how EPA and other federal
    agencies assessed and addressed potential risks at the facilities that
    received asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore from a mine in Libby,
    Montana, and the results of these efforts, and (2) determine the extent
    and effectiveness of EPA regions' efforts to notify the public about
    the cleanup of facilities that received the contaminated ore.

    Because of a pending federal criminal case against W.R. Grace--the
    company that owned the Libby vermiculite mine and about half of the
    exfoliation facilities that processed ore from the mine[Footnote 2]--
    and the need to avoid undue influence on the case,[Footnote 3] we
    designed our methodology to minimize direct contact with EPA staff. To
    determine the current status of efforts to address potential risks at
    sites that received the Libby ore, we obtained data from ATSDR, which
    was largely based on EPA data about each of the sites identified as
    receiving ore from the Libby mine. For each site, the data included the
    location, type of facility, amount of ore received, and limited
    information on the results of EPA's evaluation. We then submitted a set
    of questions and a table containing data about each of the sites to
    EPA's headquarters and 10 regional offices to verify, update, and
    complete that information. To determine the extent of the regional
    offices' public-notification efforts, we submitted sets of questions in
    writing to EPA's headquarters and 10 regional offices about their
    compliance with NCP public-notification provisions and any additional
    community-notification efforts at sites that were cleaned up. We
    limited our review to the sites for which EPA had public-notification
    responsibility. We also conducted structured interviews, in person and
    by telephone, with state and local government officials to obtain their
    perspectives on the public-notification efforts that took place in
    communities where cleanups were located. Finally, we hosted discussions
    with community members at three sites in different EPA regions to
    obtain their perspectives on the public-notification efforts.

    We performed our work from August 2005 to October 2007 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards. A more detailed
    description of our scope and methodology is presented in appendix I.

    Results in Brief:

    With the assistance of other federal and state agencies, EPA has
    evaluated 271 sites thought to have received asbestos-contaminated ore
    from a mine in Libby, Montana, but did so without key information on
    safe exposure levels for asbestos. In general, the evaluations included
    visual inspections of the properties and surrounding areas; interviews
    with facility representatives and other personnel; and reviews of any
    relevant documentation from state environmental and health agencies. On
    the basis of this information, sampling was conducted at 80 sites and
    it was determined that 19 needed removal actions. Generally, either EPA
    or the states led or oversaw the cleanups. Several factors were
    considered in determining whether a site required a removal action--the
    most important being the amount, if any, of asbestos found. In general,
    a cleanup would be performed if sampling results indicated that
    asbestos was present in amounts greater than 1 percent (based on the
    percentage of the area of a microscopic field) in soils or debris or
    greater than 0.1 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of air. However,
    ATSDR--as a part of its investigations of public-health risks posed by
    past and present exposures to asbestos contamination at selected sites-
    -has pointed out that information on the toxicity of the asbestos in
    Libby ore is very limited, and that the sampling and analysis methods
    EPA used at most of the selected sites that ATSDR reviewed have since
    been replaced by more accurate methods. After the EPA Office of
    Inspector General reported in December 2006 that EPA had not completed
    an assessment of the toxicity of the asbestos in Libby ore or the risks
    it posed, EPA initiated plans to do so by the end of fiscal year 2010.
    When the assessment is completed, EPA should be better able to
    determine if sites in Libby have been cleaned to safe levels, and
    whether any of the sites that received Libby ore may still pose a risk
    to public health and need to be re-evaluated.

    The extent and effectiveness of EPA's notification efforts varied
    across the 13 sites for which EPA had lead responsibility to conduct
    cleanups. At 8 of the sites, EPA regional offices did not implement key
    public-notification provisions of NCP. For example, according to EPA
    regional officials, at Great Falls, Montana (Region 8), they did not
    establish an administrative record; and in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and
    Dearborn, Michigan (both in Region 5), they did not hold a public-
    comment period. In addition, although EPA's public-notification
    guidance strongly emphasizes that meeting NCP provisions is often
    insufficient to meet communities' needs for public notification, EPA
    officials did not conduct notification activities beyond those
    provisions at 4 sites in EPA Region 9 and 1 site in Region 2. Regional
    officials at the remaining 8 sites did so to varying degrees. Reaction
    to EPA's public-notification measures was mixed among affected
    community members. At 2 of the 3 sites for which we held focus groups
    of affected community members, participants generally criticized EPA's
    efforts to inform them of the problems posed by the asbestos-
    contaminated sites in their neighborhoods. Specifically, participants
    expressed displeasure with EPA's efforts in Hamilton Township, New
    Jersey, and Minot, North Dakota, saying, among other things, that
    notices placed in their local newspapers did not identify asbestos as
    the contaminant in question; contained unclear and bureaucratic
    language; or used such small print that the notices were difficult to
    read. On the other hand, focus-group participants in Dearborn,
    Michigan, praised EPA's efforts to hold public meetings, hand deliver
    written notices, translate notices for non-English-speaking residents,
    and respond to individuals' concerns.

    We are recommending that the EPA Administrator direct the Assistant
    Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response to
    (1) determine, after considering the results of the risk and toxicity
    assessment and the availability of improved sampling and analysis
    techniques, whether any sites potentially contaminated with asbestos
    from the Libby ore should be re-evaluated to determine whether they
    pose a threat to public health; and (2) review the regional offices'
    implementation of NCP provisions for public notification and associated
    guidance to ensure, among other things, that, in the future, regional
    offices are appropriately determining the extent of community outreach
    needed. In responding to a draft of this report, EPA generally agreed
    with our findings and recommendations, and provided technical comments
    which we incorporated, as appropriate. ATSDR provided only technical
    comments via e-mail, which were also incorporated, as appropriate. See
    appendix II for EPA's comment letter and for our evaluation of these
    comments.

    Background:

    The vermiculite ore mined at Libby, Montana, between 1923 and the early
    1990s contained high concentrations of naturally occurring asbestos
    minerals, including tremolite, winchite, richterite, and
    others[Footnote 4] (see fig. 1). As the ore was mined and processed,
    dust containing asbestos fibers was released into the air, which
    workers then inhaled. By the early 1900s, asbestos was recognized as a
    cause of occupational disease. Initially, the disease associated with
    asbestos was asbestosis, a nonmalignant respiratory disease
    characterized by scarring of the lung tissue that may progress to
    significant impairment and death. During the 1930s and 1940s, the
    connection between asbestos exposure and lung cancer emerged. By 1960,
    the connection between asbestos and mesothelioma--a cancer of the
    mesothelial lining of the lungs--was established. Diseases stemming
    from exposure to asbestos may not be apparent for decades after the
    initial exposure. Thus, even though the Libby mine closed around 1990,
    many residents, former workers, and others who were exposed to the
    asbestos-contaminated ore, recently have been diagnosed with asbestos-
    related diseases and many more may become ill in the future.

    Figure 1: Asbestos Fibers in Libby Vermiculite Ore (photograph):

    [See PDF for image]

    Source: U.S. Geological Survey and EPA.

    [End of figure]

    EPA's involvement with Libby's asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore
    dates back to the late 1970s and continued intermittently until 1999,
    when the agency initiated an investigation that led to ongoing cleanup
    activities in the Libby area. In 1978, EPA learned that workers at a
    vermiculite processing plant in Marysville, Ohio--one of hundreds of
    sites across the United States where Libby vermiculite ore was sent--
    were exhibiting symptoms of asbestos-related diseases. Between 1980 and
    1982, EPA issued a series of reports related to asbestos-contaminated
    vermiculite.[Footnote 5] Most of these reports indicated that there was
    a lack of data on both exposure to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite
    and its adverse health effects. Further, the reports identified
    problems in sampling, analysis, and reproducibility of data regarding
    low levels of asbestos in vermiculite, which made it difficult to
    acquire data on exposure and health effects. One of the studies also
    noted that EPA needed to develop more information identifying, among
    other things, the vermiculite-mine sites, the processors of
    vermiculite, and the potential number of employees exposed to asbestos-
    contaminated vermiculite. In a February 1985 report, EPA estimated the
    levels and ranges of exposure to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite for
    workers and the general public and indicated that, with further study,
    this information could be used for regulatory decision making. This
    report contained a list of the locations of 52 exfoliation plants in
    the United States that had received vermiculite ore from the Libby
    mine.[Footnote 6] Even so, EPA did not initiate any action at the time
    and, until 1999, did little to address concerns about the health risks
    associated with exposure to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite
    ore.[Footnote 7]

    In 1999--after a series of newspaper articles reporting that miners and
    their families in the area of Libby, Montana, had died or were ill from
    exposure to the asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore--EPA began
    investigating the contamination in the Libby area and began cleaning up
    the contamination in 2000. Subsequently, concerns were raised about why
    EPA had not taken action much earlier in Libby, which resulted in
    investigations by both the EPA Office of Inspector General and GAO. The
    subsequent reports concluded that, due to various challenges, EPA
    missed past opportunities to take steps that might have protected the
    citizens of Libby.[Footnote 8] These challenges included (1) fragmented
    regulatory authority and jurisdiction with other federal agencies and
    within EPA, along with ineffective communication, which made it
    difficult for EPA to take action; (2) limitations of science,
    technology, and health-effects data that made it difficult for EPA to
    determine the degree of health risk at Libby; and (3) funding
    constraints and competing priorities, which led EPA to de-emphasize
    dealing with asbestos-contaminated vermiculite. Since these reports
    were issued, as part of an ongoing criminal case against W.R. Grace,
    the government has alleged that Grace engaged in a conspiracy to
    defraud EPA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
    Health by concealing and misrepresenting the nature of the asbestos-
    containing vermiculite produced at the mine.[Footnote 9] Grace has
    denied the allegations.

    When EPA began cleaning up contamination in the Libby area in 2000, it
    also took steps to identify and evaluate sites that may have received
    shipments of Libby ore for asbestos contamination according to CERCLA.
    Under NCP regulations that implement CERCLA, a removal site evaluation
    involves, among other things, identifying the source and nature of any
    hazardous-substance release, analyzing the magnitude of the potential
    threat to human health and the environment, and evaluating factors
    necessary to make the determination of whether a removal is necessary.

    According to NCP regulations, when EPA is the lead agency for a
    cleanup, an EPA region must take certain actions, as appropriate, to
    notify the public about a removal action. These actions include (1)
    designating a spokesperson to notify immediately affected citizens and
    state and local officials about the cleanup; (2) creating a record
    documenting the basis for the cleanup action and making the record
    publicly available; (3) publishing a notice that the record is
    available for review in a major local newspaper; and (4) providing an
    opportunity for the public to comment on the record. When EPA expects
    the cleanup action to last more than 120 days, the regional office must
    also conduct interviews with interested or affected parties, prepare a
    formal community response plan, and establish at least one local
    information repository at or near the cleanup location, such as at a
    public library.

    EPA has also issued numerous policy directives and guidance documents
    over the years establishing additional public notification procedures
    that EPA regions should follow. For example, EPA guidance issued in
    July 1992 directed regions to interact closely with and reach out to
    communities. This guidance specifies that one of the goals of public
    participation is to inform the public about the risks associated with a
    site and any cleanup actions. The guidance also states that it is
    imperative for EPA to give the public prompt, accurate information
    about the nature of threats to public health and the environment, and
    the removal action necessary to mitigate the threats. In its April 2002
    guidance, EPA stated that just complying with NCP provisions is often
    insufficient for informing the media, the public, and interested
    stakeholders. This guidance strongly suggested the regions use other
    options for meeting community needs, such as scheduling press
    briefings; establishing a local or toll-free telephone hotline; and
    canvassing neighborhoods to identify residents' needs, fears, and
    concerns.

    ATSDR has provided information to EPA to help assess the risks posed by
    potential asbestos contamination at selected sites that received Libby
    ore. Specifically, in 2002, ATSDR launched the first phase of its
    National Asbestos Exposure Review. Under this phase of the project,
    ATSDR evaluated human health effects that may be associated with past
    or current exposure to asbestos at 28 of the sites that had received
    and processed the vermiculite ore mined in Libby, Montana. These sites
    were selected because they received a high-volume of Libby ore (greater
    than 100,000 tons) or EPA identified them as needing further
    investigation. These 28 sites together received about 80 percent of the
    vermiculite ore shipped from the Libby mine between 1964 and 1980.

    Federal Agencies Have Assessed Sites Thought to Have Received Asbestos-
    Contaminated Ore but Did So without Critical Information about Safe
    Exposure Levels:

    EPA, with assistance from other federal and state agencies, has
    assessed 271 sites that were thought to have received asbestos-
    contaminated ore from Libby, Montana, to determine if the sites are
    contaminated with asbestos and if they need cleanup. As a result of
    these investigations, 19 sites were identified as requiring cleanup. As
    a part of ATSDR's effort to evaluate public-health risks posed by past
    and current exposures to asbestos contamination in the Libby area and
    at some of the sites that received the Libby ore, ATSDR has noted there
    is an absence of key information on the toxicity of the asbestos found
    in the Libby ore. ATSDR also noted that the methods EPA used to sample
    and analyze the air and soil at most of the 28 sites it reviewed have
    since been improved and now better quantify asbestos levels. After the
    EPA Office of Inspector General recommended in December 2006 that EPA
    perform a toxicity assessment to determine safe levels of exposure for
    humans, EPA agreed to do so.

    EPA Has Evaluated Sites That May Have Received Libby Ore and Concluded
    Some Needed to be Cleaned Up:

    EPA has taken a number of actions to identify and evaluate sites that
    may have received Libby ore and, when needed, has conducted removal
    actions. In early 2000, EPA began compiling a list of facilities that
    might have received asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore from the
    Libby mine. To compile the list, it used shipping records and other
    information obtained from W.R. Grace as well as historical information
    about vermiculite processing facilities from the Bureau of Mines and
    the U.S. Geological Survey. Initially, EPA identified over 500 sites,
    but after coordinating with the U.S. Geological Survey to update and
    revise the list of facilities and eliminate duplicate entries, EPA
    narrowed the list to less than 300 potential sites.

    The data that EPA collected on the sites believed to have received
    Libby ore paint a picture of the distribution of Libby ore across the
    United States. Figure 2 illustrates the nationwide distribution based
    on 195 sites for which data on the amount of ore shipped were
    available. These 195 sites are believed to have received a combined
    total of at least 6 million tons of ore from the Libby, Montana, mine
    and ore processing operations.[Footnote 10] The 271 sites were located
    in 39 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The most sites
    were in California (28) and Texas (26). EPA has continued to identify
    sites and will investigate them as it deems necessary. For example, in
    2006, EPA identified additional sites (included in the 271) that it
    needed to assess for asbestos contamination.

    Figure 2: Nationwide Distribution of Libby Ore by County (in tons):

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a map of the United States with four symbols indicating
    total tonnage by county as follows: 1 to 99,999; 100,000 to 199,999;
    200,000 to 299,999; 300,000 or more.

    Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

    Notes: Alaska and Hawaii are not to scale. Data on the distribution of
    ore are based on approximately 80,000 invoices that EPA obtained from
    W.R. Grace which document shipments of vermiculite ore made from the
    Libby mine between 1964 to 1990. EPA tabulated this shipping
    information in a database. EPA does not believe it received an invoice
    for every shipment of Libby ore made during that time period, and the
    database represents only what EPA was able to collect from W.R. Grace.

    [See PDF for image]

    [End of figure]

    According to the data that EPA collected, most (95 percent) of the
    vermiculite ore known to have been shipped from Libby between 1964 and
    1990 went to facilities that converted it into commercial vermiculite
    through a process called "exfoliation" (expansion). Exfoliation plants
    heated the vermiculite ore to approximately 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit,
    which caused the ore to expand, or pop. This expanded vermiculite was
    then used in a variety of products, including loose-fill insulation in
    homes (see figs. 3 and 4 for photos of expanded vermiculite ore and
    vermiculite insulation). Because significant concentrations of asbestos
    fibers were likely released during the exfoliation process, of the
    facilities that received Libby ore, exfoliation plants were deemed the
    most likely to have caused environmental contamination and exposure.

    Figure 4: Raw (Right) and Popped (Left) Vermiculite (photograph):

    [See PDF for image]

    [End of figure]

    Figure 5: Closeup of Vermiculite Insulation in an Attic (photograph):

    [See PDF for image]

    [End of figure]

    In performing their preliminary assessment of sites, EPA regions
    generally tried to determine the facilities' locations using a variety
    of methods, including title searches; reviews of town records; and
    interviews with people who might provide useful information, such as
    company representatives or people who formerly worked at the sites.
    Once they identified an accurate address for a site, a "windshield
    survey" was performed to determine current site conditions and gather
    additional information on past operations at the site. These surveys
    generally included viewing the suspected location and its surrounding
    area and, in some instances, interviewing business owners and residents
    in the immediate vicinity.

    If these initial surveys indicated the need for further examination,
    the regions typically conducted a detailed investigation of the site.
    This investigation typically consisted of a site visit, which included
    a more thorough visual inspection of the property and surrounding area;
    additional interviews with people who might be knowledgeable about past
    operations, such as facility representatives; reviews of any relevant
    and available documentation from state and federal agencies; and, if
    deemed necessary, collection of soil and air samples.

    As indicated in table 1, EPA conducted site visits to at least 241 of
    the sites.[Footnote 11] At least 19 sites were not visited because
    either initial efforts to determine site locations were unsuccessful or
    information gathered while pre-screening the sites indicated that a
    site visit was not necessary. For example, for a site located in
    Stanton, North Dakota, company officials indicated in a letter that the
    company purchased a relatively small amount of Libby ore in the early
    1980s and had since obtained vermiculite ore from a mine in Virginia.
    The company officials provided EPA Region 8 with a lab analysis of the
    ore from the Virginia mine, which indicated no asbestos was present in
    the ore. As a result, EPA Region 8 concluded a site visit was not
    necessary.

    Table 1: Information on Sites That Were Identified As Receiving Libby
    Ore, by EPA Region:

    EPA regional office: 1.
    Number of sites: 5;
    Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 194,750;
    Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 3.2;
    Number of sites visited by EPA: 4;
    Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 2;
    Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 0;
    Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 1.

    EPA regional office: 2;
    Number of sites: 23[B];
    Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 323,152;
    Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 5.3;
    Number of sites visited by EPA: 22;
    Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 4;
    Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 2;
    Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 1.

    EPA regional office: 3;
    Number of sites: 22;
    Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 280,472;
    Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 4.6;
    Number of sites visited by EPA: 20;
    Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 10;
    Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 1;
    Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 1[C].

    EPA regional office: 4;
    Number of sites: 35;
    Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 578,006;
    Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 9.5;
    Number of sites visited by EPA: 24[D];
    Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 13[E];
    Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 0[F];
    Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 1.

    EPA regional office: 5;
    Number of sites: 61;
    Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 1,387,176;
    Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 22.7;
    Number of sites visited by EPA: 61;
    Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 16;
    Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 0;
    Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 2.

    EPA regional office: 6;
    Number of sites: 45[G];
    Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 1,221,289;
    Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 20.0;
    Number of sites visited by EPA: 41;
    Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 2[H];
    Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 2;
    Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 0.

    EPA regional office: 7;
    Number of sites: 15;
    Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 355,579;
    Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 5.8;
    Number of sites visited by EPA: 15;
    Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 6;
    Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 0;
    Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 0.

    EPA regional office: 8;
    Number of sites: 18[I];
    Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 210,913[J];
    Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 3.5;
    Number of sites visited by EPA: 16;
    Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 9;
    Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 0;
    Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 5.

    EPA regional office: 9;
    Number of sites: 36;
    Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 1,292,114;
    Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 21.2;
    Number of sites visited by EPA: 28;
    Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 13;
    Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 0;
    Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 5.

    EPA regional office: 10;
    Number of sites: 11;
    Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 255,237;
    Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 4.2;
    Number of sites visited by EPA: 10;
    Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 5;
    Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 0;
    Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 3.

    EPA regional office: Total;
    Number of sites: 271[K];
    Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 6,098,688;
    Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 100;
    Number of sites visited by EPA: 241;
    Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 80;
    Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 5;
    Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 19.

    Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

    [A] The data on the amount of ore received is from an EPA database of
    W.R. Grace invoices for shipments of vermiculite from the Libby mine
    between 1964 and 1990. For 76 of the sites (28 percent), the amount of
    ore received is unknown. As a result, the data on the amount of ore
    received is likely understated.

    [B] According to EPA Region 2 officials, two sites located in
    Edgewater, New Jersey, are actually the same site. As a result, GAO
    recorded those two sites as one.

    [C] In May 2007, EPA informed GAO that EPA Region 3 had decided a
    cleanup action would be needed at a site located in Ellwood City,
    Pennsylvania. Because the site was added after GAO completed its
    analysis of site data, this site is not included in the number of sites
    determined to need cleanup but is included in the number of sites where
    assessment is ongoing.

    [D] For 11 sites in Region 4, EPA's files did not contain sufficient
    documentation to determine definitively if the sites had been visited.

    [E] For 22 sites in Region 4, EPA's files did not contain sufficient
    documentation to determine definitively if sampling had taken place.

    [F] For 6 sites in Region 4, no documentation of an assessment could be
    located in EPA's files. Therefore, it is not possible to determine
    definitively if EPA completed evaluations at those sites.

    [G] According to EPA Region 6 officials, two sites located in
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, are actually the same site. As a result, GAO
    recorded those two sites as one.

    [H] EPA Region 6 planned to assist the state of Louisiana in collecting
    samples at a site located in New Orleans, but sampling was delayed
    because of damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.

    [I] The list of sites that EPA Region 8 provided to GAO included a
    retail store located within a W.R. Grace export facility in Libby,
    Montana. This site is one of several sites in Libby, Montana, currently
    being cleaned up by EPA. Because of the pending federal criminal case
    related to W.R. Grace's actions at the mine located in Libby, GAO did
    not review the status of EPA's efforts to assess and clean up any of
    the sites located in Libby. As a result, the retail store was excluded
    from the number of sites located in Region 8.

    [J] For one site in Region 8, the source of the contamination was a
    former employee who brought contaminated material home and used it as
    fill material in his driveway. No shipments of ore were received at
    this site, so it is not included in the total amount of ore received by
    sites located in Region 8.

    [K] According to W.R. Grace shipping records and other data, 271 sites
    were identified as potentially receiving Libby ore. EPA did not
    continue investigating at least 19 sites because the sites could not be
    located or preliminary information indicated a site visit was not
    necessary. Because of a lack of documentation for 11 sites in Region 4,
    it is unclear whether site visits took place at those sites.

    [End of table]

    For the sites where the regions decided sampling was warranted, samples
    of "bulk" materials--such as raw vermiculite ore, suspected waste
    vermiculite piles, and soils--were collected. Air samples were
    collected if there was concern that disturbing contaminated materials
    (in the soil or elsewhere) could result in asbestos fibers migrating
    into the air and being inhaled. Based on information obtained during
    the site visits, bulk and, in some cases, air samples were collected
    for at least 80 (30 percent) of the sites (as shown in table
    1).[Footnote 12]

    One of the most important factors EPA regional offices considered in
    determining whether a site needed to be cleaned up was the amount, if
    any, of asbestos present at the site. In general, a cleanup would be
    performed if sampling results indicated that asbestos was present in
    amounts greater than 1 percent (based on the percentage of the area of
    a microscopic field) in soils or debris or greater than 0.1 asbestos
    fibers per cubic centimeter of air. According to EPA, the "1 percent
    threshold" for asbestos in soils or debris is not a health-based
    standard, but is rather related to the limit of detection for the
    analytical methods available during the early years of EPA's asbestos
    program (early 1970s), and to EPA's desire to concentrate resources on
    materials containing higher percentages of asbestos. EPA has never
    determined that materials containing less than 1 percent asbestos are
    safe, and scientists have not been able to develop a safe level for
    exposure to airborne asbestos. Of the sites sampled, 22 had levels of
    asbestos that that exceeded the thresholds, 29 had detectable levels of
    asbestos that were below the thresholds (trace amounts), and 26 sites
    had no detectable levels of asbestos[Footnote 13].:

    After reviewing the sampling results and other pertinent information
    collected about the sites, EPA--and in some instances states--
    identified 19 sites where contamination from the asbestos in Libby ore
    needed to be cleaned up. Figure 5 includes a map showing the location
    of the 19 sites that were identified for cleanup. With the exception of
    one site, all of the sites that needed to be cleaned up had levels of
    asbestos in soils that exceeded the 1 percent threshold.[Footnote 14]
    For the one exception, a site located in Salt Lake City, all of the
    soil samples contained trace amounts of asbestos (less than 1 percent).
    However, after raking the ground and using a leaf blower, EPA collected
    air samples which showed elevated levels of asbestos fibers that
    exceeded the threshold of 0.1 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of
    air. As a result, EPA determined this site needed to be cleaned up as
    well.

    Figure 6: Nineteen Sites Receiving Asbestos-Contaminated Libby Ore That
    Were Identified for Cleanup:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a map of the United States, indicating the location of
    the nineteen sites receiving asbestos-contaminated Libby Ore that were
    identified for cleanup. The sites identified are:

    * Dearborn, MI;
    * Denver, CO;
    * Easthampton, MA;
    * Glendale, AZ;
    * Glendale (Los Angeles), CA;
    * Great Falls, MT;
    * Hamilton Township, NJ;
    * Honolulu, HI;
    * Minneapolis, MN;
    * Minot, ND;
    * New Castle, PA;
    * Newark, CA;
    * Phoenix, AZ;
    * Portland, OR (two locations);
    * Salt Lake City, UT (two locations);
    * Spokane, WA;
    * Wilder, KY.

    Source: EPA (information); Map Resources (map).

    Note: In May 2007, EPA decided to also clean up a site located in
    Ellwood City, Pennsylvania. Since this decision was made after GAO
    completed its analysis of the sites, we did not include this site as
    one of the nineteen sites in the report.

    [End of figure]

    ATSDR Concluded Former Workers at Facilities That Processed Libby Ore
    Were Most at Risk for Asbestos Exposure and That Health-Effects Data
    Are Limited:

    In conjunction with EPA's efforts to evaluate sites that received Libby
    ore, ATSDR is conducting a project--the National Asbestos Exposure
    Review--to investigate selected sites that received and processed ore
    from the Libby mine. These investigations--referred to as health
    consultations--involve evaluating information about toxic material at a
    site, determining whether people might be exposed to it, and reporting
    what harm exposure might cause. Health consultations may be performed
    by ATSDR staff or by state health department officials working under a
    cooperative agreement with ATSDR. The consultations may consider:

    * what levels (or concentrations) of hazardous substances are present;

    * whether people might be exposed to contamination and how (through
    "exposure pathways" such as breathing air, drinking or coming into
    contact with water, eating or coming into contact with soil, or eating
    food);

    * what harm the substances might cause people (or the contaminants'
    "toxicity");

    * whether working or living nearby might affect people's health; and:

    * other dangers to people, such as unsafe buildings or other physical
    hazards.

    Every health consultation includes ATSDR's conclusions about public-
    health hazards and recommendations for actions to protect public
    health. These can include recommended follow-up activities for EPA,
    state environmental and health agencies, and ATSDR. For example, the
    recommendations could be related to (1) cleaning up sites; (2) keeping
    people away from contamination and physical dangers--for example, by
    placing a fence around a site; (3) giving residents safe drinking
    water; (4) relocating exposed people; (5) providing health education
    for residents and health-care providers to inform them about site
    contaminants and harmful health effects; and (6) performing additional
    health studies.[Footnote 15]

    ATSDR is conducting the National Asbestos Exposure Review in two
    phases. In Phase 1, it is conducting health investigations of 28 sites.
    These 28 sites together received about 80 percent of the vermiculite
    ore believed to have been shipped from the Libby mine between 1964 and
    1980 (see fig. 6). As of June 2007, ATSDR had completed investigations
    at all 28 sites. For each site, ATSDR has issued a health-consultation
    report and a fact sheet summarizing the results of the site
    evaluation.[Footnote 16] Phase 1 will conclude with the completion of a
    report summarizing all 28 site investigations. This report will likely
    be released in late 2007 or early 2008. In Phase 2 of the National
    Asbestos Exposure Review, ATSDR will build on work from Phase 1 to
    determine the need for public-health activities at additional sites
    that received Libby ore. ATSDR's role during Phase 2 will vary from
    providing technical support or advice to other agencies to possibly
    conducting additional public-health activities.

    Figure 8: ATSDR National Exposure Review Phase 1 Sites:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a map of the United States, indicating the location of
    the twenty-eight sites in the ATSDR National Exposure Review, Phase 1.
    The sites identified are:

    * Beltsville, MD;
    * Dallas, TX;
    * Dearborn, MI;
    * Denver, CO;
    * Easthampton, MA;
    * Edgewater, NJ;
    * Ellwood City, PA;
    * Glendale, AZ;
    * Glendale (Los Angeles), CA;
    * Hamilton Township, NJ;
    * Honolulu, HI;
    * Marysville, OH;
    * Minneapolis, MN;
    * Minot, ND;
    * Newark, CA;
    * New Castle, PA:
    * New Orleans, LA;
    * Omaha, NE;
    * Phoenix, AZ;
    * Portland, OR (two locations);
    * Santa Ana, CA;
    * Spokane, WA;
    * St. Louis, MO;
    * Tampa; FL;
    * Weedsport, PA;
    * West Chicago, IL;
    * Wilder, KY.

    [See PDF for image]

    [End of figure]

    In selecting the 28 Phase 1 sites, ATSDR selected sites that would be
    more likely to pose public-health risks because the sites (1) had been
    designated by EPA as requiring further action based on current
    contamination, or (2) were exfoliation facilities that processed more
    than 100,000 tons of vermiculite ore from the Libby mine.[Footnote 17]
    ATSDR's general conclusions about past and current exposures to
    asbestos from the contaminated Libby ore at the 28 sites included the
    following:

    * Former employees at the facilities that processed the asbestos-
    contaminated vermiculite ore were most at risk for exposure.

    * Those who lived in the employees' homes may have also been exposed
    because asbestos fibers could have been carried home on the employees'
    clothing, skin, and hair.

    * People could have been exposed to asbestos if they handled or played
    in waste rock, a by-product of vermiculite exfoliation. At some of the
    vermiculite plants, workers or people in the community may have brought
    the waste rock from the plants to their homes to use in gardens and as
    fill or driveway surfacing material. If this waste rock is uncovered
    and stirred up, asbestos fibers may be released into the air.
    Determining the extent to which former and current residents were or
    could currently be exposed to waste rock on their properties was not
    possible at most sites given a lack of knowledge about whether or to
    what extent past community members may have taken waste material home.

    * People living around the plants could have been exposed to asbestos
    fibers in the air when vermiculite was being processed at the sites.
    Determining whether former residents were exposed to hazardous levels
    of asbestos was not possible at most of the sites given a general lack
    of data on past emissions from the facilities.

    * Since the plants no longer process Libby ore, current residents
    living around the sites are no longer being exposed through air
    emissions from processing activities at the plants.

    As a part of its on-going work to assess public-health risks at the
    Phase 1 sites, ATSDR has also reported significant gaps in scientific
    data used to evaluate health risks associated with exposure to the type
    of asbestos fibers found in Libby ore. ATSDR has pointed out that
    evaluating health effects requires extensive knowledge of both the ways
    in which people were exposed and the level of asbestos that is harmful
    to humans (i.e., the toxicity of the asbestos). According to ATSDR, the
    public health implications of exposures to these fibers are difficult
    to determine in part because the toxicological information currently
    available for the asbestos fibers found in the Libby ore is very
    limited. Also, in a May 2003 Public Health Assessment of the Libby
    site, ATSDR recommended that "more research is needed, specifically:
    toxicological investigation of the risks associated with low-level
    exposure to asbestos, especially Libby asbestos; clinical research on
    treatment for mesothelioma and asbestosis; and epidemiology studies to
    better characterize the link between exposure to asbestos and disease."

    ATSDR has also noted that the 1 percent threshold used in determining
    when sites need to be cleaned up is not health based. Furthermore, the
    agency cited EPA studies showing that disturbing soils containing less
    than 1 percent asbestos can suspend fibers in the air at levels that
    cause a health concern. Therefore, ATSDR concluded it is unclear
    whether sites that were not cleaned up and with asbestos levels of less
    than 1 percent were safe.

    In addition, ATSDR stated that the sampling and analysis methods used
    by EPA at some of the sites were limited in their ability to detect and
    measure asbestos fibers.[Footnote 18] In fact, recent health-
    consultation reports for two sites in Portland, Oregon, issued by the
    Oregon Department of Human Services in consultation with ATSDR, pointed
    out that sampling and analysis methods have been improved since samples
    were taken at those sites in 2000 and that new methods are better able
    to quantify levels of asbestos. As a result, the health-consultation
    reports for those sites recommended, among other things, that EPA
    conduct additional sampling at these sites to ensure people are not
    being exposed to residual fibers. After conducting additional sampling
    at one of these sites, EPA determined the site required further
    cleanup.

    EPA Has Attempted to Clarify Its Asbestos Cleanup Goals and Agreed to
    Complete a Toxicity Assessment for the Asbestos in Libby Ore:

    In August 2004, the Director of EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation
    and Technology Innovation issued a memorandum to EPA's regions to
    clarify cleanup goals for asbestos. The memo stated that the original
    intent of the 1 percent threshold was:

    "to ban the use of materials which contain significant quantities of
    asbestos, but to allow the use of materials which would: (1) contain
    trace amounts of asbestos which occur in numerous natural substances,
    and (2) include very small quantities of asbestos (less than 1 percent)
    added to enhance the material's effectiveness."[Footnote 19]

    This memo acknowledged that the widespread use of the 1 percent
    threshold may have caused EPA managers at cleanup sites to assume that
    levels below that threshold did not pose an unreasonable risk to human
    health. The memo stated that it is important to note the 1 percent
    threshold was related to (1) the limit of detection for the analytical
    methods available in the early 1970s and (2) EPA's decision to focus
    its resources on materials containing higher percentages of asbestos.

    The memo further noted the threshold may not be protective of human
    health in all instances. It stressed that regions should not assume
    soil or debris containing less than 1 percent asbestos does not pose an
    unreasonable risk to human health and should instead develop risk-
    based, site-specific action levels to determine if response actions
    should be undertaken. However, the memo clearly stated that this
    information did not constitute a regulation nor did it impose legally-
    binding requirements on EPA.[Footnote 20]

    In November 2005, EPA issued its Asbestos Project Plan.[Footnote 21]
    The plan provided a framework for a coordinated agency-wide approach to
    identify, evaluate, and reduce the risk to human health from asbestos
    exposure. Among other things, the plan focused on improving the state
    of the science for asbestos through a number of steps, including
    activities to improve EPA's (1) understanding of asbestos toxicology,
    (2) understanding of asbestos-related exposures, and (3) ability to
    perform meaningful environmental sample collection and analysis.

    When asked about the status of these activities and funding provided to
    accomplish the Asbestos Project Plan, EPA responded that the plan was
    developed only to provide an overview of various ongoing and planned
    agency-wide activities to address risks from asbestos, and that it was
    never intended as an ongoing strategy with timelines for deliverables
    and budget tracking features. Nevertheless, according to EPA, by
    pursuing activities outlined in the plan the agency has made progress
    in improving the state of the science for asbestos. Among other things,
    it has undertaken work to (1) develop a methodology for estimating the
    risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma from inhalation exposure to
    different forms of asbestos; (2) update the asbestos health-effects
    information contained in the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System
    (IRIS); (3) develop methods for identifying the presence of asbestos in
    vermiculite attic insulation; and (4) test an alternative method for
    removing asbestos from buildings.[Footnote 22]

    In December 2006, EPA's Office of Inspector General reported that EPA
    had not completed a toxicity assessment of the type of asbestos found
    in the Libby ore and that this information was necessary to determine
    the safe level of exposure for humans.[Footnote 23] Furthermore, the
    Office of Inspector General reported without such information EPA
    cannot be sure that the cleanup actions taking place in Libby
    sufficiently reduce the risk that people may become ill from asbestos
    exposure or, if already ill, get worse. When asked by the EPA's Office
    of Inspector General's staff why a toxicity assessment had not been
    performed, officials from EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
    Response (OSWER) replied that an assessment was proposed but was not
    performed because it was not funded and because OSWER believed the
    information could be obtained through completed and ongoing
    epidemiological studies. According to the report, however, OSWER
    program staff, as distinguished from OSWER senior officials, said the
    epidemiological studies that were ongoing and planned would not be
    sufficient to determine the toxicity of the asbestos in the Libby ore.
    As a result, the EPA Office of Inspector General recommended that EPA
    fund and execute a comprehensive asbestos toxicity assessment to
    determine (1) the effectiveness of the Libby removal actions and (2)
    whether more actions are necessary.

    Shortly after the Office of Inspector General's December 2006 report
    was issued, EPA agreed to conduct additional toxicological and
    epidemiological studies for the type of asbestos found in the Libby
    ore. In January 2007, EPA convened a group of more than 30 scientists
    from EPA, ATSDR, and the National Toxicology Program to identify data
    gaps and recommend additional studies.[Footnote 24] According to EPA, a
    Libby Asbestos Action Plan initiated at this meeting includes
    recommendations for 12 additional studies. Detailed work plans for five
    of these studies have been completed with consultation from other
    agencies and external peer reviewers. Two other studies are
    continuations of ongoing efforts. Detailed work plans for the remaining
    five studies are currently being finalized. All studies are scheduled
    to be completed by the end of calendar year 2009. The milestone date
    for completing the baseline risk assessment, including the
    comprehensive toxicity assessment, is the end of fiscal year 2010.

    EPA Regions Did Not Consistently Implement Public-Notification
    Provisions and Adhere to Guidance:

    At most of the 13 sites for which EPA had public-notification
    responsibilities, EPA regions did not implement key notification
    provisions of NCP. At five sites, EPA regions did not perform
    notification activities beyond those listed in NCP, even though EPA
    guidance strongly recommends the regions do so. State and local
    government officials had mixed views about how effective EPA was in
    notifying them about cleanups in their jurisdictions--some state and
    local officials reported a positive experience working hand-in-hand
    with EPA, while others said EPA had not notified them at all.
    Similarly, while community members participating in two of three focus
    groups were disappointed overall in EPA's efforts to inform them about
    cleanups in their neighborhoods, the participants in the third group
    were very satisfied with EPA's efforts.

    EPA Regions Did Not Implement Key NCP Public-Notification Provisions at
    Most Sites:

    As the lead agency responsible for notifying the public of cleanup
    activities taking place at 13 of the cleanup sites, EPA was required by
    NCP regulations to take certain steps, as appropriate, to inform the
    public about the cleanup activities. All 13 sites were classified as
    time-critical removal actions, which means EPA must begin cleanup at
    the sites within 6 months of determining that a removal action is
    appropriate. Figure 7 shows the locations of the 13 sites.

    Figure 9: Vermiculite Ore Processing Sites Where EPA Was Responsible
    for Public Notification:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a map of the United States, indicating the location of
    the thirteen vermiculite ore processing sites where EPA was responsible
    for public notification. The sites identified are:

    * Dearborn, MI;
    * Denver, CO;
    * Easthampton, MA;
    * Glendale (Los Angeles), CA;
    * Hamilton Township, NJ;
    * Honolulu, HI;
    * Minneapolis, MN;
    * Minot, ND;
    * Newark, CA;
    * Phoenix, AZ;
    * Salt Lake City (two locations);
    * Wilder, KY.

    [End of figure]

    For all 13 sites, EPA was required to take the following public-
    notification steps:

    * Designate an agency spokesperson. This representative must inform the
    community of actions taken, respond to inquiries, and provide
    information concerning the release of hazardous substances.

    * Notify affected citizens. The spokesperson must, at a minimum, notify
    citizens immediately affected by the release of hazardous materials, as
    well as state and local officials, and when appropriate, civil defense
    or emergency management agencies.

    * Create an administrative record. EPA must establish an administrative
    record containing documents that form the basis for the cleanup action
    selected and make this record available for public review.

    * Notify the public about the administrative record. Within 60 days of
    initiating cleanup activities, EPA must publish an announcement in a
    major local newspaper indicating that the administrative record is
    available for review.

    * Hold a public-comment period, as appropriate, and respond to
    comments. From the time the administrative record is made available for
    review, EPA must provide the public no less than 30 days to provide
    comments about the cleanup. EPA must prepare a written response to
    significant comments.

    When time-critical cleanup activities are expected to last more than
    120 days, because there is more time for community involvement and
    outreach, NCP requires the following additional notification activities
    be performed, as appropriate:[Footnote 25]

    * Establish an information repository. To provide the public easier
    access to site-related documents, EPA must establish at least one
    information repository at or near the location of the cleanup site. At
    least one repository must have the administrative record file available
    for public inspection.

    * Notify the public about the repository. EPA shall inform the public
    that it has established an information repository and provide notice
    that the administrative record is available for review. If EPA knows
    that cleanup activities will extend beyond 120 days, it can publish a
    single public notice announcing the availability of the repository and
    the administrative record.

    * Conduct community interviews. EPA must conduct interviews with local
    officials, community residents, public-interest groups, or other
    interested parties, as appropriate, to solicit their concerns, their
    information needs, and their views on how and when they would like to
    be involved in the cleanup.

    * Prepare a Community Relations Plan. Using information gathered from
    the community interviews and other sources, EPA must prepare a formal
    Community Relations Plan specifying the community-involvement
    activities the agency expects to conduct during the cleanup.

    According to EPA regional officials, key public notification provisions
    of NCP were not implemented at 8 of the 13 cleanup sites. Specifically,
    regional officials told us the following:

    * At the Great Falls, Montana site (Region 8), regional officials did
    not establish an administrative record, did not place a notice
    announcing the record was available for review, and did not hold a
    public-comment period. According to Region 8 officials, they did not
    create a formal administrative record because they made a mistake in
    processing the site's file and did not discover the mistake until after
    the cleanup was completed. Before the cleanup, Region 8 did provide an
    information packet equivalent to an administrative record to the owner
    of the site where the cleanup occurred and to the state of
    Montana.[Footnote 26] Region 8 officials said they have since
    established a formal standard-operating procedure for completing such
    tasks, which includes assigning tasks to specific personnel and program
    offices within the region.

    * At the Denver, Colorado site (Region 8), although officials
    established an administrative record, they did not notify the public
    that the record was available for review and did not hold a public-
    comment period. The omissions occurred because the employee responsible
    for placing the notices had retired. During the time the position was
    vacant, the region did not place public notices for some other removal
    actions. Region 8 has since filled the position and, in December 2003,
    it established formal procedures for setting up repositories and
    publishing notices; the procedures include assigning these
    responsibilities to specific EPA program offices and staff.

    * For both the Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Dearborn, Michigan, sites
    (both in Region 5), the region established administrative records and
    placed notices about their availability, but it did not hold public-
    comment periods. EPA Region 5 officials explained that they do not
    believe that NCP requires EPA to hold a comment period for removal
    actions, rather, they said NCP allows EPA latitude to determine whether
    a comment period is appropriate for removal actions. Their general view
    is that a comment period is not appropriate for time-critical and
    emergency-removal actions because they need to proceed quickly and
    because there is typically not a range of options to be considered. In
    such cases, regional officials said it is more important to focus on
    other community-outreach and community-relations activities.

    * At the Wilder, Kentucky (Region 4), Minot, North Dakota (Region 8),
    and Phoenix, Arizona (Region 9) sites, regional officials posted
    notices of availability in local newspapers, but they did not place the
    notices within 60 days of the start of the cleanup as provided in NCP.
    At two sites, regional officials did not know why the notices were
    delayed. At the Minot site, the notice was placed 22 days after the
    deadline and 2 days after the cleanup was completed; and at the Wilder
    site, the notice was placed 6 days after the deadline. At the Phoenix
    site, regional officials said the staff person who was responsible for
    placing the notice had resigned and that position was still vacant at
    the time the notice should have been placed. The notice was placed 42
    days after the deadline and 90 days after the cleanup was completed.

    * At one of the sites located in Salt Lake City (Region 8), regional
    officials did not prepare a formal community-relations plan, even
    though regional officials thought the cleanup could take more than 120
    days to complete. Region 8 officials explained that, at the time the
    memorandum justifying the need for the cleanup was issued, it would
    have been reasonable to expect that the initial scope of the cleanup
    would be completed within 120 days. Unfortunately, additional
    contamination was discovered during a portion of the cleanup, which
    required the completion date to be extended. However, the memo
    justifying the cleanup indicated the cleanup might exceed 120 days.
    Specifically, the memo stated "total costs of the removal action are
    anticipated to exceed $2 million due to the size of the properties and
    the extensive amount of soil contamination; and the large amount of
    excavation and monitoring of landscape restoration may cause the
    removal to extend past 12 months." Region 8 officials said that even
    though a plan was not prepared for this site, the region conducted all
    substantive community-relations activities that would have been
    documented in a formal community-relations plan.

    EPA Regions' Adherence to Public-Notification Guidance Varied:

    Since the 1980s, EPA has issued policy and guidance documents providing
    more direction to regional offices on how to ensure meaningful public
    involvement in the agency's decision making processes, including
    decisions related to the cleanup of hazardous waste. The key guidance
    issued by EPA includes:

    * January 1981. EPA issued its Public Participation Policy that
    provided overall guidance and direction about reasonable and effective
    means of involving the public in program decisions to public officials
    who manage EPA programs. This policy defined public participation as
    that part of EPA's decision-making process that provides opportunity
    and encouragement for the public to express their views to the agency,
    and assures that the agency will give due consideration to public
    concerns, values, and preferences when decisions are made.

    * July 1992. EPA published public participation guidance for on-scene
    coordinators, who are responsible for directing cleanups.[Footnote 27]
    This guidance stressed the need to (1) inform the public of the degrees
    and types of risks associated with a site, planned or ongoing actions,
    and other issues; (2) provide the public with an opportunity to comment
    on decisions about the site; and (3) identify and respond to community
    concerns.

    * April 2000. The Director of EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial
    Response instructed all EPA regional offices to contact related state
    or tribal and agency officials to notify them of the potential
    evaluations of sites that received ore from Libby, Montana, and to
    gather relevant information from these officials and solicit their
    participation in site activities.

    * April 2001. The EPA Administrator issued a policy memorandum that
    endorsed "vigorous public outreach and involvement."

    * October 2001. In an effort to encourage more substantive involvement
    of communities from the very outset of a cleanup, the Acting Director
    of EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response issued a policy
    memorandum supporting "early and meaningful community involvement."
    This memo stressed that even if the cleanup is an emergency removal,
    community involvement should not be neglected or postponed. The memo
    stated that while initial calls should be to state and local
    authorities, soon thereafter, efforts should be made to reach out to
    the entire community, which may have a high level of anxiety and
    concern about health and safety.

    * April 2002. EPA issued the Superfund Community Involvement Handbook
    that contained detailed guidance on how to conduct public-notification
    activities. This guidance states that while it is up to EPA officials
    in charge of a site cleanup to decide what public-notification
    activities are needed based on a site's circumstances, EPA's experience
    has shown that, at most sites, just complying with NCP provisions is
    not sufficient to adequately meet community needs. This guidance
    recommends that regions use many other notification activities, such as
    distributing fact sheets to let residents know about EPA's activities;
    hosting public meetings to deliver information to large groups of
    people; and, if community demographics indicate a need, translating
    documents into appropriate languages.

    * September 2002. EPA issued the Superfund Community Involvement
    Toolkit, which provided EPA community involvement staff with practical,
    comprehensive, easy to use guidance for designing and enhancing
    community involvement activities. The Toolkit includes guidance on how
    to conduct both required and recommended notification activities, such
    as how to place public notices and how to conduct public meetings. The
    Toolkit indicated an expectation that EPA staff should not just
    distribute information to the public; it should promote meaningful
    citizen participation in the decisions affecting sites.

    As indicated in table 2, EPA regions varied greatly in the extent to
    which they followed the agency's guidance for conducting public-
    notification activities--with 9 of the 13 sites employing at least some
    of the notification activities that went beyond NCP provisions. For the
    cleanup sites located in Dearborn and Minneapolis (Region 5), EPA
    engaged in many of the notification activities that are recommended by
    NCP provisions. For example, at the Dearborn site, EPA coordinated with
    the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services to determine
    the best approach for providing information about the cleanup to the
    Arab-American residents living near the site. EPA also distributed fact
    sheets, printed newspaper notices in both English and Arabic, went door-
    to-door to notify residents about the cleanup, and hosted two public
    meetings, and conducted two direct mailings. At the Minneapolis site,
    EPA went door-to-door to discuss the cleanup with residents, held
    several public meetings, and distributed fact sheets. However, for the
    sites located in Glendale, Newark, Phoenix, and Honolulu (Region 9),
    and for the first phase of the cleanup of the site in Hamilton Township
    (Region 2), EPA did not engage in notification activities beyond those
    required by NCP provisions. According to both Region 2 and Region 9
    officials, even though residential areas were located near each of
    these sites, additional community-outreach activities were not
    performed because the site settings, limited scope of the removals, and
    the nature of the removal activities led them to conclude that it would
    not be necessary.

    Table 14: Summary of Public-Notification Activities beyond the NCP
    Provisions As Reported by EPA:

    Site: Dearborn, Michigan;
    Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
    [Check];
    Issued press releases: [Check];
    Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents� or business
    owners� concerns: [Check];
    Hosted public meetings: [Check];
    Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
    questions: [Check];
    Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
    owners: [Check];
    Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
    the cleanup: [Check].

    Site: Denver;
    Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
    [Check];
    Issued press releases: [Empty];
    Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents� or business
    owners� concerns: [Check];
    Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
    Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
    questions: [Empty];
    Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
    owners: [Empty];
    Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
    the cleanup: [Empty].

    Site: Glendale, California;
    Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
    [Empty];
    Issued press releases: [Empty];
    Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents� or business
    owners� concerns: [Empty];
    Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
    Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
    questions: [Empty];
    Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
    owners: [Empty];
    Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
    the cleanup: [Empty].

    Site: Great Falls, Montana;
    Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
    [Check];
    Issued press releases: [Empty];
    Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents� or business
    owners� concerns: [Check];
    Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
    Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
    questions: [Empty];
    Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
    owners: [Empty];
    Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
    the cleanup: [Empty].

    Site: Hamilton Township, New Jersey Phase I.
    Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
    [Empty];
    Issued press releases: [Empty];
    Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents� or business
    owners� concerns: [Empty];
    Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
    Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
    questions: [Empty];
    Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
    owners: [Empty];
    Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
    the cleanup: [Empty].

    Site: Hamilton Township, New Jersey Phase II.
    Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
    [Check];
    Issued press releases: [Empty];
    Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents� or business
    owners� concerns: [Check];
    Hosted public meetings: [Check];
    Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
    questions: [Empty];
    Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
    owners: [Check];
    Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
    the cleanup: [Check].

    Site: Honolulu;
    Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
    [Empty];
    Issued press releases: [Empty];
    Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents� or business
    owners� concerns: [Empty];
    Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
    Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
    questions: [Empty];
    Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
    owners: [Empty];
    Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
    the cleanup: [Empty].

    Site: Minneapolis;
    Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
    [Check];
    Issued press releases: [Check];
    Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents� or business
    owners� concerns: [Check];
    Hosted public meetings: [Check];
    Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
    questions: [Check];
    Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
    owners: [Check];
    Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
    the cleanup: [Check].

    Site: Minot, North Dakota;
    Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
    [Check];
    Issued press releases: [Empty];
    Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents� or business
    owners� concerns: [Check];
    Hosted public meetings: [Check];
    Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
    questions: [Check];
    Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
    owners: [Empty];
    Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
    the cleanup: [Empty].

    Site: Newark, California;
    Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
    [Empty];
    Issued press releases: [Empty];
    Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents� or business
    owners� concerns: [Empty];
    Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
    Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
    questions: [Empty];
    Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
    owners: [Empty];
    Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
    the cleanup: [Empty].

    Site: Phoenix;
    Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
    [Empty];
    Issued press releases: [Empty];
    Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents� or business
    owners� concerns: [Empty];
    Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
    Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
    questions: [Empty];
    Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
    owners: [Empty];
    Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
    the cleanup: [Empty].

    Site: Salt Lake City (Intermountain Insulation);
    Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
    [Empty];
    Issued press releases: [Empty];
    Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents� or business
    owners� concerns: [Check];
    Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
    Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
    questions: [Empty];
    Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
    owners: [Empty];
    Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
    the cleanup: [Empty].

    Site: Salt Lake City (Vermiculite Intermountain);
    Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
    [Empty];
    Issued press releases: [Empty];
    Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents� or business
    owners� concerns: [Check];
    Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
    Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
    questions: [Empty];
    Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
    owners: [Empty];
    Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
    the cleanup: [Empty].

    Site: Wilder, Kentucky;
    Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
    [Check];
    Issued press releases: [Check];
    Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents� or business
    owners� concerns: [Check];
    Hosted public meetings: [Check];
    Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
    questions: [Empty];
    Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
    owners: [Empty];
    Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
    the cleanup: [Check].

    Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

    [End of table]

    State and Local Officials' Views Varied on the Effectiveness of EPA's
    Public-Notification Efforts:

    State officials we spoke with were mostly satisfied with EPA's efforts
    to inform them about site cleanups in their jurisdictions. That is,
    state officials from 7 of 12 sites were generally satisfied with EPA's
    public-notification efforts (North Dakota officials did not respond to
    our request for their views about the Minot site).

    * At five of the seven sites (Glendale, Denver, Dearborn, and the two
    sites located in Salt Lake City), state officials explained that when
    EPA is the lead agency for a site, they typically expect EPA to inform
    them about cleanups but do not expect to be involved in the final
    decision-making process. For these sites, the state officials were
    pleased with EPA's efforts to keep them informed about the site
    evaluations, sampling results, and cleanup activities.

    * At the other two sites (Minneapolis and Wilder), state officials
    reported they worked hand-in-hand with EPA officials and were extremely
    pleased with EPA's efforts to keep them informed about site activities.
    For example, officials from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
    (MPCA) collected samples with EPA Region 5 at the Minneapolis site and
    officials from both agencies agreed the site needed to be cleaned up.
    EPA and MPCA held joint public meetings to inform residents about the
    contamination and went door-to-door in a wide area to determine if
    residents had taken contaminated waste materials from the site to their
    homes. Also, Minnesota Department of Health officials reported working
    closely with EPA and MPCA to review site cleanup plans, ensure that
    contractors were properly licensed, and obtain access to residential
    properties so they could be tested for the presence of asbestos.
    Similarly, for the Wilder site, officials from the Kentucky Department
    of Environmental Protection (KYDEP) reported that EPA Region 4
    officials continually communicated through e-mails, telephone calls,
    written correspondence, and meetings. KYDEP officials worked closely
    with EPA at the site, providing general oversight on the cleanup,
    including removal and disposal of the asbestos-contaminated materials.
    They coordinated with EPA on all aspects of the planned removal and
    reported that EPA staff were very professional, knowledgeable, helpful,
    courteous, and visible.

    For three sites (Honolulu, Great Falls, and Hamilton Township), state
    officials said they were not satisfied with EPA's efforts to inform
    them about cleanup activities.

    * Honolulu. Officials from the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) said
    that an EPA Region 9 official stopped by their offices and mentioned
    that the Honolulu site had received vermiculite ore from Libby,
    Montana. About a year later, HDOH officials said they were copied on a
    letter from Region 9 stating that there had been a release of asbestos
    at the site. Subsequent to receiving this letter, an EPA Region 9
    official stopped by the HDOH offices "as a courtesy" to let them know
    EPA would be conducting a removal action at the site. However, HDOH
    officials said they did not receive any more information from EPA about
    the site and that they would have preferred having more advance notice
    about the cleanup and information about the status of the cleanup as it
    was being conducted.

    * Great Falls. An official from the Montana Department of Environmental
    Quality (MDEQ) was very dissatisfied with EPA Region 8's lack of
    notification about the cleanup. The site was a residence that was being
    cleaned up because a former owner of the property who had worked at a
    vermiculite processing facility in Great Falls had taken contaminated
    waste product home to use on his driveway. The MDEQ official first
    became aware of the site through an asbestos-abatement contractor who
    had heard about the cleanup. The MDEQ official said he went to
    investigate the site because EPA typically coordinates such matters
    with him. The MDEQ official said he was not sure why EPA did not inform
    him about the cleanup, but he considered this "slipshod" behavior.

    * Hamilton Township. Officials from the New Jersey Department of
    Environmental Protection (NJDEP) said they first learned the site was
    contaminated with asbestos when they were copied on an EPA Region 2
    memorandum stating that the site needed to be cleaned up. They said
    they received copies of two more EPA reports about the site before
    being invited to a stakeholder meeting in March 2005 (approximately 1
    year after the completion of the first phase of the site cleanup) to
    discuss the site cleanup.[Footnote 28] The NJDEP officials said that
    EPA had improved its public-notification efforts during the second
    phase of the site cleanup. For example, since the beginning of the
    second phase, EPA has held several public meetings and issued numerous
    community updates. The NJDEP officials felt that EPA should have
    notified them and local government officials about the first phase of
    the cleanup in the same manner as was done for the second phase. In
    general, NJDEP officials said EPA could improve public-notification
    efforts by, among other things, providing additional public notices to
    state and local officials, keeping the site's Web site up-to-date, and
    by asking for and obtaining feedback from community members about what
    their notification needs are, and then providing this information to
    state and local agencies.[Footnote 29]

    For the remaining sites in Phoenix and Newark, state officials said
    they were neither entirely satisfied nor entirely dissatisfied about
    Region 9's efforts to inform them about the site cleanups.
    Specifically, officials from the Arizona Department of Environmental
    Quality said they received a report from Region 9 indicating that EPA
    was assessing sites that had received Libby ore and that the Phoenix
    site was being assessed. A letter accompanying the report indicated the
    Phoenix site would be cleaned up, but did not indicate when the cleanup
    would occur. While Arizona officials found it helpful that EPA kept
    them informed about the assessments of sites that had received Libby
    ore, they said it would have been better if EPA had informed them ahead
    of time about when the Phoenix site would be cleaned up so they could
    have been better prepared to answer the public's questions about the
    cleanup. For the Newark site, an official from the California
    Department of Health Services said EPA did not provide any information
    to them directly about the site. Instead, they received most of their
    information from ATSDR, who they understood was working closely with
    EPA. Since the California Department of Health officials' view their
    role in such situations as providing support to ATSDR, the official
    said the Department would not necessarily expect EPA to notify it about
    site cleanups. However, as a part of its efforts to help ATSDR
    disseminate information to communities, in September 2003, the
    California Department of Health found that officials in the City of
    Newark and in the county government were not aware of the cleanup or
    the site's history (the site cleanup began in April 2002).

    Of the seven local governments that provided their views on EPA's
    efforts to inform them about cleanups within their
    jurisdictions,[Footnote 30] three (Dearborn, Minneapolis, and Salt Lake
    City) said they were satisfied.

    * Dearborn. City officials said EPA Region 5 did everything that could
    have been done to inform the public about the cleanup. According to
    these officials, EPA informed the mayor's office very early in the
    process and asked the city to appoint a liaison to work with EPA on the
    site cleanup. City officials also said EPA met with local government
    officials and the emergency-management coordinator to determine any
    concerns they might have. Overall, city officials thought EPA was
    professional, in control of the situation, and cognizant that they
    needed to maintain frequent contact with the residents.

    * Minneapolis. City officials said they already had a good working
    relationship with EPA Region 5 and were impressed with EPA's efforts to
    be open and available to the community through, among other things,
    public meetings and door-to-door contacts. They said that EPA was very
    upfront with city officials, established good credibility with members
    of the community, and was respected by local activist groups.

    * Salt Lake City (two sites). Officials from the Salt Lake City
    government said EPA's interaction with the local government was
    excellent and EPA staff were always accessible to discuss their
    concerns. EPA Region 8 staff first called them to explain that the
    sites had processed asbestos-contaminated ore from Libby and were
    likely contaminated. When the city public utility offices raised
    concerns about whether contamination under the streets near one of the
    sites was a threat to their employees, EPA met with them to address
    their concerns. Once EPA began the removal action, EPA kept the local
    government informed via weekly e-mails, three meetings, and a site
    visit.

    There were four sites (Newark, Wilder, Great Falls, and Hamilton
    Township) where local government officials said they were somewhat to
    largely dissatisfied with EPA's notification efforts.

    * Newark. A city official said a Newark Fire Department official first
    found out about the site cleanup from county health department
    officials and the California Department of Health.[Footnote 31] After
    hearing about the contamination and activities at the site, the fire
    department official informed the city manager and the city's executive
    team. The city officials said that EPA Region 9 had very little contact
    with the local government as the cleanup proceeded.

    * Wilder. A city official said he first learned about the site from a
    local newspaper reporter and that EPA Region 4 notified the city after
    it decided to clean up the site. According to this official, if the
    city had known earlier, it could have cordoned off the area to prevent
    children from riding their bikes through the site. The city official
    was also concerned that EPA did not do enough to contact former workers
    and identify people who took asbestos-contaminated waste rock from the
    site to use in their yards.

    * Great Falls. A city official at the Great Falls site said EPA Region
    8 did not notify the city about the cleanup. After finding out about
    the cleanup from an asbestos-abatement contractor, the city official
    decided to investigate the site. The city official discovered the EPA
    contractor performing the removal was not licensed to do work in the
    city.[Footnote 32] In the opinion of the city official, EPA should have
    notified the state government about cleanup activities and should have
    asked the local government to appoint a liaison to work with EPA on
    matters concerning the cleanup.

    * Hamilton Township. During Phase I of the cleanup, township officials
    said EPA Region 2 invited an official from the Hamilton Township
    Department of Health to attend a visit to the site. During this visit,
    township officials said the city health department official was told
    that EPA was going to clean up the site. Township officials said that
    other than EPA's request for a permit to place a construction trailer
    on the site, they did not receive any further communication until after
    the first phase of the cleanup was completed. At that time, township
    officials said the New Jersey Department of Health asked the Hamilton
    Township Department of Health to help organize a public meeting about
    the second phase of the cleanup; the Hamilton Township Department of
    Health then informed the mayor's office about the cleanup. According to
    township officials, while EPA did place an administrative record for
    the site in the local library, the agency did not notify local
    officials that it was available for review. Township officials said
    that since the second phase of the cleanup began, EPA has been doing a
    "great job" keeping local officials informed. According to township
    officials, the catalyst for change was getting the mayor's office
    involved in the cleanup. In their opinions, because staffs in mayors'
    offices can help ensure communities are informed and that all parties
    are working together, it is important for EPA to keep mayors' offices
    informed about cleanup activities.

    Many Community Members Believe EPA Should Have Done More to Notify Them
    about Cleanups:

    Ultimately, it is the affected community members who most need
    information about the health risks posed by the presence of asbestos
    contamination in their neighborhoods. Accordingly, to obtain detailed
    insights into the effectiveness of EPA's efforts to reach these
    individuals, we conducted focus groups at three sites--Hamilton
    Township, New Jersey; Minot, North Dakota; and Dearborn,
    Michigan.[Footnote 33] We discussed five key issues at these locations:
    (1) how the community members first became aware of the cleanup; (2)
    the content, visibility, and usefulness of the public notices EPA
    placed to inform the community about the cleanups; (3) overall views of
    EPA's efforts to notify the community about the cleanup; (4)
    information about site cleanups that community members need; and (5)
    the best methods to reach out and inform affected members of the
    community. Overall, participants in Dearborn were supportive of EPA's
    efforts, but their counterparts at the other two sites generally
    characterized EPA's notification efforts as ineffective.

    How Community Members First Became Aware of Cleanups:

    According to the NCP provisions, EPA must at a minimum notify
    immediately affected citizens and others of cleanup activities. EPA
    notification guidance recommends that EPA perform outreach and other
    community-involvement activities as early as possible. For example, the
    guidance suggests EPA could meet with local officials, media, and
    residents during the initial site assessment to explain EPA's removal
    program. At two of the three sites, however, most discussion group
    participants said EPA did not notify them about the cleanups before
    they began. At Minot, nearby residents said they did not know anything
    about the cleanup until they saw contractors in "space suits" working
    at the site. At Hamilton Township, most focus-group participants said
    they found out about the site cleanup through articles in local
    newspapers. In contrast, participants in the Dearborn focus group said
    they first heard about the cleanup when EPA officials canvassed the
    neighborhood delivering letters explaining what was happening at the
    site and through public meetings in the neighborhood.

    Content, Visibility, and Usefulness of Public Notices:

    The NCP public-notification provisions state that within 60 days of
    initiation of cleanup activities, EPA must publish an announcement in a
    major newspaper indicating the administrative record, which discusses
    EPA's planned cleanup action, is available for public review.
    Furthermore, the provisions state that EPA must provide a public-
    comment period, as appropriate, of not less than 30 days from the time
    the administrative-record file is made available for public
    inspections. EPA guidance describes critical information that should
    appear in public notices and states that they should contain (1)
    background information about the site, which may include the location
    of the site and the contaminant involved; (2) the location of the
    information repository and the hours during which the repository is
    open; (3) the dates of the public comment period, if applicable; (4)
    the time, date, and location of the public meeting, if applicable; and
    (5) the name of the agency contact to whom written comments on the
    administrative record file should be addressed. The guidance also
    states that public notices should be placed in well-read sections of
    newspapers and specifically indicates that if a well-written notice is
    hidden in the classified section of a newspaper, it will not reach many
    people. The guidance also recommends using a simply-stated message in
    easily understood language. It even includes WordPerfect� templates of
    public notices with graphics to help regional staff easily modify the
    text to fit site-specific needs.

    Based on this guidance, the notices EPA placed for all of the three
    focus-group sites were deficient in some respects. In particular, the
    notice for the Hamilton Township site did not give the address of the
    site, did not mention the contaminant of concern, and did not provide
    the dates of the public-comment period. This notice also appeared in
    the classified section of a local newspaper among many other classified
    advertisements. Figure 8 shows the content and placement of the
    Hamilton Township notice. Although the notice for the Minot site
    appeared in a well-read section of a local paper, it appeared in very
    small print, did not contain the contaminant of concern, or the dates
    of the public-comment period. In contrast, the notice for the Dearborn
    site appeared in well-read sections of multiple newspapers and
    contained all the critical information except the hours during which
    the repository would be open (see fig. 9).[Footnote 34]

    Figure 10: Content and Placement of the Hamilton Township Notice:

    [See PDF for image]

    Text of the notice:

    Notice of Public Availability:

    The United States Environmentla Protection Agency (EPA) announces the
    availability for public review the administrative record files for the
    selection of the removal action at the W.R. Grace/Zonolite Site in
    Hamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. The EPA seeks to inform
    the public of the availability of the record file at this repository
    and to encourage the public to comment on documents as they are placed
    in the record file.

    The administrative record file includes documents which form the basis
    for the selection of a removal action at this site. Documents now in
    the record file include: Action Memorandum, Sampling and Analysis
    Plans, Sampling Investigation Reports, EPA Regional guidance documents
    list, and other technical documents. Other documents may be added to
    the record files as they become available. These additional documents
    may include, but are not limited to, other technical reports, validated
    sampling data, comments, and new data submitted by interested persons,
    and the EPA resonses to significant comments.

    The administrative record files are available for review during normal
    busniess hours at:

    Hamilton Township Library:
    1 Municipal Drive;
    Hamilton, NJ 08619:
    (609)581-4060.

    U.S. EPA Region II:
    Removal Records Center:
    2890 Woodbridge Avenue:
    Building 205:
    Edison, NJ 08837:
    (732)906-6980.

    Additional guidance documents and technical literature is available at
    the following location:

    U.S. EPA Region II:
    Removal Records Center:
    2890 Woodbridge Avenue:
    Building 205:
    Edison, NJ 08837:
    (732)906-6980.

    Written comments on the Administrative Record should be sent to:

    Michael Ferriola, On-Scene Coordinator:
    Response and Prevention Branch:
    U.S. EPA Region II:
    2890 Woodbridge Avenue:
    Building 209 (MS-211):
    Edison, NJ 08837.

    Note: This is the EPA public notice for the Hamilton site that appeared
    in the classified section of a local newspaper.

    [End of figure]

    We asked participants from the three focus groups to evaluate the
    usefulness of the public notices that EPA had placed for the sites in
    their neighborhoods. Focus group participants at two of the sites
    (Hamilton Township and Minot) said they did not see the notices when
    they were published. After examining the notices during the focus-group
    meetings, all the participants said the notices did not indicate a
    threat to their health, did not leave them with the impression that
    they were to seek out additional information, or that there was a site
    in their neighborhood contaminated with a hazardous material. For the
    Hamilton Township site, one participant said the notice gave the
    impression that all the studies had been completed and nothing more was
    to be done. For the Minot site, the participants said the notice was in
    such small print that it would be hard to find in a newspaper,
    especially if the notice ran for only one day. Another participant from
    Minot said they would probably ignore the notice because it does not
    convey useful information and is very bureaucratic and vague. After
    examining the Minot notice, one participant who owns a business in the
    city commented, "I run ads for a living, and if I ran ads like that,
    our company would've been broke a long time ago."

    All but one of the participants in the Dearborn focus group said they
    had seen the notice for the site when it was published, and all the
    participants commented that it was placed in a well-read section of a
    newspaper and conveyed useful information up front. This information
    included the address of the site, the contaminant involved, essential
    information about a public meeting, and contacts for further
    information. When the Dearborn group compared the notice for that site
    with the Hamilton Township notice, they commented that the Dearborn
    notice was much clearer and the Hamilton Township notice lacked key
    information, such as the location of the site and the contaminant of
    concern.

    Figure 12: Content and Placement of the Dearborn Notice:

    [See PDF for image]

    Text of the notice:

    Work to begin and meeting to be held for former W.R. Grace site,
    Dearborn, Michigan.

    EPA contractors will begin moving equipment and mobile ofices to the
    former W.R. Grace site at 14300 Henn Street, Dearborn. This is for work
    towards cleaning up asbestos particles in and around the former
    vermiculite (asbestos) stite there.

    EPA will also be talking with residents and homeowners the week of
    April 4 to find out whether any of the asbestos-tainted vermiculite
    material could have made its way into their yards. EPA is primarily
    concerned about the residential areas bounded by Chase Road on the
    west, Schaefer Road on the east, Ford Road on the south, and the
    railroad tracks and Warren Avenue to the north.

    EPA is hoping to have contacted these residents and homeowners no late
    than April 8 in order for the work to proceed on schedule. In addition
    to contacting residents individually, EPA employees will be leaving
    instructions in the doors of homes they visit. One item being left is a
    small card for the residents/owners to fill out and drop into a box
    located by the Henn Street site trailers. This card will let EPA know
    the best time to contact the resident/owner. There are alos two toll-
    free numbers to reach EPA: (866) 242-3224 or (800)621-8543, extension
    67578. Locally, the number to the Arab Community Center for Economic
    and Social Services (ACCESS) facility is (313)216-2227.

    EPA will hold a public meeting in the auditorium of Fordson High
    School, 13800 Ford Road, Dearborn, Tue3sday, April 5, from 6:30 p.m. to
    8:30 p.m. You should enter the meetiing from the southeast corner of
    the building in the east parking lot and follow the signs. At the
    meeting we will discuss the work being done in the neightborhood and
    how we can amke this project easier on you. Joining us at the meeting
    will be our project partners, Michigan Department of Community Health,
    the Federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Michigan
    Department of Environmental Quality and others. We will also be
    available individually to talk about your property.

    Technical information for the former W.R. Grace site can be found in
    the official site administrative record at Henry Ford Community
    College, Eshleman Library reference section, 5101 Evergreen Road,
    Dearborn.

    For information and special accomodations for the meeting, or about the
    project in general, please contact:

    Dave Novak:
    EPA Community Involvement Coordinator:
    (800)621-8431, extension 67478:
    Weekdays, 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Source: Heritage Newspapers/Press and Guide, March 30, 2005.

    Note: This is the EPA public notice for the Dearborn site that appeared
    in the news section of a local newspaper.

    [End of figure]

    Views on EPA's Overall Efforts to Notify the Community about the
    Cleanups:

    For two of the three focus groups (Hamilton Township and Minot),
    participants reported that EPA's efforts to inform them about the
    cleanups were largely ineffective. For the Hamilton Township site, most
    of the participants said they did not receive any fliers or any other
    information from EPA about the cleanup. None of the participants in the
    Minot focus group said they had heard anything about the cleanup before
    it began, even though they all lived close to the site. None said they
    had received any fliers or saw EPA officials walking around the
    neighborhood. One participant, whose backyard borders the site, said he
    noticed workers in hazmat suits working at the site and asked them what
    they were doing. The participant said the engineer in charge of the
    cleanup provided him with information and agreed to set up air monitors
    to ensure that he and his neighbors were not exposed to elevated levels
    of asbestos during the cleanup. None said they had heard about the
    administrative record for the Minot site or about any opportunities for
    providing comments to EPA.

    In contrast, participants in the Dearborn focus group said EPA
    effectively informed the community about the cleanup. They reported
    that EPA held several public meetings and even had a wrap-up meeting
    after the cleanup was completed. The participants said all the notices,
    fliers, and letters had contact information on them in case the
    residents had questions, and EPA had an information trailer at the
    cleanup site where residents were welcome to stop in with their
    questions. In addition, according to the participants, EPA officials
    were always readily available to respond to concerns. For example, when
    EPA became concerned that some residents might have taken the
    contaminated waste product home to use in their yards, the participants
    said EPA walked around the neighborhood and hand delivered letters
    asking permission to access people's properties for inspection. Also,
    according to one participant, when some residents expressed concern
    about the spread of contamination during windy conditions, EPA set up
    monitors and stopped work at the site when the wind speed went above a
    certain level. Finally, because of the number of Arab-American
    residents in the community, participants said EPA provided notices and
    letters in both English and Arabic.

    Information That Community Members Need about Site Cleanups:

    For those focus-group participants who did not have an opportunity to
    ask EPA questions about the site cleanups, we asked what information
    they would have wanted EPA to provide. While Dearborn participants said
    they had ample opportunities to ask EPA questions and received the
    information they needed, participants in the other two focus groups
    (Hamilton Township and Minot) said they would have asked questions
    about the following:

    * Sampling, including what areas EPA sampled; whether there would be
    any off-site sampling; the results of the sampling; and how they could
    be sure their property was not contaminated.

    * Conduct of the cleanup, including what areas are being cleaned up;
    how the soil will be removed and what precautions will be taken to keep
    asbestos fibers from becoming airborne; how EPA will dispose of the
    contaminated dirt; whether there will be a follow-up information
    session after the cleanup is completed; and whether there will be
    continued monitoring for a designated period of time after the cleanup.

    * Health risks, including what health risks are associated with the
    site cleanup; what health risks are present before the site is cleaned
    up; who the contact is for questions about the risks and health effects
    associated with asbestos exposure.

    Best Methods to Inform Affected Members of the Community:

    In the three focus groups, community members suggested several methods
    of notification that would have helped them understand the situation.
    In general, participants from all focus groups thought using multiple
    methods of communication would help ensure that more people are
    informed about cleanups. One participant pointed out, for example, if
    someone does not read a notice about a cleanup in a newspaper, they
    might find out about it instead by reading a flier that is placed on
    their door. Participants from all three groups agreed that fliers,
    letters, public meetings, and door-to-door contacts were effective.
    Some in the Hamilton Township focus group commented that since they
    received automated phone calls to remind them to vote, perhaps it would
    be possible for EPA to provide information about cleanups in a similar
    fashion. The importance of including contact numbers on all handouts,
    fliers, and letters was stressed by some participants in the Dearborn
    focus group. In addition, some of the Dearborn participants said that
    it was useful to have the trailer at the cleanup site.

    Conclusions:

    To its credit, EPA has agreed to undertake a risk and toxicity
    assessment for the type of asbestos found in Libby ore. It expects to
    complete the assessment in 2010. Until then, EPA cannot be assured that
    of the 271 sites that it assessed, only 19--those generally exceeding
    thresholds for asbestos contamination--need to be cleaned up; nor can
    it be assured that the sites still having detectable levels of asbestos
    do not pose a risk to public health and the environment. As we noted,
    the thresholds EPA used are not health based. Furthermore, the methods
    EPA used to determine levels of asbestos contamination early in its
    assessment process are not as accurate as currently available methods.
    Resampling the sites that EPA initially sampled with these newly
    available and more reliable sampling and analytical techniques would be
    a major commitment for EPA; this step may nonetheless need to be taken
    for at least some of these sites to provide a more accurate assessment
    of the threats they pose. Hence, in addition to identifying a
    defensible health-based threshold, EPA will also need to determine the
    implications of the new sampling and analytical techniques to determine
    which sites may still need to be cleaned up.

    Community members who live and work near sites where hazardous
    materials are being removed need to understand how cleanups are being
    conducted and have opportunities to voice any concerns they have. While
    EPA has recognized the need to obtain early and meaningful community
    involvement in cleanup decisions, and taken actions in recent years to
    strengthen its efforts to inform the public, we found that at the 13
    sites where asbestos contamination from Libby ore was being cleaned up,
    several of the EPA regions did not fully implement NCP notification
    provisions and some did not adhere to the notification guidance. We
    believe this provides sufficient indication that similar problems may
    be occurring at other cleanup sites nationwide where EPA is responsible
    for conducting public-notification activities. Also, the feedback that
    we received during focus groups from community members living and
    working near cleanup sites indicates, among other things, that the
    notices EPA relies on to inform community members about cleanup
    activities were deficient in some respects.

    Recommendations for Executive Action:

    We recommend that the EPA Administrator direct the Assistant
    Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response to determine (1)
    the manner and extent to which newly available sampling and analysis
    techniques should be used to re-evaluate the threat that the sites
    receiving Libby ore may pose to human health, and (2) whether any
    additional sites that received the Libby ore need to be cleaned up when
    the results of the risk and toxicity assessment--now scheduled to be
    completed in 2010--are available.

    We also recommend that the Administrator direct the Office of Solid
    Waste and Emergency Response to review regional offices' implementation
    of the National Contingency Plan public-notification provisions and
    associated guidance and ensure that, in the future, (1) regional
    offices appropriately determine the extent of community outreach needed
    and (2) newspaper notifications are prominent and written in clear
    language that contains all critical information, such as the name of
    the contaminant, the location of the site, and the associated health
    risks.

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

    We provided a draft of this report to EPA and ATSDR for comment. EPA
    responded in a letter dated September 21, 2007, which indicated that it
    generally agreed with our recommendations and said that the agency is
    taking steps to address many of the issues identified in the report.
    Both EPA and ATSDR also provided technical comments which we
    incorporated as appropriate. Appendix II includes EPA's September 21,
    2007 letter, along with our point-by-point response to their individual
    comments.

    We are sending copies of this report to the congressional requesters
    and other interested parties. In addition, we will send copies to the
    EPA Administrator, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the
    Secretary of Labor. We will also make copies available at no charge on
    the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

    If you or your staffs have questions about this report, please contact
    me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our
    Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
    the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
    listed in appendix III.

    Signed by:

    John B. Stephenson:
    Director:
    Natural Resources and Environment:

    [End of section]

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

    We were asked to (1) describe how the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies assessed and addressed
    potential risks at the facilities that received asbestos-contaminated
    vermiculite ore from a mine in Libby, Montana, and the results of these
    efforts; and (2) determine the extent and effectiveness of the EPA
    regions' efforts to notify the public about the cleanup of facilities
    that received the contaminated ore.

    Due to concerns of the Department of Justice and EPA that our work
    could impact an ongoing federal criminal case against W.R. Grace--the
    company that owned the vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana, and some of
    the processing facilities that received ore from Libby--and the need to
    avoid undue influence in the case, we designed our methodology to
    minimize direct contact with EPA staff.[Footnote 35] Accordingly, we
    obtained most of the information we needed about EPA's assessments of
    the sites that received Libby ore and the agency's public-notification
    activities at the sites that were cleaned up by submitting questions to
    EPA in writing; the agency provided written responses. We did not
    further pursue access to this information because we had sufficient
    data to respond to our objectives.

    EPA's Assessment of Sites:

    To address the first objective, we obtained from the U.S. Department of
    Health and Human Services' Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
    Registry (ATSDR) a table of sites that had potentially received
    contaminated ore from Libby, Montana. This table was largely based on
    data that ATSDR received from EPA about each of the sites identified as
    receiving ore from the Libby mine. The table included, for each site,
    the location, type of facility, and limited information on the status
    of EPA's assessments of the sites as of April 2003. The table also
    included information on the amount of ore received by each site as of
    April 2001. After revising the table to include only the information
    needed to address our objectives, we sent the revised table to EPA and
    requested that EPA verify, update, and complete the information in the
    table. We also submitted in writing a set of questions to clarify the
    data in the table and a set of questions to assess the reliability of
    the information in the table for the purposes of our report, focusing
    mainly on the data about the amount of ore received by each site.

    From March 2006 to May 2007, through a series of correspondences, we
    obtained EPA's responses to our written questions and information about
    the site data, which are reflected in this report. Based on EPA's
    responses regarding the accuracy and completeness of the information in
    the table of sites, we determined the data are adequate to provide
    conservative estimates of the amount of ore received by each site.

    We also collected and analyzed relevant documentation about sites from
    EPA's Superfund record centers, which are public repositories. In
    addition, we collected and analyzed ATSDR's health consultations
    prepared for selected sites that received ore from Libby, Montana.

    We also obtained and analyzed several documents that relate to EPA's
    actions to clean up sites in Libby, Montana, and the sites that
    received Libby ore. These documents included: the National Contingency
    Plan (NCP) regulations that implement the Comprehensive Environmental
    Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA); February
    and April 2000 memoranda from EPA's Director of the Office of Emergency
    and Remedial Response to all EPA regions regarding assessment of sites
    that received Libby ore; 2001 EPA Office of Inspector General's report
    entitled "EPA's Actions Concerning Asbestos-Contaminated Vermiculite in
    Libby, Montana"; GAO's 2003 report entitled "Hazardous Materials: EPA's
    Cleanup of Asbestos in Libby, Montana and Related Actions to Address
    Asbestos-Contaminated Materials"; and an August 2004 memorandum from
    the Director of EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
    Innovation to EPA regions regarding clarification of asbestos cleanup
    goals.

    EPA's Public-Notification Efforts:

    To address the second objective, we limited our review to the 13 sites
    that were being cleaned up and for which EPA had public-notification
    responsibility. These sites were located in Phoenix, Arizona; Glendale
    and Newark, California; Denver, Colorado; Honolulu, Hawaii; Wilder,
    Kentucky; Dearborn, Michigan; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Great Falls,
    Montana; Minot, North Dakota; Hamilton Township, New Jersey; and two
    sites located in Salt Lake City, Utah. We interviewed officials from
    EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response to obtain general
    information about public-notification provisions to which EPA is
    subject and any guidance that EPA has issued instructing regional
    offices about their responsibilities for complying with these
    provisions. In April 2006, we submitted structured questions in writing
    to EPA's headquarters and 10 regional offices to determine compliance
    with public-notification provisions and any additional community-
    notification efforts that took place at the 13 sites. From April 2006
    to May 2007, through a series of correspondences, EPA provided
    responses to these questions and various follow-up questions in
    writing.

    We developed sets of structured questions to assist in obtaining state
    and local government officials' perspectives on the public notification
    that took place in communities where cleanups occurred. To identify the
    state and local government agencies involved in the cleanups and
    officials in those agencies most knowledgeable about the notification
    that took place at each site, we obtained some names from the
    administrative records for the sites being cleaned up. In some cases,
    we asked EPA to provide the names of state and local agencies or
    officials they worked with during the cleanups. For sites where we only
    had the name of an agency, we called the agency and asked for the
    person who would be most knowledgeable about the site. We conducted
    these interviews in person and by telephone. We interviewed officials
    in the following state offices: Arizona Department of Environmental
    Quality, California Department of Toxic Substances Control and
    California Department of Health Services, Colorado Department of Public
    Health and Environment, Hawaii Department of Health, Kentucky
    Department for Environmental Protection, Michigan Department of
    Environmental Quality, Minnesota Department of Health and Minnesota
    Pollution Control Agency, Montana Department of Environmental Quality,
    New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey
    Department of Health and Senior Services, and the Utah Department of
    Environmental Quality.[Footnote 36] We also interviewed officials from
    the following local governments: Newark, California; Alameda County,
    California; Wilder, Kentucky; Dearborn, Michigan; Minneapolis,
    Minnesota; Great Falls, Montana; Hamilton Township, New Jersey; Minot,
    North Dakota; and Salt Lake City, Utah.[Footnote 37]

    To obtain community members' perspectives on the extent and
    effectiveness of EPA's public-notification efforts, we conducted focus
    groups to gather qualitative information about their attitudes,
    beliefs, and perceptions. Four focus groups were conducted in Wilder,
    Kentucky; Dearborn, Michigan; Minot, North Dakota; and Hamilton
    Township, New Jersey to ensure geographic diversity. In order to help
    compare notification practices across EPA regional offices, we selected
    sites that were located in different EPA regions. Other criteria for
    selection included the amount of ore received and whether the cleanup
    action had been completed or was ongoing.

    We contracted with a marketing research firm, Marketing Systems Group,
    to obtain randomly selected names, addresses, and telephone numbers of
    100 community members who lived or worked within a half-mile radius of
    each of the sites. We mailed a letter and brief questionnaire to each
    randomly selected community member to provide them some background
    information about our study, obtain information about the number of
    years they had lived in the communities, and determine whether they
    would be willing to participate in a focus group. We contacted the
    community members who returned questionnaires indicating they would be
    willing to participate. To increase the number of focus-group
    participants, we called the community members who did not return
    questionnaires, to determine if they could participate. We also
    contacted former workers and their family members who lived in each
    community to determine if they would be willing to participate in focus
    groups. The focus groups had between 4 and 14 participants.

    In conducting the focus groups, the focus-group moderator encouraged
    the participants to speak freely. Following a GAO-developed discussion
    guide, the moderator asked the participants to give their perspectives
    on (1) how they first became aware of the cleanups, (2) the content and
    usefulness of public notices about the cleanups, (3) EPA's overall
    efforts to notify their communities about the cleanups, (4) information
    that the community members need about site cleanups, and (5) best
    methods for informing them about the cleanups.

    While generating mailing lists for the focus-group sites, the
    contracting firm inadvertently provided contact information for
    residences that lived over one-half mile from the Wilder site. After
    the error was discovered, the contractor provided corrected contact
    information for residences within a half-mile of the site. However,
    because the people who attended the Wilder focus group were either
    former workers or residents who lived more than one-half mile from the
    site, we decided not to include the results of that focus group in this
    report.

    We also obtained and analyzed several documents that related to EPA's
    responsibilities for notifying the public about cleanups at sites that
    received Libby ore. These documents included: the public-notification
    provisions of the NCP regulations that implement CERCLA as amended;
    EPA's 1981 Public Participation Policy; EPA's 1992 Public Participation
    Guidance for On-Scene Coordinators; EPA's 1997 guidance on Publishing
    Effective Public Notices; EPA's 2002 Superfund Community Involvement
    Toolkit; EPA's 2002 Superfund Community Involvement Handbook; and EPA's
    FY 2006/2007 Superfund Program Implementation Manual.

    We performed our work from August 2005 to October 2007 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    [End of section]

    Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:

    Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
    end of this appendix.

    United States Environmental Protection Agency:
    Office Of Solid Waste And Emergency Response:
    Washington, D.C. 20460:

    September 21 2007:

    Mr. John B. Stephenson:
    Director Natural Resources & Environment:
    Government Accountability Office:
    441 G. Street, NW, Room 2135:
    Washington, D.C. 20548:

    Dear Mr. Stephenson:

    Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft GAO-07-1008 Report
    entitled "Hazardous Materials: EPA May Need to Reassess Sites Receiving
    Asbestos-Contaminated Ore from Libby, Montana, and Should Improve Its
    Public Notification Process". We generally agree with the
    recommendations in the report and are taking steps to address many of
    the issues identified by GAO.

    In addition to our response provided below to the GAO recommendations,
    we have also included additional detailed comments on the draft report
    in an effort to more accurately present the Agency's activities.

    I. EPA's Response to GAO's Recommendations:

    GAO Recommendation 1:

    We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, direct the Assistant
    Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response to (1) determine
    the manner and extent to which newly available sampling and analysis
    techniques should be used to reevaluate the threat that the sites
    receiving Libby ore may pose to human health and (2) when the results
    of the risk and toxicity assessment - now scheduled to be completed in
    2010 - are available, to determine whether any additional sites that
    received Libby ore need to be cleaned up.

    EPA Response:

    Historically, asbestos has been addressed in the Superfund program by
    applying the definition of asbestos-containing material (ACM) contained
    in the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
    (NESHAP). Under the NESHAP, ACM is material containing > 1% asbestos as
    analyzed by polarized light microscopy (PLM). OSWER Directive 9345.4-05
    (Clarifying Cleanup Goals and Identification of New Assessment Tools
    for Evaluating Asbestos at Superfund Cleanups, EPA 2004), which was
    released in August 2004, indicated that the 1% definition may not be
    reliable for assessing potential human health hazards from asbestos
    contaminated soils at hazardous waste sites, and that instead a risk-
    based, site-specific action level is appropriate when evaluating
    response actions for asbestos.

    The 2004 OSWER Directive was instrumental in steering asbestos
    investigations to a risk-based paradigm. However, it did not provide
    guidance for investigating and evaluating asbestos risk at sites. EPA
    believes that further work is needed in this area and a recently
    developed draft Asbestos Site Assessment Framework (i.e., draft report:
    Framework for Investigating Asbestos-Contaminated Superfund Sites - a
    report by the Asbestos Committee of the Technical Review Workgroup
    (TRW) of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response) provides
    systematic procedures for consistently evaluating asbestos sites and
    could serve to provide a technical basis for addressing the GAO
    recommendation to reevaluate sites receiving Libby ore. The document
    (1) provides a recommended flexible framework for investigating and
    evaluating asbestos contamination that can be used for removal and
    remedial actions within the Superfund program, and (2) it provides
    detailed recommended standard operating procedures (SOPs) for
    collecting data on the nature and extent of asbestos contamination at
    Superfund sites. The framework discusses specific strategies and
    methods that are based on the best available science for characterizing
    exposure and risk from asbestos. In brief, the approach recommended in
    the framework is as follows:

    * Asbestos fibers in outdoor soil, indoor dust, or other source
    materials present the greatest concern when the asbestos is released
    from the source material into air where it can be inhaled. If inhaled,
    asbestos fibers can increase the risk of developing lung cancer,
    mesothelioma, pleural fibrosis, and asbestosis.

    * The relationship between the concentration of asbestos in a source
    material and the concentration of fibers in air that results when the
    source is disturbed is very complex, depending on a wide range of
    variables. To date, no method has been found that reliably predicts the
    concentration of asbestos in air given the concentration of asbestos in
    the source.

    * Because of this limitation, this Framework emphasizes an empirical
    approach, a combination of soil, dust and air samples. Concentrations
    of asbestos in air at the location of a source disturbance are measured
    rather than predicted.

    * Measurements of fiber concentrations in air that are based on
    personal air monitors are generally preferred over stationary air
    monitors, since the personal monitors more accurately reflect the
    concentration of asbestos in the breathing zone of the exposed person.
    Activity based sampling (ABS) is a personal monitoring approach that
    can provide data for risk assessment and is emphasized in this
    framework. ABS is a standard method used by industrial hygienists to
    evaluate workplace exposures. ABS can be useful for assessment of both
    outdoor soil and indoor dust.

    * To allow for improved risk assessments, the analytical procedure used
    to analyze samples from a site should capture information concerning
    the specific mineralogy and morphology of asbestos fibers that are
    present. Hence, the TRW is recommending that a modification of the
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Method 10312
    generally should be used for measuring asbestos at Superfund and other
    hazardous waste sites.

    Depending on its application, potential limitations of the ABS approach
    may include the representativeness of samples over an area of concern
    and the ability to generalize findings from a point in time and space
    to future exposures, other locations, and differing environmental
    conditions. Site specific data quality objectives and sampling plans
    should consider such issues prior to sample collection. Furthermore,
    cost of ABS approaches and sample analysis, analytical sensitivity, and
    difficulties of the situation should be considered in the planning
    process.

    The Framework does not seek to provide direction or guidance on risk
    management decisions which may be required during a site assessment.
    The key management decision, however, typically is how to interrupt or
    eliminate the complete inhalation exposure pathway. As always, EPA
    believes that risk management issues should be evaluated by the site
    manager, with input from the site scientific teams, stakeholders,
    Regional management, and legal staff, as appropriate. The document is
    currently being distributed for regional review with an expectation of
    a final document early in FY 08.

    The toxicity studies being performed in the Libby Action Plan will
    provide additional toxicity data that can be used to determine whether
    additional clean-up is needed at sites receiving Libby ore. These
    studies will assess the toxicity of the form of asbestos found in Libby
    ore, and an epidemiological study of workers processing Libby ore will
    provide toxicity values for additional health effects (i.e., non-
    cancer).

    GAO Recommendation 2:

    We also recommend that the Administrator direct the Office of Solid
    Waste and Emergency Response to review regional offices' implementation
    of the National Contingency Plan public notification provisions and
    associated guidance to ensure that, in the future, (l) regional offices
    are appropriately determining the extent of community outreach needed
    and (2) newspaper notifications are placed prominently and are written
    in clear language that contains all critical information, such as the
    name of the contaminant, the location of the site, and the associated
    health risks.

    EPA Response:

    EPA agrees that it is important to communicate with the community and
    state and local government officials regarding cleanups in their areas.
    Sections of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) are specifically
    designed to allow rapid action by EPA responders when there is an
    urgent threat to human health and the environment.

    A key principle guiding EPA public outreach efforts under the NCP is
    the discretion allowed in how much public outreach should be conducted
    during site cleanups. EPA believes that the GAO report does not
    adequately discuss the differences in the scope of cleanup at the
    various vermiculite sites and its impact on the type and extent of
    public outreach efforts.

    For example, the Great Falls site in Region 8 was a single residence
    where a former worker at an exfoliation plant had taken asbestos wastes
    and placed them in his driveway, exposing his family to asbestos as
    well as the families who later purchased the home. For this type of
    site, the privacy of the homeowner must be considered and it would be
    inappropriate to widely distribute fact sheets or conduct public
    meetings. Instead, the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) met with State and
    local officials and with neighbors in the near vicinity of the one-yard
    cleanup. (See comment 1.)

    Conversely, the Region 5 site in Minneapolis involved hundreds of
    residences where residents had taken home contaminated "free crushed
    rock" from the exfoliation plant. Region 5 provided extensive outreach
    in identifying those contaminated properties and communicating with
    hundreds of potentially affected homeowners. The Dearborn site which
    involved the sampling of hundreds of homes is another similar example.

    It is EPA's experience that there are a variety of community concerns
    during cleanup. For example, communities may be sensitive to the
    perceived stigma of having a Superfund site. The neighborhoods
    surrounding sites may be residential, industrial or rural. Commercial
    businesses may be sensitive that customers could have a negative
    impression if the business is located within or near a Superfund site.
    Farmers and ranchers may be sensitive that their commercial food
    production may be rejected if the public erroneously believes that the
    food has been impacted by contamination. EPA takes all these factors,
    and many others, into account to exercise their discretion of the
    appropriate level of public outreach.

    There are a number of national activities sponsored by EPA Headquarters
    which provide an opportunity to strengthen community outreach and
    public notification efforts and review and improve upon current
    practices. EPA believes that existing mechanisms can be used
    effectively to address public notification and community outreach
    concerns raised in the GAO report.

    Notably, EPA holds an annual national conference, "On-Scene-Coordinator
    Readiness Training" which offers nationally approved training along
    several technical and policy tracks including community outreach. Over
    the past several years, OSC Readiness has offered courses on Risk and
    Crisis Communication and Temporary Relocation issues focusing on the
    impacted community. The upcoming February 2008 OSC Readiness Conference
    will include training courses on Advanced Media Relations, Conducting
    Effective Community Involvement at Removal and Emergency Response
    Sites, and Temporary Relocation.

    Another significant national effort conducted annually is the Core
    Emergency Response and Removal Program Evaluation. This evaluation
    methodology was first used in 2001 and, since then, has been conducted
    annually with ongoing improvements. In its current version, a team of
    EPA reviewers conducts the evaluation of each region's Emergency
    Response and Removal Program across key elements including Public
    Information and Community Involvement. The review typically addresses
    such issues as following established protocols for interactions with
    the media and adherence to policies and guidance for site-specific
    community relations.

    Regions have scored high on this element, although continuous
    improvement is always an objective and, based on the GAO
    recommendations in this area, a specific focus on community outreach
    activities and newspaper notifications may be warranted.

    II. EPA Detailed Comments on GAO's Report:

    Page 4, lines 24-25 (see also page 27, 5th bullet, page 28 line 16 and
    page 29, lines 9-11):
    Delete "and in Minneapolis, MN and Dearborn, MI, they did not hold a
    comment period." The public comment period is discretionary for a time
    critical removal. (See comment 2.)

    Page 6, lines 7-9:
    Sentence should read: "Thus, even though the Libby mine closed around
    1990, many residents, including former workers as well as non-workers,
    have been recently diagnosed....." (see comment 3.)

    Page 6, the paragraph below Figure 1:
    We do not believe that "Between 1980 and 1982 EPA conducted several
    studies on the potential health risks from exposure to asbestos-
    contaminated vermiculite". Our understanding is that the MRI
    study/report was not a "health risk" study, but an unsuccessful attempt
    to understand the kind of environmental air releases that were
    occurring at the mine site. While other study or literature reviews
    were produced at EPA, the only "health" related studies that were being
    undertaken at this time were the Lockey/O.M.Scott study in Marysville,
    Ohio and the NIOSH DRDS study, which had been initiated in 1980 but had
    not yet obtained W.R. Grace's (WRG) cooperation by 1982. (see comment
    4.)

    Page 7, at the end of the paragraph carrying over from page 6:
    Suggest that the report mention that EPA cited and fined WRG (in the
    early 1990s) for failure to submit relevant information under Toxic
    Substance Control Act (TSCA). The information that WRG had generated
    over a decade earlier (prior to the O.M. Scott incident) was an animal
    study which concluded that exposure to Libby tremolite produced
    fibrosis and malignancies in the test population in a far more
    aggressive manner than other fowls of asbestos. (See comment 5.)

    Page 7, in the paragraph beginning with line 14:
    The draft report states that "...EPA began investigating, and, in 2000,
    began cleaning up contamination at the Libby mine." (see comment 6.)

    EPA has not ever undertaken a cleanup of the Libby Mine, but of former
    WRG-owned properties in the Libby community that were sold (by WRG) to
    individuals and the city, and of locations in the community where
    tremolite contaminated vermiculite and vermiculite wastes were found.
    Recommend making a correction to the statement in the report.

    Page 8, after the paragraph carrying over from page 7 and footnote 8:
    GAO may want to additionally cite the criminal indictment's allegations
    that W.R. Grace engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the EPA and NIOSH
    during the late-1970s/early 1980s (see [hyperlink,
    http://www.mtb.uscourts.gov/mtd/images/590.pdf] for details). The GAO
    and IG reports cited only looked at EPA's activities during that time
    frame, they did not look at the conduct of W.R. Grace. (At this time,
    the indictment is only an allegation.) (See comment 7.)

    Page 8, lines 10-11:
    Suggest removing "and determining whether a cleanup action is needed."
    Determining whether or not a cleanup action is needed is done in the
    EE/CA (Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis) for non-time critical
    actions or in the Action Memorandum for an Emergency Response or Time-
    Critical Removal. (See comment 8.)

    Page 10, lines 24-25:
    Suggest revising the sentence to read, "These 194 sites together are
    believed to have received at least 6 million tons of ore from the
    Libby, Montana mine and ore processing operations". (See comment 9.)

    Page 15, lines 10-13:
    The report states that the clean up standard of 1% asbestos is based on
    weight. The l% threshold is based on percent area (of a microscopic
    field). (See comment 10.)

    Page 15-16 and as a general comment regarding 1% threshold value:
    There is a need to clarify that a 1% cut-off (i.e., not cleaning up
    asbestos at levels below this threshold) level for asbestos soil
    contamination is not sufficient for EPA Superfund sites. A 1% level can
    and has been used for identification of areas at a site that can be
    rapidly remedied but is not adequate as a cut-off for areas that are
    contaminated below 1%. In fact, the GAO report's discussion of the use
    of 1% as cleanup threshold should mention that the scientific findings
    of EPA and ATSDR regarding the Libby, Montana Superfund site were
    specifically cited in a 2004 nationwide memorandum to all EPA Superfund
    National Superfund Managers which advised that, although 1% is used as
    a threshold Ievel in a variety of regulatory programs, "Regions should
    not assume that materials containing less than 1 percent asbestos do
    not pose an unreasonable risk to human health." Please refer to
    previously submitted memorandum from Michael B. Cook, Director, Office
    of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, August 10, 2004. As
    noted in response to GAO recommendations, EPA is currently drafting
    additional guidance on this subject. (See comment 11.)

    EPA requests that GAO clarify the significance and intent of the 1%
    threshold value where it is referenced throughout the document, in
    order to prevent creating confusion that may mischaracterize EPA's
    position on asbestos site assessment and cleanup efforts.

    Page 16, footnote 13:
    For a site in Brutus, New York, assessment activities are on-going and
    EPA has not yet determined if a cleanup action will occur" This
    statement should be changed to indicate that the assessment decision
    has been made and the Region is drafting a report to document its
    decision at this time. (See comment 12.)

    Suggested edit: "For a site in Brutus, New York, after a review by a
    Regional risk assessor and the OSC working on the project, it has been
    decided that the Site is not eligible for a federal CERCLA removal
    action. The assessment report documenting the decision is being drafted
    for management review and approval."

    Note: This decision was reported in the comment's column of the Region
    2 Site Summary Chart (Attachment 1 - Appendix B Region 2 List of
    Asbestos Sites 5-17-07.xls) on page 2, GAO ID Number 123 and in the
    Weedsport Fact Sheet (Attachment 3 - FS Weedsport.5-16-17.wpd). These
    attachments were submitted to the GAO through EPA HQ on May 21, 2007.

    Page 16, footnote 13 and Page 17, note under Figure 5:
    The footnotes make reference to Ellwood, Pennsylvania. The correct
    reference should read Ellwood City, Pennsylvania. (See comment 13.)

    Page 20, lines 27-28:
    Report states: "Since the plants no longer process Libby ore, current
    residents living around the sites are not now being exposed through
    processing." (See comment 14.)

    This statement fails to recognize that current residents may still be
    exposed through residues at the site. The Hamilton, NJ facility had not
    been in production for over ten years, but there was still tremendous
    amount of residues from the expansion plant on the inside of the
    building that was owned and operated by a document destruction company.

    We believe that the experience Region 2 had at the Hamilton, NJ
    expansion plant should factor in this analysis. A closed investigation
    (statute of limitations issues) disclosed that information received
    from WRG was misleading and inaccurate. The same offices at WRG that
    ATSDR and EPA were using to gather information from are tied to charges
    of obstruction. This was borne out in Hamilton where enormous
    quantities of vermiculite wastes were found buried behind the facility
    and underneath concrete pads laid just prior to the closure of the
    expansion plant in 1994-96. As it has been previously discussed, the
    inclusion of the criminal case in the equation of these facilities
    alters their evaluations significantly.

    Page 21, footnote 18:
    As a point of additional information and clarification, Region 2 used a
    combination of a PLM Standard Method (CARE 435) which has a detection
    limit 0.25% followed by TEM analysis on a selected number (10%) of the
    PLM samples, as a check and to further assess its soil samples at the
    Hamilton Township and the Weedsport sites. This was one of the
    approaches recommended by the Office of Emergency and Remedial
    Response. (See comment 15.)

    "The PLM method can detect fibers with lengths greater than � 1 um,
    widths greater than 0.25 �m, and aspect ratio (length to width ratios)
    greater than 3. Detection limits for PLM methods are typically 0.25% -
    1%." [Footnote 38]

    Page 22, lines 7-8:
    Last sentence of the first paragraph is incomplete (i.e., text appears
    to be missing from the last sentence). (See comment 16.)

    Page 22, footnote:
    Where does this text belong? "This is the analytical technique that
    many regulations are based on (e.g. occupational exposure). PCM has
    limited use because it cannot differentiate between asbestos and non-
    asbestos fibers. For this reason, it was sometimes used in combination
    with TEM." (See comment 17.)

    Is it part of Footnote 18 on page 21?

    Page 25, lines 7-12:
    "Detailed work plans for these studies are currently being developed
    and will involve consultation with other agencies and will undergo
    external peer reviews. Two of the studies are scheduled to be completed
    by the end of fiscal year 2007 and the other 10 studies by the end of
    fiscal year 2009. The milestone date for completing the baseline risk
    assessment, including the comprehensive toxicity assessment, is the end
    of fiscal year 2010." (See comment 18.)

    Should be replaced with the following:

    "Detailed work plans for five new toxicology studies have been
    completed with consultation from other agencies and external peer
    reviews. Two studies are continuations of on-going efforts. Detailed
    work plans for remaining studies are currently being finalized. All
    studies are scheduled to be completed by the end of calendar year 2009
    although some test animals may be evaluated beyond this date depended
    on the latency of responses. The milestone date for completing the
    baseline risk assessment, including the comprehensive toxicity
    assessment, is the end of fiscal year 2010."

    Page 27, 5th bullet:
    ..EPA must, as appropriate, provide the public no less than 30 days to
    provide comments about the cleanup and prepare a written response to
    significant comments. (See comment 19.)

    Page 28, line 16:
    Delete, "and did not hold a public comment period." The public comment
    period is discretionary. (See comment 20.)

    Page 28, footnote 26 (also page 35, line 17):
    The footnote should state that a previous owner had worked at a
    facility... (See comment 21.)

    Page 29, lines 9-11:
    Suggest revising to the following, "EPA Region 5 officials explained
    that the NCP does not require EPA to hold a comment period for removal
    actions. They noted that the NCP allows EPA latitude.... (See comment
    22.)

    Page 29, lines 24-25:
    The revised report states the notice for the Wilder site was placed 21
    days after the deadline. While the review findings correctly state that
    the region did not announce the notice of availability for the
    administrative record within 60 days of the response initiation,
    regional records indicate the region issued a press release regarding
    the notice on the 66th day. EPA mobilized onsite for the response
    September 8, 2003, and issued a press release to announce the
    availability of the administrative record on November 13, 2003. A copy
    of the press release was provided with the May 21, 2007 review
    comments. Including the above information will more accurately present
    EPA community activity at this site. (See comment 23.)

    Page 33, Table 2:
    Mass mailings were used at the Western Mineral site in Minneapolis, MN.
    Please update Table 2 to reflect the use of direct mail to inform
    residents. (See comment 24.)

    For the Minot, ND site, the EPA OSC was available at the on-site
    trailer (see also comments for page 46). Please update Table 2
    accordingly.

    Page 35, lines 7-16:
    Regarding the Honolulu site, a Hawaii State OSC was contacted by the
    U.S. EPA OSC. During the removal action, two Hawaii State OSCs visited
    the site and reviewed the removal action while the cleanup was being
    conducted. This removal action consisted of excavating one cubic yard
    of soil from a planter box; scraping approximately 4 square feet of
    vermiculite off a wall; and wet wiping, followed by spray encapsulation
    of three wood trusses. The removal action was concluded in a short time
    period, and the Hawaii State OSCs expressed satisfaction with the
    conduct of the removal. Information regarding the scope of the cleanup
    effort should be included in the final report along with the
    involvement of the Hawaii State OSCs. (See comment 25.)

    Page 35, lines 15-17:
    Great Falls: "An official from the Montana Department of Environmental
    Quality (DEQ) was very dissatisfied about EPA Region 8's lack of
    notification..." This is inaccurate. EPA Region 8 notified the Montana
    DEQ regarding the Great Falls cleanup. The personnel notified at the
    Montana DEQ were John Podolinsky and Craig French. EPA does not know
    who GAO contacted at the Montana DEQ, but it is inaccurate to report
    that EPA Region 8 did not notify this agency. Suggest that this
    information is removed from the draft report or that the report
    includes EPA's position on notification of the Montana DEQ. see comment
    26.)

    Page 36, footnote 29:
    Region 2 believes that its contacts.and communications with the NJDEP
    during the early stages of the site investigation process were not
    "informal" communications. The communications did initially begin as
    verbal communications at the Joint EPA, NJDEP, and NYSDEC Program
    Meeting in March of 2000. At the request of the NJDEP, an e-mail was
    sent to them on April 13, 2000. It provided additional information on
    the proposed approach, the intent of the agency to conduct CERCLA
    investigations and, if warranted, CERCLA responses at the sites on the
    inventory of sites. The NJDEP was notified of the Region's plan of
    action and requested to provide any relevant information in their
    possession to assist the Region with its .investigations. The program
    outlined in the e-mail was followed at the Hamilton Township, NJ site
    and the ultimate outcome of the EPA investigative effort was that a
    CERCLA action (Phase I) was completed and a Phase II CERCLA action is

    currently ongoing at the site. If desired, EPA can provide copies of
    the actual correspondence and information sent to the NJDEP on April
    13, 2000. (see comment 27.)

    During the time of the Hamilton site work, telephone conversations
    between Janet Smolenski, NJDEP removal/remedial project coordinator,
    and James Daloia Team Leader for the EPA Region II Emergency Response
    program took place on a regular basis. The purpose of these telephone
    conversations was to share information between the two program offices
    of the NJDEP and the EPA and to receive and provide timely updates of
    various removal site activities including the Hamilton Township site.

    As far as this project is concerned, it was and is the belief of the
    Removal Program that EPA/NJDEP communications continue to be effective.

    Page 38, lines 13-19:
    In March 2003, EPA Community Involvement staff traveled to Wilder,
    Kentucky to meet with city officials for the purpose of informing them
    of the site as well as to establish a location within city hall to use
    as an office for community relations activities. EPA mobilized onsite
    for the response on September 8, 2003. This information should be
    included in the final report. (See comment 28.)

    Page 38, lines 20-21:
    Great Falls: The EPA OSC did notify city officials regarding the
    cleanup. Regarding the contractor licensing issued raised by a city
    official, EPA is not required to use contractors licensed with a
    particular city or to obtain permits. This information should be noted
    in GAO's report. (See comment 29.)

    Page 40, lines 13-15:
    "At two of the three sites, however, most discussion group participants
    said EPA did not notify them about the cleanups before they began. At
    Minot...." As previously provided in response to GAO's "Questions and
    Request for Documents" dated April 5, 2006, for the Minot site EPA
    distributed fact sheets, held a public meeting, and went door-to-door
    to discuss the upcoming removal action. Information pertaining to EPA's
    community outreach activities for this site should be included in this
    section. (See comment 30.)

    Page 46, lines 20-21:
    EPA conducted a number of effective community outreach activities for
    the Minot, ND site including: (l) EPA's hand-delivered fact sheet; (2)
    EPA's public meeting; (3) EPA's door-to-door visits; (4) the front page
    article in the Minot Daily News; or (5) the availability of the EPA On-
    Scene Coordinator at the on-site trailer. Documentation regarding these
    efforts was provided to GAO in the site file and response to their
    "Questions and Request for Documents" dated April 5, 2006. By limiting
    questioning of the focus group to the public notice for the
    administrative record, the draft report reaches an inaccurate
    conclusion regarding EPA's efforts for community outreach at the site.
    Page 46 of the draft report states that, "participants from all three
    groups agreed that fliers, letters, public meetings, and door-to-door
    contacts were effective." The Minot Site included three of these four
    recommendations. Because the focus group interview was conducted nearly
    four years after the cleanup and because relevant materials from this
    site do not appear to have been used in the interview, EPA disagrees
    with the findings of the Minot focus group and recommends that they not
    be included in the final report. The Minot Site should not be used as
    an example of poor community outreach either in the lead paragraphs of
    the report, or anywhere in the body of the report since this site did
    have good community outreach by EPA. (See comment 31.)

    Page 47, lines 6-7:
    "...nor can it be assured that even these 19 sites now pose minimal
    risk to public health and the environment." (See comment 32.)

    This conclusion as written is too broadly. At many sites, such as
    Minot, Salt Lake City, and Great Falls, cleanups were performed to
    remove all amphibole asbestos on the ground surface. Confirmation
    samples on the excavated ground surfaces showed no detections of

    amphibole asbestos following cleanup. EPA would agree with a statement
    that sites still having detectable levels of asbestos may pose a risk.
    If this is the intent of the GAO conclusion, the report should state
    this more specifically and not include broad statements about sites
    which were cleaned up to no detectable levels of asbestos.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to review GAO's draft report. Your
    consideration of our comments will be appreciated.

    Signed by:

    Susan Parker Bodine:
    Assistant Administrator:

    The following are GAO's comments on the Environmental Protection
    Agency's letter dated September 21, 2007.

    GAO Comments:

    1. GAO does note in the report that the Great Falls site in Region 8
    involved a single residence where a former worker at a facility that
    processed Libby ore had taken contaminated waste product from the plant
    to his residence to resurface his driveway. While GAO acknowledges that
    the privacy of the homeowner should be considered, providing the public
    with information about such contamination could alert others who also
    used the waste ore for similar purposes on their properties. Our review
    of information on EPA's evaluations of sites that received Libby ore
    revealed that one of the primary concerns was whether former employees
    or the general public took asbestos-contaminated waste ore from the
    sites to use in their gardens or to landscape their properties. Indeed
    a review of EPA documentation related to the plant in Great Falls where
    the homeowner worked indicates that another former employee interviewed
    by EPA stated that some people requested and were allowed to take dust
    left over from the processing of the ore to use in their gardens.

    While GAO acknowledges that it is important to consider community
    concerns in deciding the extent of public notification needed during
    site cleanup, for the sites that received Libby ore, widely
    disseminating information about these sites to the general public could
    help identify former workers and others that could have been exposed in
    the past to the asbestos in the ore. These people, in turn, could
    provide valuable information that could help EPA in identifying
    contaminated areas that need to be cleaned up, such as where waste rock
    was dumped.

    2. We did not make the suggested change. The statement is factually
    accurate and we already note the discretionary nature of the relevant
    NCP provisions in the report. Region 5's reasoning for not holding
    public comment periods for these sites is also reflected in the report.

    3. We changed the text to read, "Thus, even though the Libby mine
    closed around 1990, many residents, former workers, and others who were
    exposed to the asbestos-contaminated ore recently have been diagnosed
    with asbestos-related diseases and many more may become ill in the
    future."

    4. We changed text to read, "Between 1980 and 1982, EPA issued a series
    of reports related to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite. Most of these
    reports indicated that there was a lack of data on both exposure to
    asbestos-contaminated vermiculite and its adverse health effects.
    Further, the reports identified problems in sampling, analysis, and
    reproducibility of data regarding low levels of asbestos in
    vermiculite, which made it difficult to acquire data on exposure and
    health effects."

    5. We added a footnote stating that EPA cited and fined W.R. Grace in
    the early 1990s for failure to submit relevant information under the
    Toxic Substances Control Act.

    6. We changed the text throughout the report as appropriate to clarify
    that EPA is cleaning up properties in the Libby area.

    7. We revised the report to include the following statements: "As part
    of an ongoing criminal case against W.R. Grace, the government has
    alleged that Grace engaged in a conspiracy to defraud EPA and the
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health by concealing and
    misrepresenting the nature of the asbestos-containing vermiculite
    produced at the mine. Grace has denied the allegations."

    8. Under the NCP, a removal site evaluation includes a removal
    preliminary assessment and, if warranted, a removal site inspection. 40
    C.F.R. � 300.410(a). A preliminary assessment includes, among other
    things, an "evaluation of factors necessary to make the determination
    of whether a removal is necessary." 40 C.F.R. � 300.410(c)(1)(iv). We
    now use this language in the report.

    9. We changed the language to read, "These 195 sites are believed to
    have received a combined total of at least 6 million tons of ore from
    the Libby, Montana mine and ore processing operations."

    10. We changed the text throughout the report as appropriate to clarify
    that the 1 percent asbestos standard is based on the percentage of the
    area of a microscopic field.

    11. We did not make any changes as a result of this comment because the
    report already includes a discussion of this memorandum.

    12. EPA had previously indicated to us that that the Removal Evaluation
    Report was pending for this site. We interpreted this as meaning that
    the final decision had not been made. The report has been updated to
    indicate that a final assessment decision has been made for the site in
    Brutus, New York, and the Region is drafting the report to document
    this decision.

    13. We made the change suggested by EPA.

    14. We clarified the language to read, "Since the plants no longer
    process Libby ore, current residents living around the sites are no
    longer being exposed through air emissions from processing activities
    at the plants."

    15. We did not make any changes based on this comment because it was
    for additional information and clarification and was not intended to
    suggest a specific change to the report.

    16. The sentence is now complete. It reads "After conducting additional
    sampling at one of these sites, EPA determined the site required
    further cleanup."

    17. We did not make any changes based on this comment because the text
    is part of a footnote.

    18. We changed the text to read, "Detailed work plans for five of these
    studies have been completed with consultation from other agencies and
    external peer reviewers. Two other studies are continuations of ongoing
    efforts. Detailed work plans for the remaining five studies are
    currently being finalized. All studies are scheduled to be completed by
    the end of calendar year 2009. The milestone date for completing the
    baseline risk assessment, including the comprehensive toxicity
    assessment, is the end of fiscal year 2010."

    19. No change was made; the text in the bullet already contains the
    phrase "as appropriate".

    20. We did not make the suggested change. The statement is factually
    accurate and we already note the discretionary nature of the relevant
    NCP provisions in the report.

    21. We made the change suggested by EPA.

    22. We did not make the suggested change. We already noted the
    discretionary nature of the relevant NCP provisions in the report.

    23. We revised the text to read, "and at the Wilder site, the notice
    was placed 6 days after the deadline."

    24. We made the changes suggested by EPA.

    25. We did not make the suggested change. In our correspondence with
    EPA about the Honolulu site, EPA indicated that the Hawaii Department
    of Health was involved in the cleanup. We contacted the Hawaii
    Department of Health and were directed to officials identified as being
    knowledgeable about the cleanup. The views expressed in the report are
    those of the officials we were directed to. During our interview with
    these officials, they stated the state OSC did do a drive by of the
    site before the cleanup began, but said the state was not involved
    around the time of the removal.

    26. We did not make the suggested change. In the case of the Great
    Falls site, we called the Montana Department of Environmental Quality
    and asked to speak to the state staff EPA said were involved with this
    site. We were directed to another person identified as being
    knowledgeable about the cleanup. The views expressed in the report are
    those of the official we were directed to. In response to EPA's
    comment, we tried to contact the two staff named by EPA again. One
    person was no longer working for the Montana Department of
    Environmental Quality and the other person said the official that we
    spoke to originally was the main contact for that site and that he had
    nothing to add to the information we already had about the site.

    27. We sent a copy of EPA's comments to the New Jersey Department of
    Environmental Protection (NJDEP) for their review. These officials
    responded that they agree with GAO's summary of NJDEP's comments as
    presented in the report. They further stated that concerning the Phase
    I removal action at the Hamilton Township site, NJDEP continues to
    maintain that EPA's notice to NJDEP of the Phase I removal action at
    the site could have been better. The officials said the March 24, 2000,
    meeting referred to in EPA's comments was a regularly scheduled,
    biannual meeting between NJDEP's Emergency Response Bureau and EPA's
    response unit to discuss general removal activities and to coordinate
    the activities of the Region 2 states (New York and New Jersey) with
    those of the EPA. NJDEP officials said the attendees at this meeting
    remember a short discussion about the probability that the vermiculite
    ore from Libby, Montana, contained asbestos and that this ore was
    shipped throughout the United States, but none of the attendees
    construed this as official notification to NJDEP of asbestos
    contamination at the Hamilton Township site. NJDEP added that the
    "inventory of sites" and the "Agency Statement on Vermiculite Facility
    List" sent by EPA to NJDEP following the March 2000 meeting
    specifically stated that the "list [of vermiculite sites] is evolving
    and is subject to change as more information becomes available;
    therefore, EPA cannot verify the accuracy of this list." NJDEP did not
    view these documents as any kind of official notification of a clean up
    action to be undertaken at the Hamilton Township site.

    NJDEP reiterated that it first learned of the proposed removal action
    at the Hamilton Township site not in 2000, but rather only when it was
    copied on a November 6, 2002 Action Memorandum. It subsequently was
    copied on two Pollution Reports, dated January 30, 2004, and February
    27, 2004, but did not learn that the removal action was completed until
    March 2005, when NJDEP attended a stakeholder meeting.

    During the time of the Phase I removal action, NJDEP said that it does
    not dispute that EPA communicated with Janet Smolenski of NJDEP by
    copying her on the two Pollution Reports referenced above and by
    general telephone conversation(s) with Jim Daloia of EPA. The officials
    said there are no other records in NJDEP's files to indicate that EPA
    sent any additional Pollution Reports to NJDEP, nor are there records
    of the specific telephone conversations held.

    28. We did not make the change suggested by EPA. In the case of the
    Wilder site, we called the city of Wilder and asked to speak to the
    staff with the most knowledge about the cleanup. This person was also
    listed as a city contact in EPA's community-relations plan for the
    Wilder site. The views expressed in the report are those of that
    official.

    29. We did not make the first change suggested by EPA. In the case of
    the Great Falls site, we called the city of Great Falls and were
    directed to a person identified as being knowledgeable about the
    cleanup. The views expressed in the report are those of the official to
    whom we were directed. Regarding the contractor licensing issue raised
    by a city official, we noted the information that EPA provided in a
    footnote.

    30. Table 2 of the draft report already indicates that, for the Minot
    site, EPA distributed fact sheets, held a public meeting, and went door-
    to-door to discuss the removal action. The views presented in the
    report are those of residents who lived within a half-mile of the Minot
    site. In fact, as pointed out in the report, one focus group
    participant's backyard bordered the cleanup site. GAO cannot explain
    why EPA's public-notification efforts apparently failed to reach the
    participants in the focus group.

    31. Focus-group participants were asked if they had heard that EPA was
    cleaning up the sites before the cleanup started, including receiving
    any fliers from EPA, hearing about any public meetings sponsored by
    EPA, or seeing any EPA officials walking around their neighborhoods.
    For the Minot site, the views presented in this report are those of
    residents who lived within a half-mile of the site. In fact, as pointed
    out in the report, one focus group participant's backyard bordered the
    cleanup site. GAO cannot explain why EPA's public notification efforts
    apparently failed to reach the participants in the focus group.

    32. We clarified the language to avoid any inference that sites that
    were cleaned up to non-detectable levels still pose a risk.

    [End of section]

    Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

    GAO Contact:

    John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov:

    Staff Acknowledgments:

    In addition to the individual named above, Steve Elstein, Erin
    Lansburgh, David Stikkers, and Lisa Turner made key contributions to
    this report. Also contributing to the report were Richard Johnson,
    Jeremy Manion, Stuart Ryba, Stephanie Sand, Carol Shulman, and Monica
    Wolford.

    Footnotes:

    [1] 42 U.S.C. � 9601 et. seq.

    [2] Facilities that exfoliated the ore--or heated it until it expanded
    or popped--are of particular concern because this processing method
    released higher amounts of asbestos than methods used at other
    facilities.

    [3] United States v. W.R. Grace, Crim. No. 05-07, D. Mont., filed Feb.
    7, 2005.

    [4] Asbestos minerals fall into two groups or classes--serpentine and
    amphibole. The vermiculite ore from the Libby mine contained amphibole
    asbestos. Regulated minerals in the amphibole class are actinolite,
    anthophullite, amosite, crocidolite, and tremolite.

    [5] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and
    Toxic Substances, Priority Review Level 1--Asbestos-Contaminated
    Vermculite (Washington , D.C., June 1980).

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances,
    Decision Paper for Asbestos-Contaminated Vermiculite (Washington, D.C.,
    August 1981).

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances,
    Disposition Paper for Asbestos-Contaminated Vermiculite (Washington,
    D.C., August 1982).

    Midwest Research Institute, Collection, Analysis and Characterization
    of Vermiculite Samples for Fiber Content and Asbestos Contamination, a
    report developed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
    of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (Washington, D.C., September 27,
    1982).

    [6] Versar, Inc., Exposure Assessment for Asbestos Contaminated
    Vermiculite, a report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, (Washington, D.C., February 1985).

    [7] EPA cited and fined W.R. Grace in the early 1990s for failure to
    submit relevant information under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

    [8] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Inspector
    General, EPA's Actions Concerning Asbestos-Contaminated Vermiculite in
    Libby, Montana (Washington, D.C., March 31, 2001) and GAO, Hazardous
    Materials: EPA's Cleanup of Asbestos in Libby, Montana, and Related
    Actions to Address Asbestos-Contaminated Materials, GAO-03-469
    (Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2003).

    [9] The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is the
    federal agency responsible for conducting research and making
    recommendations for the prevention of work-related injury and illness.
    The Institute is a part of the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention in the Department of Health and Human Services.

    [10] Since data on the amount of ore received at 76 of the sites is not
    available, the 6 million tons is likely to understate the amount of ore
    shipped.

    [11] For 11 sites in Region 4, EPA's files did not contain sufficient
    documentation to determine definitively whether the sites had been
    visited.

    [12] For 22 sites in Region 4, EPA's files did not contain sufficient
    documentation to determine definitively if sampling had taken place.

    [13] For one site in Region 5, sampling results were unavailable
    because the site file was lost. For one site in Region 6, sampling had
    been completed but the results were not available when we last received
    data about sites located in that region in November 2006.

    [14] There were three sites that had asbestos contamination in excess
    of the 1 percent threshold but were not cleaned up. For one of those
    sites located near Center, North Dakota, residual contamination was
    limited to a hopper used to process vermiculite ore. According to
    company officials, Libby ore was used for a 28-day trial period in the
    early 1980s and had not been used since. The company agreed to have
    trained asbestos workers remove the residual vermiculite from the
    hopper, and EPA Region 8 officials decided no further action was
    needed. For a site in Brutus, New York, after a review by a regional
    risk assessor and the EPA official in charge of the project, it was
    decided that the site is not eligible for cleanup under CERCLA. The
    assessment report documenting this decision is being drafted for
    management review and approval. In May 2007, EPA notified us that it
    had recently decided to also clean up a site located in Ellwood City,
    Pennsylvania. Since this decision was made after we completed our
    analysis of the site data, we did not include this site as one of the
    cleanup sites in this report.

    [15] ATSDR is also conducting several other projects focusing on the
    health effects of exposure to asbestos fibers in Libby ore. For
    example, ATSDR is evaluating available data on asbestos-related cancers
    and asbestos-related mortality in communities located near
    approximately 70 vermiculite processing facilities to help determine
    whether additional health studies are needed. Also, ATSDR has initiated
    Pilot Mesothelioma Surveillance projects in New York, New Jersey, and
    Wisconsin to (1) better understand environmental and occupational
    exposure to asbestos among newly diagnosed mesothelioma patients, (2)
    evaluate a possible association between mesothelioma and the asbestos
    fibers in Libby ore, and (3) determine if further study is needed to
    clarify the ways in which people were exposed to asbestos fibers in
    Libby ore. ATSDR is also involved in the National Asbestos Health
    Program, which is intended to assess the prevalence of asbestos-related
    conditions among current and former workers and their household
    contacts at selected sites in Arizona, California, Minnesota, and New
    Jersey that processed Libby ore.

    [16] These reports and fact sheets have been made public through the
    media and on the Internet. The health consultations can be found at
    www.atsdr.cdc.gov/asbestos/sites/national_map/.

    [17] Facilities that exfoliated the ore--or heated it until it expanded
    or popped--are of particular concern because this processing method
    released higher amounts of asbestos than methods used at other
    facilities.

    [18] EPA used polarized light microscopy (PLM) at most of the 28 sites
    to visually estimate the percent of asbestos in bulk samples. This type
    of analysis can distinguish between asbestos and nonasbestos fibers and
    different types of asbestos fibers but cannot reliably detect asbestos
    in low concentrations. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM), a more
    sensitive analytical method than PLM, was also used at some sites. TEM
    can distinguish between asbestos and non-asbestos fibers and asbestos
    types. It can be used at higher magnifications, enabling identification
    of smaller asbestos fibers than can be seen by other techniques. One
    disadvantage of this technique is that determining asbestos
    concentration in soil and other bulk material is difficult. Phase
    contrast microscopy (PCM), which is generally used to measure asbestos
    fibers in air samples, was used at a few sites. This is the analytical
    technique that many regulations are based on (e.g., occupational
    exposure). PCM has limited use because it cannot differentiate between
    asbestos and non-asbestos fibers. For this reason, it was sometimes
    used in combination with TEM.

    [19] 38 Fed. Reg. 8821.

    [20] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
    Emergency Response Directive 9345.4-05, Clarifying Cleanup Goals and
    Identification of New Assessment Tools for Evaluating Asbestos at
    Superfund Cleanups (Washington, D.C., August 10, 2004).

    [21] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Asbestos Project Plan
    (Washington, D.C., November 2005).

    [22] IRIS, prepared and maintained by EPA, is an electronic database
    containing information on human-health effects that may result from
    exposure to various chemicals in the environment. IRIS was initially
    developed for EPA staff in response to a growing demand for consistent
    information on chemical substances for use in risk assessments,
    decision-making, and regulatory activities.

    [23] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General,
    EPA Needs to Plan and Complete A Toxicity Assessment For the Libby
    Asbestos Cleanup (Washington, D.C., December 2006).

    [24] The National Toxicology Program, based in the U.S. Department of
    Health and Human Services, is an interagency program that was
    established in 1978 to coordinate toxicology testing programs within
    the federal government; strengthen the science base in toxicology;
    develop and validate improved testing methods; and provide information
    about potentially toxic chemicals to health, regulatory, and research
    agencies, scientific and medical communities, and the public.

    [25] Cleanups at 3 of the 13 sites (Wilder,Ky.; Minneapolis, Minn.; and
    one of the sites in Salt Lake City, Ut.) were expected to exceed the
    120-day time limit.

    [26] The site was a residential property. A previous owner of this
    property had worked at a facility in Great Falls, Montana, that
    processed Libby ore. The property was heavily contaminated because the
    owner had taken asbestos wastes from the processing facility to his
    residence and used it to resurface his driveway.

    [27] The on-scene coordinator is the federal official responsible for
    monitoring and directing responses to all oil spills and hazardous-
    substance releases reported to the federal government.

    [28] Due to funding limitations, this removal was conducted in two
    phases. Phase I was initiated in November 2003 and completed in April
    2004. Phase II was initiated in August 2006.

    [29] EPA Region 2 officials indicated they had additional contacts with
    NJDEP officials during which the Hamilton site was discussed. NJDEP
    reviewed EPA's written account of the additional contacts. NJDEP
    officials stated that they continue to maintain that EPA's notice to
    NJDEP of the Phase I removal action at the site could have been better
    and that they agree with GAO's summary of their views as presented in
    this report.

    [30] Local government officials for the other five sites either
    declined to provide their views or did not respond to our request for
    their views.

    [31] A county health department official also reported that they did
    not receive any information from EPA about the Newark site.

    [32] In commenting on this report, EPA stated that it is not required
    to use contractors licensed with a particular city or to obtain
    permits.

    [33] We also conducted a focus group in Wilder, Kentucky, but decided
    not to use the results of this focus group. Our approach in selecting
    focus group sites, the procedures used in conducting these focus
    groups, and reasons for not using the results of the Wilder group are
    discussed in detail in appendix I.

    [34] Since EPA Region 5 decided not to hold a public-comment period for
    this site, the Dearborn notice did not contain the dates of the public-
    comment period. GAO did not consider this a deficiency of the notice
    itself.

    [35] United States v. W.R. Grace, Crim. No. 05-07, D. Mont., filed Feb.
    7, 2005.

    [36] Officials from the North Dakota Department of Health did not
    respond to our request for an interview regarding the site located in
    Minot, North Dakota.

    [37] For the Phoenix, Glendale, Denver, and Honolulu, either the
    officials contacted did not respond to our request for an interview or
    they declined our request.

    [38] Health Consultation Zonolite/W. R. Grace Site 35 Industrial Road
    Hamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. (Prepared by the New
    Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services for ATSDR.)

    [End of section]

    GAO's Mission:

    The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
    investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
    its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
    and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
    GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
    policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
    to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
    decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
    values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
    cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
    weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
    correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
    posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
    and select "E-mail Updates."

    Order by Mail or Phone:

    The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
    each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
    of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
    more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
    Orders should be sent to:

    U.S. Government Accountability Office:
    441 G Street NW, Room LM:
    Washington, DC 20548:

    To order by Phone: Voice:
    (202) 512-6000:
    TDD: (202) 512-2537:
    Fax: (202) 512-6061:

    To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

    Contact:

    Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
    Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

    Congressional Relations:

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov:
    (202) 512-4400:
    U.S. Government Accountability Office:
    441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
    Washington, DC 20548:

    Public Affairs:

    Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov:
    (202) 512-4800:
    U.S. Government Accountability Office:
    441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
    Washington, DC 20548:

    *** End of document. ***