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 [email protected]. 

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 EPAï¿½s and other federal 
agenciesï¿½ efforts to assess and address potential risks at the 
facilities that received contaminated Libby ore and (2) determine the 
extent and effectiveness of EPAï¿½s 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 agencyï¿½s 
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 communitiesï¿½ needs, at five sites 
EPA did not go beyond these provisions. Reaction among community 
members to EPAï¿½s 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 EPAï¿½s 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 EPAï¿½s asbestos risk and toxicity assessment to 
determine whether any affected sites need to be reevaluated and (2) 
review regionsï¿½ 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 [email protected]. 

[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 residentsï¿½ or business 
ownersï¿½ 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 residentsï¿½ or business 
ownersï¿½ 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 residentsï¿½ or business 
ownersï¿½ 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 residentsï¿½ or business 
ownersï¿½ 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 residentsï¿½ or business 
ownersï¿½ 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 residentsï¿½ or business 
ownersï¿½ 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 residentsï¿½ or business 
ownersï¿½ 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 residentsï¿½ or business 
ownersï¿½ 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 residentsï¿½ or business 
ownersï¿½ 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 residentsï¿½ or business 
ownersï¿½ 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 residentsï¿½ or business 
ownersï¿½ 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 residentsï¿½ or business 
ownersï¿½ 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 residentsï¿½ or business 
ownersï¿½ 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 residentsï¿½ or business 
ownersï¿½ 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 WordPerfectï¿½ 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 [email protected]. 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 ï¿½ 1 um, 
widths greater than 0.25 ï¿½m, 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. ï¿½ 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. ï¿½ 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 [email protected]: 

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. ï¿½ 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: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548:  

Public Affairs:  

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

*** End of document. ***