Hazardous Materials
EPA May Need to Reassess Sites Receiving Asbestos-Contaminated Ore from Libby, Montana, and Should Improve Its Public Notification Process Gao ID: GAO-08-71 October 12, 2007Between 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.
Since 2000, EPA has evaluated 271 sites thought to have received asbestos-contaminated ore from Libby, Montana, but did so without key information on safe exposure levels for asbestos. Based on these evaluations, 19 sites were found to be contaminated with asbestos from the Libby ore and needed to be cleaned up. EPA or the state of jurisdiction generally led or oversaw the cleanups. In general, a cleanup would be performed if sampling results indicated asbestos was present in amounts greater than 1 percent (based on the percentage area in a microscopic field) in soils or debris or greater than 0.1 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of air. However, these standards are not health-based and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry found that the sampling and analysis methods EPA used at most of the sites it examined were limited and have since been improved. The EPA Office of Inspector General reported in December 2006 that EPA had not completed an assessment of the toxicity of the asbestos in the Libby ore. Until it completes this assessment, EPA cannot be assured that the Libby site itself is cleaned to safe levels, nor will it know the extent to which the sites that received Libby ore may need to be reevaluated. EPA has agreed to complete a risk and toxicity assessment by the end of fiscal year 2010. EPA regional offices did not implement key provisions of the agency's public notification regulations at 8 of the 13 sites for which EPA had lead responsibility. At four sites, for example, EPA either did not provide and maintain documentation about the cleanups for public review and comment or provide for a public comment period. Also, although EPA guidance emphasizes that simply complying with the public notification rules is often insufficient to meet communities' needs, at five sites EPA did not go beyond these provisions. Reaction among community members to EPA's public notification measures was mixed. At two of the three sites in which GAO held focus groups with affected community members, participants were critical of EPA's efforts to inform them about the cleanup of the asbestos-contaminated sites in their neighborhood. These included participants in Hamilton Township, New Jersey and Minot, North Dakota who noted that newspaper notices did not identify asbestos as the contaminant in question and contained unclear and bureaucratic language. On the other hand, participants in Dearborn, Michigan praised EPA efforts to, among other things, hold public meetings and hand-deliver written notices.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-71, Hazardous Materials: EPA May Need to Reassess Sites Receiving Asbestos-Contaminated Ore from Libby, Montana, and Should Improve Its Public Notification Process
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-71
entitled 'Hazardous Materials: EPA May Need to Reassess Sites Receiving
Asbestos-Contaminated Ore from Libby, Montana, and Should Improve Its
Public Notification Process' which was released on October 12, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
October 2007:
Hazardous Materials:
EPA May Need to Reassess Sites Receiving Asbestos-Contaminated Ore from
Libby, Montana, and Should Improve Its Public Notification Process:
GAO-08-71:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-71, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Between 1923 and the early 1990s, a mine near Libby, Montana, shipped
millions of tons of asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore to sites
throughout the United States. In 2000, EPA began to clean up asbestos
contamination at the Libby mine and evaluate those sites that received
the ore to determine if they were contaminated. Under Superfund program
regulations and guidance, EPA regional offices took steps to inform
affected communities of contamination problems and agency efforts to
address them.
GAO was asked to (1) describe the status of EPA‘s and other federal
agencies‘ efforts to assess and address potential risks at the
facilities that received contaminated Libby ore and (2) determine the
extent and effectiveness of EPA‘s public notification efforts about
cleanups at sites that received Libby ore. GAO, among other steps,
convened focus groups in three of the affected communities to address
these issues.
What GAO Found:
Since 2000, EPA has evaluated 271 sites thought to have received
asbestos-contaminated ore from Libby, Montana, but did so without key
information on safe exposure levels for asbestos. Based on these
evaluations, 19 sites were found to be contaminated with asbestos from
the Libby ore and needed to be cleaned up. EPA or the state of
jurisdiction generally led or oversaw the cleanups. In general, a
cleanup would be performed if sampling results indicated asbestos was
present in amounts greater than 1 percent (based on the percentage area
in a microscopic field) in soils or debris or greater than 0.1 asbestos
fibers per cubic centimeter of air. However, these standards are not
health-based and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
found that the sampling and analysis methods EPA used at most of the
sites it examined were limited and have since been improved. The EPA
Office of Inspector General reported in December 2006 that EPA had not
completed an assessment of the toxicity of the asbestos in the Libby
ore. Until it completes this assessment, EPA cannot be assured that the
Libby site itself is cleaned to safe levels, nor will it know the
extent to which the sites that received Libby ore may need to be
reevaluated. EPA has agreed to complete a risk and toxicity assessment
by the end of fiscal year 2010.
EPA regional offices did not implement key provisions of the agency‘s
public notification regulations at 8 of the 13 sites for which EPA had
lead responsibility. At four sites, for example, EPA either did not
provide and maintain documentation about the cleanups for public review
and comment or provide for a public comment period. Also, although EPA
guidance emphasizes that simply complying with the public notification
rules is often insufficient to meet communities‘ needs, at five sites
EPA did not go beyond these provisions. Reaction among community
members to EPA‘s public notification measures was mixed. At two of the
three sites in which GAO held focus groups with affected community
members, participants were critical of EPA‘s efforts to inform them
about the cleanup of the asbestos-contaminated sites in their
neighborhood. These included participants in Hamilton Township, New
Jersey and Minot, North Dakota who noted that newspaper notices did not
identify asbestos as the contaminant in question and contained unclear
and bureaucratic language. On the other hand, participants in Dearborn,
Michigan praised EPA efforts to, among other things, hold public
meetings and hand-deliver written notices.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends, among other things, that the EPA Administrator (1)
consider the results of EPA‘s asbestos risk and toxicity assessment to
determine whether any affected sites need to be reevaluated and (2)
review regions‘ implementation of public notification provisions and
guidance to ensure that they appropriately determine the extent of
outreach needed. EPA expressed general agreement.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://GAO-08-71]. For more information, contact John B.
Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Federal Agencies Have Assessed Sites Thought to Have Received Asbestos-
Contaminated Ore but Did So without Critical Information about Safe
Exposure Levels:
EPA Regions Did Not Consistently Implement Public-Notification
Provisions and Adhere to Guidance:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
GAO Comments:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Information on Sites That Were Identified As Receiving Libby
Ore, by EPA Region:
Table 2: Summary of Public-Notification Activities beyond the NCP
Provisions As Reported by EPA:
Figures:
Figure 1: Asbestos Fibers in Libby Vermiculite Ore:
Figure 2: Nationwide Distribution of Libby Ore by County (in tons):
Figure 3: Raw and Popped Vermiculite:
Figure 4: Closeup of Vermiculite Insulation in an Attic:
Figure 5: Nineteen Sites Receiving Asbestos-Contaminated Libby Ore That
Were Identified for Cleanup:
Figure 6: ATSDR National Exposure Review Phase 1 Sites:
Figure 7: Vermiculite Ore Processing Sites Where EPA Was Responsible
for Public Notification:
Figure 8: Content and Placement of the Hamilton Township Notice:
Figure 9: Content and Placement of the Dearborn Notice:
Abbreviations:
ATSDRAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CERCLAComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
HDOH: Hawaii Department of Health:
IRIS: Integrated Risk Information System:
KYDEP: Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection:
MDEQ: Montana Department of Environmental Quality:
MPCA: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:
MSHA: Mine Safety and Health Administration:
NCP: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan:
NJDEP: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection:
OERR: EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response:
OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration:
OSWER: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 12, 2007:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith:
House of Representatives:
Between 1923 and the early 1990s, a mine located near Libby, Montana,
shipped millions of tons of vermiculite ore to hundreds of locations
throughout the United States. The vermiculite ore mined in Libby
contained high concentrations of naturally occurring asbestos.
Vermiculite is used in the manufacture of products such as building
insulation, fireproofing material, and some gardening products. At some
of the facilities that received Libby ore, manufacturing processes
released the asbestos into the air. Some workers and others who inhaled
the asbestos fibers developed serious, in some cases fatal, asbestos-
related respiratory illnesses. In November 1978, a company in
Marysville, Ohio, that processed Libby ore to make fertilizer products
reported to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that its
employees were suffering lung problems believed to be related to the
asbestos in the ore. According to EPA, a number of factors prevented
the agency from addressing the issue at the time, including competing
priorities for funding and fragmented authority and jurisdiction among
federal agencies for regulating substances contaminated with asbestos.
In 2000--more than 2 decades later and in the wake of a series of
newspaper articles highlighting health and environmental concerns
associated with the asbestos-contaminated ore--EPA began cleaning up
asbestos contamination in the Libby area under the authority of the
Superfund program, which was created by the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).[Footnote 1]
In early 2000, EPA began identifying the sites that may have received
Libby ore and conducted site evaluations under CERCLA to determine if
any of the sites were contaminated with asbestos from the ore and
needed to be cleaned up. Either EPA or the state of jurisdiction has
had primary responsibility for planning and implementing or, in some
cases, overseeing cleanups at these sites. To help EPA assess the risks
posed by potential asbestos contamination at sites that received Libby
ore, the Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has performed evaluations of
human-health effects that may be associated with past or current
exposure to asbestos at selected sites.
Under the regulations implementing CERCLA, known as the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), EPA must
generally take a number of steps to notify communities when it cleans
up and removes hazardous materials from sites (removal action). These
steps include designating a spokesperson to notify communities about
the cleanup, creating a record documenting the basis for the cleanup,
and making the record available to the public for review and comment.
EPA has delegated responsibility for carrying out the public-
notification procedures to its 10 regional offices. EPA has also issued
policies and guidance establishing public-notification procedures that
EPA regions should follow to help ensure early and meaningful community
involvement. Even so, in some of the communities where EPA cleaned up
asbestos contamination from Libby ore, concerns have been raised as to
how well EPA regions followed NCP provisions and guidance for notifying
the public.
In this context, you asked us to (1) describe how EPA and other federal
agencies assessed and addressed potential risks at the facilities that
received asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore from a mine in Libby,
Montana, and the results of these efforts, and (2) determine the extent
and effectiveness of EPA regions' efforts to notify the public about
the cleanup of facilities that received the contaminated ore.
Because of a pending federal criminal case against W.R. Grace--the
company that owned the Libby vermiculite mine and about half of the
exfoliation facilities that processed ore from the mine[Footnote 2]--
and the need to avoid undue influence on the case,[Footnote 3] we
designed our methodology to minimize direct contact with EPA staff. To
determine the current status of efforts to address potential risks at
sites that received the Libby ore, we obtained data from ATSDR, which
was largely based on EPA data about each of the sites identified as
receiving ore from the Libby mine. For each site, the data included the
location, type of facility, amount of ore received, and limited
information on the results of EPA's evaluation. We then submitted a set
of questions and a table containing data about each of the sites to
EPA's headquarters and 10 regional offices to verify, update, and
complete that information. To determine the extent of the regional
offices' public-notification efforts, we submitted sets of questions in
writing to EPA's headquarters and 10 regional offices about their
compliance with NCP public-notification provisions and any additional
community-notification efforts at sites that were cleaned up. We
limited our review to the sites for which EPA had public-notification
responsibility. We also conducted structured interviews, in person and
by telephone, with state and local government officials to obtain their
perspectives on the public-notification efforts that took place in
communities where cleanups were located. Finally, we hosted discussions
with community members at three sites in different EPA regions to
obtain their perspectives on the public-notification efforts.
We performed our work from August 2005 to October 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. A more detailed
description of our scope and methodology is presented in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
With the assistance of other federal and state agencies, EPA has
evaluated 271 sites thought to have received asbestos-contaminated ore
from a mine in Libby, Montana, but did so without key information on
safe exposure levels for asbestos. In general, the evaluations included
visual inspections of the properties and surrounding areas; interviews
with facility representatives and other personnel; and reviews of any
relevant documentation from state environmental and health agencies. On
the basis of this information, sampling was conducted at 80 sites and
it was determined that 19 needed removal actions. Generally, either EPA
or the states led or oversaw the cleanups. Several factors were
considered in determining whether a site required a removal action--the
most important being the amount, if any, of asbestos found. In general,
a cleanup would be performed if sampling results indicated that
asbestos was present in amounts greater than 1 percent (based on the
percentage of the area of a microscopic field) in soils or debris or
greater than 0.1 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of air. However,
ATSDR--as a part of its investigations of public-health risks posed by
past and present exposures to asbestos contamination at selected sites-
-has pointed out that information on the toxicity of the asbestos in
Libby ore is very limited, and that the sampling and analysis methods
EPA used at most of the selected sites that ATSDR reviewed have since
been replaced by more accurate methods. After the EPA Office of
Inspector General reported in December 2006 that EPA had not completed
an assessment of the toxicity of the asbestos in Libby ore or the risks
it posed, EPA initiated plans to do so by the end of fiscal year 2010.
When the assessment is completed, EPA should be better able to
determine if sites in Libby have been cleaned to safe levels, and
whether any of the sites that received Libby ore may still pose a risk
to public health and need to be re-evaluated.
The extent and effectiveness of EPA's notification efforts varied
across the 13 sites for which EPA had lead responsibility to conduct
cleanups. At 8 of the sites, EPA regional offices did not implement key
public-notification provisions of NCP. For example, according to EPA
regional officials, at Great Falls, Montana (Region 8), they did not
establish an administrative record; and in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and
Dearborn, Michigan (both in Region 5), they did not hold a public-
comment period. In addition, although EPA's public-notification
guidance strongly emphasizes that meeting NCP provisions is often
insufficient to meet communities' needs for public notification, EPA
officials did not conduct notification activities beyond those
provisions at 4 sites in EPA Region 9 and 1 site in Region 2. Regional
officials at the remaining 8 sites did so to varying degrees. Reaction
to EPA's public-notification measures was mixed among affected
community members. At 2 of the 3 sites for which we held focus groups
of affected community members, participants generally criticized EPA's
efforts to inform them of the problems posed by the asbestos-
contaminated sites in their neighborhoods. Specifically, participants
expressed displeasure with EPA's efforts in Hamilton Township, New
Jersey, and Minot, North Dakota, saying, among other things, that
notices placed in their local newspapers did not identify asbestos as
the contaminant in question; contained unclear and bureaucratic
language; or used such small print that the notices were difficult to
read. On the other hand, focus-group participants in Dearborn,
Michigan, praised EPA's efforts to hold public meetings, hand deliver
written notices, translate notices for non-English-speaking residents,
and respond to individuals' concerns.
We are recommending that the EPA Administrator direct the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response to
(1) determine, after considering the results of the risk and toxicity
assessment and the availability of improved sampling and analysis
techniques, whether any sites potentially contaminated with asbestos
from the Libby ore should be re-evaluated to determine whether they
pose a threat to public health; and (2) review the regional offices'
implementation of NCP provisions for public notification and associated
guidance to ensure, among other things, that, in the future, regional
offices are appropriately determining the extent of community outreach
needed. In responding to a draft of this report, EPA generally agreed
with our findings and recommendations, and provided technical comments
which we incorporated, as appropriate. ATSDR provided only technical
comments via e-mail, which were also incorporated, as appropriate. See
appendix II for EPA's comment letter and for our evaluation of these
comments.
Background:
The vermiculite ore mined at Libby, Montana, between 1923 and the early
1990s contained high concentrations of naturally occurring asbestos
minerals, including tremolite, winchite, richterite, and
others[Footnote 4] (see fig. 1). As the ore was mined and processed,
dust containing asbestos fibers was released into the air, which
workers then inhaled. By the early 1900s, asbestos was recognized as a
cause of occupational disease. Initially, the disease associated with
asbestos was asbestosis, a nonmalignant respiratory disease
characterized by scarring of the lung tissue that may progress to
significant impairment and death. During the 1930s and 1940s, the
connection between asbestos exposure and lung cancer emerged. By 1960,
the connection between asbestos and mesothelioma--a cancer of the
mesothelial lining of the lungs--was established. Diseases stemming
from exposure to asbestos may not be apparent for decades after the
initial exposure. Thus, even though the Libby mine closed around 1990,
many residents, former workers, and others who were exposed to the
asbestos-contaminated ore, recently have been diagnosed with asbestos-
related diseases and many more may become ill in the future.
Figure 1: Asbestos Fibers in Libby Vermiculite Ore (photograph):
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Geological Survey and EPA.
[End of figure]
EPA's involvement with Libby's asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore
dates back to the late 1970s and continued intermittently until 1999,
when the agency initiated an investigation that led to ongoing cleanup
activities in the Libby area. In 1978, EPA learned that workers at a
vermiculite processing plant in Marysville, Ohio--one of hundreds of
sites across the United States where Libby vermiculite ore was sent--
were exhibiting symptoms of asbestos-related diseases. Between 1980 and
1982, EPA issued a series of reports related to asbestos-contaminated
vermiculite.[Footnote 5] Most of these reports indicated that there was
a lack of data on both exposure to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite
and its adverse health effects. Further, the reports identified
problems in sampling, analysis, and reproducibility of data regarding
low levels of asbestos in vermiculite, which made it difficult to
acquire data on exposure and health effects. One of the studies also
noted that EPA needed to develop more information identifying, among
other things, the vermiculite-mine sites, the processors of
vermiculite, and the potential number of employees exposed to asbestos-
contaminated vermiculite. In a February 1985 report, EPA estimated the
levels and ranges of exposure to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite for
workers and the general public and indicated that, with further study,
this information could be used for regulatory decision making. This
report contained a list of the locations of 52 exfoliation plants in
the United States that had received vermiculite ore from the Libby
mine.[Footnote 6] Even so, EPA did not initiate any action at the time
and, until 1999, did little to address concerns about the health risks
associated with exposure to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite
ore.[Footnote 7]
In 1999--after a series of newspaper articles reporting that miners and
their families in the area of Libby, Montana, had died or were ill from
exposure to the asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore--EPA began
investigating the contamination in the Libby area and began cleaning up
the contamination in 2000. Subsequently, concerns were raised about why
EPA had not taken action much earlier in Libby, which resulted in
investigations by both the EPA Office of Inspector General and GAO. The
subsequent reports concluded that, due to various challenges, EPA
missed past opportunities to take steps that might have protected the
citizens of Libby.[Footnote 8] These challenges included (1) fragmented
regulatory authority and jurisdiction with other federal agencies and
within EPA, along with ineffective communication, which made it
difficult for EPA to take action; (2) limitations of science,
technology, and health-effects data that made it difficult for EPA to
determine the degree of health risk at Libby; and (3) funding
constraints and competing priorities, which led EPA to de-emphasize
dealing with asbestos-contaminated vermiculite. Since these reports
were issued, as part of an ongoing criminal case against W.R. Grace,
the government has alleged that Grace engaged in a conspiracy to
defraud EPA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health by concealing and misrepresenting the nature of the asbestos-
containing vermiculite produced at the mine.[Footnote 9] Grace has
denied the allegations.
When EPA began cleaning up contamination in the Libby area in 2000, it
also took steps to identify and evaluate sites that may have received
shipments of Libby ore for asbestos contamination according to CERCLA.
Under NCP regulations that implement CERCLA, a removal site evaluation
involves, among other things, identifying the source and nature of any
hazardous-substance release, analyzing the magnitude of the potential
threat to human health and the environment, and evaluating factors
necessary to make the determination of whether a removal is necessary.
According to NCP regulations, when EPA is the lead agency for a
cleanup, an EPA region must take certain actions, as appropriate, to
notify the public about a removal action. These actions include (1)
designating a spokesperson to notify immediately affected citizens and
state and local officials about the cleanup; (2) creating a record
documenting the basis for the cleanup action and making the record
publicly available; (3) publishing a notice that the record is
available for review in a major local newspaper; and (4) providing an
opportunity for the public to comment on the record. When EPA expects
the cleanup action to last more than 120 days, the regional office must
also conduct interviews with interested or affected parties, prepare a
formal community response plan, and establish at least one local
information repository at or near the cleanup location, such as at a
public library.
EPA has also issued numerous policy directives and guidance documents
over the years establishing additional public notification procedures
that EPA regions should follow. For example, EPA guidance issued in
July 1992 directed regions to interact closely with and reach out to
communities. This guidance specifies that one of the goals of public
participation is to inform the public about the risks associated with a
site and any cleanup actions. The guidance also states that it is
imperative for EPA to give the public prompt, accurate information
about the nature of threats to public health and the environment, and
the removal action necessary to mitigate the threats. In its April 2002
guidance, EPA stated that just complying with NCP provisions is often
insufficient for informing the media, the public, and interested
stakeholders. This guidance strongly suggested the regions use other
options for meeting community needs, such as scheduling press
briefings; establishing a local or toll-free telephone hotline; and
canvassing neighborhoods to identify residents' needs, fears, and
concerns.
ATSDR has provided information to EPA to help assess the risks posed by
potential asbestos contamination at selected sites that received Libby
ore. Specifically, in 2002, ATSDR launched the first phase of its
National Asbestos Exposure Review. Under this phase of the project,
ATSDR evaluated human health effects that may be associated with past
or current exposure to asbestos at 28 of the sites that had received
and processed the vermiculite ore mined in Libby, Montana. These sites
were selected because they received a high-volume of Libby ore (greater
than 100,000 tons) or EPA identified them as needing further
investigation. These 28 sites together received about 80 percent of the
vermiculite ore shipped from the Libby mine between 1964 and 1980.
Federal Agencies Have Assessed Sites Thought to Have Received Asbestos-
Contaminated Ore but Did So without Critical Information about Safe
Exposure Levels:
EPA, with assistance from other federal and state agencies, has
assessed 271 sites that were thought to have received asbestos-
contaminated ore from Libby, Montana, to determine if the sites are
contaminated with asbestos and if they need cleanup. As a result of
these investigations, 19 sites were identified as requiring cleanup. As
a part of ATSDR's effort to evaluate public-health risks posed by past
and current exposures to asbestos contamination in the Libby area and
at some of the sites that received the Libby ore, ATSDR has noted there
is an absence of key information on the toxicity of the asbestos found
in the Libby ore. ATSDR also noted that the methods EPA used to sample
and analyze the air and soil at most of the 28 sites it reviewed have
since been improved and now better quantify asbestos levels. After the
EPA Office of Inspector General recommended in December 2006 that EPA
perform a toxicity assessment to determine safe levels of exposure for
humans, EPA agreed to do so.
EPA Has Evaluated Sites That May Have Received Libby Ore and Concluded
Some Needed to be Cleaned Up:
EPA has taken a number of actions to identify and evaluate sites that
may have received Libby ore and, when needed, has conducted removal
actions. In early 2000, EPA began compiling a list of facilities that
might have received asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore from the
Libby mine. To compile the list, it used shipping records and other
information obtained from W.R. Grace as well as historical information
about vermiculite processing facilities from the Bureau of Mines and
the U.S. Geological Survey. Initially, EPA identified over 500 sites,
but after coordinating with the U.S. Geological Survey to update and
revise the list of facilities and eliminate duplicate entries, EPA
narrowed the list to less than 300 potential sites.
The data that EPA collected on the sites believed to have received
Libby ore paint a picture of the distribution of Libby ore across the
United States. Figure 2 illustrates the nationwide distribution based
on 195 sites for which data on the amount of ore shipped were
available. These 195 sites are believed to have received a combined
total of at least 6 million tons of ore from the Libby, Montana, mine
and ore processing operations.[Footnote 10] The 271 sites were located
in 39 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The most sites
were in California (28) and Texas (26). EPA has continued to identify
sites and will investigate them as it deems necessary. For example, in
2006, EPA identified additional sites (included in the 271) that it
needed to assess for asbestos contamination.
Figure 2: Nationwide Distribution of Libby Ore by County (in tons):
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the United States with four symbols indicating
total tonnage by county as follows: 1 to 99,999; 100,000 to 199,999;
200,000 to 299,999; 300,000 or more.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Notes: Alaska and Hawaii are not to scale. Data on the distribution of
ore are based on approximately 80,000 invoices that EPA obtained from
W.R. Grace which document shipments of vermiculite ore made from the
Libby mine between 1964 to 1990. EPA tabulated this shipping
information in a database. EPA does not believe it received an invoice
for every shipment of Libby ore made during that time period, and the
database represents only what EPA was able to collect from W.R. Grace.
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
According to the data that EPA collected, most (95 percent) of the
vermiculite ore known to have been shipped from Libby between 1964 and
1990 went to facilities that converted it into commercial vermiculite
through a process called "exfoliation" (expansion). Exfoliation plants
heated the vermiculite ore to approximately 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit,
which caused the ore to expand, or pop. This expanded vermiculite was
then used in a variety of products, including loose-fill insulation in
homes (see figs. 3 and 4 for photos of expanded vermiculite ore and
vermiculite insulation). Because significant concentrations of asbestos
fibers were likely released during the exfoliation process, of the
facilities that received Libby ore, exfoliation plants were deemed the
most likely to have caused environmental contamination and exposure.
Figure 4: Raw (Right) and Popped (Left) Vermiculite (photograph):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 5: Closeup of Vermiculite Insulation in an Attic (photograph):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In performing their preliminary assessment of sites, EPA regions
generally tried to determine the facilities' locations using a variety
of methods, including title searches; reviews of town records; and
interviews with people who might provide useful information, such as
company representatives or people who formerly worked at the sites.
Once they identified an accurate address for a site, a "windshield
survey" was performed to determine current site conditions and gather
additional information on past operations at the site. These surveys
generally included viewing the suspected location and its surrounding
area and, in some instances, interviewing business owners and residents
in the immediate vicinity.
If these initial surveys indicated the need for further examination,
the regions typically conducted a detailed investigation of the site.
This investigation typically consisted of a site visit, which included
a more thorough visual inspection of the property and surrounding area;
additional interviews with people who might be knowledgeable about past
operations, such as facility representatives; reviews of any relevant
and available documentation from state and federal agencies; and, if
deemed necessary, collection of soil and air samples.
As indicated in table 1, EPA conducted site visits to at least 241 of
the sites.[Footnote 11] At least 19 sites were not visited because
either initial efforts to determine site locations were unsuccessful or
information gathered while pre-screening the sites indicated that a
site visit was not necessary. For example, for a site located in
Stanton, North Dakota, company officials indicated in a letter that the
company purchased a relatively small amount of Libby ore in the early
1980s and had since obtained vermiculite ore from a mine in Virginia.
The company officials provided EPA Region 8 with a lab analysis of the
ore from the Virginia mine, which indicated no asbestos was present in
the ore. As a result, EPA Region 8 concluded a site visit was not
necessary.
Table 1: Information on Sites That Were Identified As Receiving Libby
Ore, by EPA Region:
EPA regional office: 1.
Number of sites: 5;
Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 194,750;
Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 3.2;
Number of sites visited by EPA: 4;
Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 2;
Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 0;
Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 1.
EPA regional office: 2;
Number of sites: 23[B];
Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 323,152;
Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 5.3;
Number of sites visited by EPA: 22;
Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 4;
Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 2;
Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 1.
EPA regional office: 3;
Number of sites: 22;
Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 280,472;
Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 4.6;
Number of sites visited by EPA: 20;
Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 10;
Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 1;
Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 1[C].
EPA regional office: 4;
Number of sites: 35;
Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 578,006;
Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 9.5;
Number of sites visited by EPA: 24[D];
Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 13[E];
Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 0[F];
Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 1.
EPA regional office: 5;
Number of sites: 61;
Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 1,387,176;
Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 22.7;
Number of sites visited by EPA: 61;
Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 16;
Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 0;
Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 2.
EPA regional office: 6;
Number of sites: 45[G];
Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 1,221,289;
Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 20.0;
Number of sites visited by EPA: 41;
Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 2[H];
Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 2;
Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 0.
EPA regional office: 7;
Number of sites: 15;
Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 355,579;
Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 5.8;
Number of sites visited by EPA: 15;
Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 6;
Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 0;
Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 0.
EPA regional office: 8;
Number of sites: 18[I];
Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 210,913[J];
Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 3.5;
Number of sites visited by EPA: 16;
Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 9;
Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 0;
Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 5.
EPA regional office: 9;
Number of sites: 36;
Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 1,292,114;
Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 21.2;
Number of sites visited by EPA: 28;
Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 13;
Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 0;
Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 5.
EPA regional office: 10;
Number of sites: 11;
Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 255,237;
Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 4.2;
Number of sites visited by EPA: 10;
Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 5;
Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 0;
Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 3.
EPA regional office: Total;
Number of sites: 271[K];
Amount of ore received (in tons)[A]: 6,098,688;
Percentage of total ore received by sites nationwide: 100;
Number of sites visited by EPA: 241;
Number of sites where sampling was conducted: 80;
Number of sites where assessment is ongoing: 5;
Number of sites determined to need cleanup: 19.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[A] The data on the amount of ore received is from an EPA database of
W.R. Grace invoices for shipments of vermiculite from the Libby mine
between 1964 and 1990. For 76 of the sites (28 percent), the amount of
ore received is unknown. As a result, the data on the amount of ore
received is likely understated.
[B] According to EPA Region 2 officials, two sites located in
Edgewater, New Jersey, are actually the same site. As a result, GAO
recorded those two sites as one.
[C] In May 2007, EPA informed GAO that EPA Region 3 had decided a
cleanup action would be needed at a site located in Ellwood City,
Pennsylvania. Because the site was added after GAO completed its
analysis of site data, this site is not included in the number of sites
determined to need cleanup but is included in the number of sites where
assessment is ongoing.
[D] For 11 sites in Region 4, EPA's files did not contain sufficient
documentation to determine definitively if the sites had been visited.
[E] For 22 sites in Region 4, EPA's files did not contain sufficient
documentation to determine definitively if sampling had taken place.
[F] For 6 sites in Region 4, no documentation of an assessment could be
located in EPA's files. Therefore, it is not possible to determine
definitively if EPA completed evaluations at those sites.
[G] According to EPA Region 6 officials, two sites located in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, are actually the same site. As a result, GAO
recorded those two sites as one.
[H] EPA Region 6 planned to assist the state of Louisiana in collecting
samples at a site located in New Orleans, but sampling was delayed
because of damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.
[I] The list of sites that EPA Region 8 provided to GAO included a
retail store located within a W.R. Grace export facility in Libby,
Montana. This site is one of several sites in Libby, Montana, currently
being cleaned up by EPA. Because of the pending federal criminal case
related to W.R. Grace's actions at the mine located in Libby, GAO did
not review the status of EPA's efforts to assess and clean up any of
the sites located in Libby. As a result, the retail store was excluded
from the number of sites located in Region 8.
[J] For one site in Region 8, the source of the contamination was a
former employee who brought contaminated material home and used it as
fill material in his driveway. No shipments of ore were received at
this site, so it is not included in the total amount of ore received by
sites located in Region 8.
[K] According to W.R. Grace shipping records and other data, 271 sites
were identified as potentially receiving Libby ore. EPA did not
continue investigating at least 19 sites because the sites could not be
located or preliminary information indicated a site visit was not
necessary. Because of a lack of documentation for 11 sites in Region 4,
it is unclear whether site visits took place at those sites.
[End of table]
For the sites where the regions decided sampling was warranted, samples
of "bulk" materials--such as raw vermiculite ore, suspected waste
vermiculite piles, and soils--were collected. Air samples were
collected if there was concern that disturbing contaminated materials
(in the soil or elsewhere) could result in asbestos fibers migrating
into the air and being inhaled. Based on information obtained during
the site visits, bulk and, in some cases, air samples were collected
for at least 80 (30 percent) of the sites (as shown in table
1).[Footnote 12]
One of the most important factors EPA regional offices considered in
determining whether a site needed to be cleaned up was the amount, if
any, of asbestos present at the site. In general, a cleanup would be
performed if sampling results indicated that asbestos was present in
amounts greater than 1 percent (based on the percentage of the area of
a microscopic field) in soils or debris or greater than 0.1 asbestos
fibers per cubic centimeter of air. According to EPA, the "1 percent
threshold" for asbestos in soils or debris is not a health-based
standard, but is rather related to the limit of detection for the
analytical methods available during the early years of EPA's asbestos
program (early 1970s), and to EPA's desire to concentrate resources on
materials containing higher percentages of asbestos. EPA has never
determined that materials containing less than 1 percent asbestos are
safe, and scientists have not been able to develop a safe level for
exposure to airborne asbestos. Of the sites sampled, 22 had levels of
asbestos that that exceeded the thresholds, 29 had detectable levels of
asbestos that were below the thresholds (trace amounts), and 26 sites
had no detectable levels of asbestos[Footnote 13].:
After reviewing the sampling results and other pertinent information
collected about the sites, EPA--and in some instances states--
identified 19 sites where contamination from the asbestos in Libby ore
needed to be cleaned up. Figure 5 includes a map showing the location
of the 19 sites that were identified for cleanup. With the exception of
one site, all of the sites that needed to be cleaned up had levels of
asbestos in soils that exceeded the 1 percent threshold.[Footnote 14]
For the one exception, a site located in Salt Lake City, all of the
soil samples contained trace amounts of asbestos (less than 1 percent).
However, after raking the ground and using a leaf blower, EPA collected
air samples which showed elevated levels of asbestos fibers that
exceeded the threshold of 0.1 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of
air. As a result, EPA determined this site needed to be cleaned up as
well.
Figure 6: Nineteen Sites Receiving Asbestos-Contaminated Libby Ore That
Were Identified for Cleanup:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the United States, indicating the location of
the nineteen sites receiving asbestos-contaminated Libby Ore that were
identified for cleanup. The sites identified are:
* Dearborn, MI;
* Denver, CO;
* Easthampton, MA;
* Glendale, AZ;
* Glendale (Los Angeles), CA;
* Great Falls, MT;
* Hamilton Township, NJ;
* Honolulu, HI;
* Minneapolis, MN;
* Minot, ND;
* New Castle, PA;
* Newark, CA;
* Phoenix, AZ;
* Portland, OR (two locations);
* Salt Lake City, UT (two locations);
* Spokane, WA;
* Wilder, KY.
Source: EPA (information); Map Resources (map).
Note: In May 2007, EPA decided to also clean up a site located in
Ellwood City, Pennsylvania. Since this decision was made after GAO
completed its analysis of the sites, we did not include this site as
one of the nineteen sites in the report.
[End of figure]
ATSDR Concluded Former Workers at Facilities That Processed Libby Ore
Were Most at Risk for Asbestos Exposure and That Health-Effects Data
Are Limited:
In conjunction with EPA's efforts to evaluate sites that received Libby
ore, ATSDR is conducting a project--the National Asbestos Exposure
Review--to investigate selected sites that received and processed ore
from the Libby mine. These investigations--referred to as health
consultations--involve evaluating information about toxic material at a
site, determining whether people might be exposed to it, and reporting
what harm exposure might cause. Health consultations may be performed
by ATSDR staff or by state health department officials working under a
cooperative agreement with ATSDR. The consultations may consider:
* what levels (or concentrations) of hazardous substances are present;
* whether people might be exposed to contamination and how (through
"exposure pathways" such as breathing air, drinking or coming into
contact with water, eating or coming into contact with soil, or eating
food);
* what harm the substances might cause people (or the contaminants'
"toxicity");
* whether working or living nearby might affect people's health; and:
* other dangers to people, such as unsafe buildings or other physical
hazards.
Every health consultation includes ATSDR's conclusions about public-
health hazards and recommendations for actions to protect public
health. These can include recommended follow-up activities for EPA,
state environmental and health agencies, and ATSDR. For example, the
recommendations could be related to (1) cleaning up sites; (2) keeping
people away from contamination and physical dangers--for example, by
placing a fence around a site; (3) giving residents safe drinking
water; (4) relocating exposed people; (5) providing health education
for residents and health-care providers to inform them about site
contaminants and harmful health effects; and (6) performing additional
health studies.[Footnote 15]
ATSDR is conducting the National Asbestos Exposure Review in two
phases. In Phase 1, it is conducting health investigations of 28 sites.
These 28 sites together received about 80 percent of the vermiculite
ore believed to have been shipped from the Libby mine between 1964 and
1980 (see fig. 6). As of June 2007, ATSDR had completed investigations
at all 28 sites. For each site, ATSDR has issued a health-consultation
report and a fact sheet summarizing the results of the site
evaluation.[Footnote 16] Phase 1 will conclude with the completion of a
report summarizing all 28 site investigations. This report will likely
be released in late 2007 or early 2008. In Phase 2 of the National
Asbestos Exposure Review, ATSDR will build on work from Phase 1 to
determine the need for public-health activities at additional sites
that received Libby ore. ATSDR's role during Phase 2 will vary from
providing technical support or advice to other agencies to possibly
conducting additional public-health activities.
Figure 8: ATSDR National Exposure Review Phase 1 Sites:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the United States, indicating the location of
the twenty-eight sites in the ATSDR National Exposure Review, Phase 1.
The sites identified are:
* Beltsville, MD;
* Dallas, TX;
* Dearborn, MI;
* Denver, CO;
* Easthampton, MA;
* Edgewater, NJ;
* Ellwood City, PA;
* Glendale, AZ;
* Glendale (Los Angeles), CA;
* Hamilton Township, NJ;
* Honolulu, HI;
* Marysville, OH;
* Minneapolis, MN;
* Minot, ND;
* Newark, CA;
* New Castle, PA:
* New Orleans, LA;
* Omaha, NE;
* Phoenix, AZ;
* Portland, OR (two locations);
* Santa Ana, CA;
* Spokane, WA;
* St. Louis, MO;
* Tampa; FL;
* Weedsport, PA;
* West Chicago, IL;
* Wilder, KY.
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In selecting the 28 Phase 1 sites, ATSDR selected sites that would be
more likely to pose public-health risks because the sites (1) had been
designated by EPA as requiring further action based on current
contamination, or (2) were exfoliation facilities that processed more
than 100,000 tons of vermiculite ore from the Libby mine.[Footnote 17]
ATSDR's general conclusions about past and current exposures to
asbestos from the contaminated Libby ore at the 28 sites included the
following:
* Former employees at the facilities that processed the asbestos-
contaminated vermiculite ore were most at risk for exposure.
* Those who lived in the employees' homes may have also been exposed
because asbestos fibers could have been carried home on the employees'
clothing, skin, and hair.
* People could have been exposed to asbestos if they handled or played
in waste rock, a by-product of vermiculite exfoliation. At some of the
vermiculite plants, workers or people in the community may have brought
the waste rock from the plants to their homes to use in gardens and as
fill or driveway surfacing material. If this waste rock is uncovered
and stirred up, asbestos fibers may be released into the air.
Determining the extent to which former and current residents were or
could currently be exposed to waste rock on their properties was not
possible at most sites given a lack of knowledge about whether or to
what extent past community members may have taken waste material home.
* People living around the plants could have been exposed to asbestos
fibers in the air when vermiculite was being processed at the sites.
Determining whether former residents were exposed to hazardous levels
of asbestos was not possible at most of the sites given a general lack
of data on past emissions from the facilities.
* Since the plants no longer process Libby ore, current residents
living around the sites are no longer being exposed through air
emissions from processing activities at the plants.
As a part of its on-going work to assess public-health risks at the
Phase 1 sites, ATSDR has also reported significant gaps in scientific
data used to evaluate health risks associated with exposure to the type
of asbestos fibers found in Libby ore. ATSDR has pointed out that
evaluating health effects requires extensive knowledge of both the ways
in which people were exposed and the level of asbestos that is harmful
to humans (i.e., the toxicity of the asbestos). According to ATSDR, the
public health implications of exposures to these fibers are difficult
to determine in part because the toxicological information currently
available for the asbestos fibers found in the Libby ore is very
limited. Also, in a May 2003 Public Health Assessment of the Libby
site, ATSDR recommended that "more research is needed, specifically:
toxicological investigation of the risks associated with low-level
exposure to asbestos, especially Libby asbestos; clinical research on
treatment for mesothelioma and asbestosis; and epidemiology studies to
better characterize the link between exposure to asbestos and disease."
ATSDR has also noted that the 1 percent threshold used in determining
when sites need to be cleaned up is not health based. Furthermore, the
agency cited EPA studies showing that disturbing soils containing less
than 1 percent asbestos can suspend fibers in the air at levels that
cause a health concern. Therefore, ATSDR concluded it is unclear
whether sites that were not cleaned up and with asbestos levels of less
than 1 percent were safe.
In addition, ATSDR stated that the sampling and analysis methods used
by EPA at some of the sites were limited in their ability to detect and
measure asbestos fibers.[Footnote 18] In fact, recent health-
consultation reports for two sites in Portland, Oregon, issued by the
Oregon Department of Human Services in consultation with ATSDR, pointed
out that sampling and analysis methods have been improved since samples
were taken at those sites in 2000 and that new methods are better able
to quantify levels of asbestos. As a result, the health-consultation
reports for those sites recommended, among other things, that EPA
conduct additional sampling at these sites to ensure people are not
being exposed to residual fibers. After conducting additional sampling
at one of these sites, EPA determined the site required further
cleanup.
EPA Has Attempted to Clarify Its Asbestos Cleanup Goals and Agreed to
Complete a Toxicity Assessment for the Asbestos in Libby Ore:
In August 2004, the Director of EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation issued a memorandum to EPA's regions to
clarify cleanup goals for asbestos. The memo stated that the original
intent of the 1 percent threshold was:
"to ban the use of materials which contain significant quantities of
asbestos, but to allow the use of materials which would: (1) contain
trace amounts of asbestos which occur in numerous natural substances,
and (2) include very small quantities of asbestos (less than 1 percent)
added to enhance the material's effectiveness."[Footnote 19]
This memo acknowledged that the widespread use of the 1 percent
threshold may have caused EPA managers at cleanup sites to assume that
levels below that threshold did not pose an unreasonable risk to human
health. The memo stated that it is important to note the 1 percent
threshold was related to (1) the limit of detection for the analytical
methods available in the early 1970s and (2) EPA's decision to focus
its resources on materials containing higher percentages of asbestos.
The memo further noted the threshold may not be protective of human
health in all instances. It stressed that regions should not assume
soil or debris containing less than 1 percent asbestos does not pose an
unreasonable risk to human health and should instead develop risk-
based, site-specific action levels to determine if response actions
should be undertaken. However, the memo clearly stated that this
information did not constitute a regulation nor did it impose legally-
binding requirements on EPA.[Footnote 20]
In November 2005, EPA issued its Asbestos Project Plan.[Footnote 21]
The plan provided a framework for a coordinated agency-wide approach to
identify, evaluate, and reduce the risk to human health from asbestos
exposure. Among other things, the plan focused on improving the state
of the science for asbestos through a number of steps, including
activities to improve EPA's (1) understanding of asbestos toxicology,
(2) understanding of asbestos-related exposures, and (3) ability to
perform meaningful environmental sample collection and analysis.
When asked about the status of these activities and funding provided to
accomplish the Asbestos Project Plan, EPA responded that the plan was
developed only to provide an overview of various ongoing and planned
agency-wide activities to address risks from asbestos, and that it was
never intended as an ongoing strategy with timelines for deliverables
and budget tracking features. Nevertheless, according to EPA, by
pursuing activities outlined in the plan the agency has made progress
in improving the state of the science for asbestos. Among other things,
it has undertaken work to (1) develop a methodology for estimating the
risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma from inhalation exposure to
different forms of asbestos; (2) update the asbestos health-effects
information contained in the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS); (3) develop methods for identifying the presence of asbestos in
vermiculite attic insulation; and (4) test an alternative method for
removing asbestos from buildings.[Footnote 22]
In December 2006, EPA's Office of Inspector General reported that EPA
had not completed a toxicity assessment of the type of asbestos found
in the Libby ore and that this information was necessary to determine
the safe level of exposure for humans.[Footnote 23] Furthermore, the
Office of Inspector General reported without such information EPA
cannot be sure that the cleanup actions taking place in Libby
sufficiently reduce the risk that people may become ill from asbestos
exposure or, if already ill, get worse. When asked by the EPA's Office
of Inspector General's staff why a toxicity assessment had not been
performed, officials from EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) replied that an assessment was proposed but was not
performed because it was not funded and because OSWER believed the
information could be obtained through completed and ongoing
epidemiological studies. According to the report, however, OSWER
program staff, as distinguished from OSWER senior officials, said the
epidemiological studies that were ongoing and planned would not be
sufficient to determine the toxicity of the asbestos in the Libby ore.
As a result, the EPA Office of Inspector General recommended that EPA
fund and execute a comprehensive asbestos toxicity assessment to
determine (1) the effectiveness of the Libby removal actions and (2)
whether more actions are necessary.
Shortly after the Office of Inspector General's December 2006 report
was issued, EPA agreed to conduct additional toxicological and
epidemiological studies for the type of asbestos found in the Libby
ore. In January 2007, EPA convened a group of more than 30 scientists
from EPA, ATSDR, and the National Toxicology Program to identify data
gaps and recommend additional studies.[Footnote 24] According to EPA, a
Libby Asbestos Action Plan initiated at this meeting includes
recommendations for 12 additional studies. Detailed work plans for five
of these studies have been completed with consultation from other
agencies and external peer reviewers. Two other studies are
continuations of ongoing efforts. Detailed work plans for the remaining
five studies are currently being finalized. All studies are scheduled
to be completed by the end of calendar year 2009. The milestone date
for completing the baseline risk assessment, including the
comprehensive toxicity assessment, is the end of fiscal year 2010.
EPA Regions Did Not Consistently Implement Public-Notification
Provisions and Adhere to Guidance:
At most of the 13 sites for which EPA had public-notification
responsibilities, EPA regions did not implement key notification
provisions of NCP. At five sites, EPA regions did not perform
notification activities beyond those listed in NCP, even though EPA
guidance strongly recommends the regions do so. State and local
government officials had mixed views about how effective EPA was in
notifying them about cleanups in their jurisdictions--some state and
local officials reported a positive experience working hand-in-hand
with EPA, while others said EPA had not notified them at all.
Similarly, while community members participating in two of three focus
groups were disappointed overall in EPA's efforts to inform them about
cleanups in their neighborhoods, the participants in the third group
were very satisfied with EPA's efforts.
EPA Regions Did Not Implement Key NCP Public-Notification Provisions at
Most Sites:
As the lead agency responsible for notifying the public of cleanup
activities taking place at 13 of the cleanup sites, EPA was required by
NCP regulations to take certain steps, as appropriate, to inform the
public about the cleanup activities. All 13 sites were classified as
time-critical removal actions, which means EPA must begin cleanup at
the sites within 6 months of determining that a removal action is
appropriate. Figure 7 shows the locations of the 13 sites.
Figure 9: Vermiculite Ore Processing Sites Where EPA Was Responsible
for Public Notification:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the United States, indicating the location of
the thirteen vermiculite ore processing sites where EPA was responsible
for public notification. The sites identified are:
* Dearborn, MI;
* Denver, CO;
* Easthampton, MA;
* Glendale (Los Angeles), CA;
* Hamilton Township, NJ;
* Honolulu, HI;
* Minneapolis, MN;
* Minot, ND;
* Newark, CA;
* Phoenix, AZ;
* Salt Lake City (two locations);
* Wilder, KY.
[End of figure]
For all 13 sites, EPA was required to take the following public-
notification steps:
* Designate an agency spokesperson. This representative must inform the
community of actions taken, respond to inquiries, and provide
information concerning the release of hazardous substances.
* Notify affected citizens. The spokesperson must, at a minimum, notify
citizens immediately affected by the release of hazardous materials, as
well as state and local officials, and when appropriate, civil defense
or emergency management agencies.
* Create an administrative record. EPA must establish an administrative
record containing documents that form the basis for the cleanup action
selected and make this record available for public review.
* Notify the public about the administrative record. Within 60 days of
initiating cleanup activities, EPA must publish an announcement in a
major local newspaper indicating that the administrative record is
available for review.
* Hold a public-comment period, as appropriate, and respond to
comments. From the time the administrative record is made available for
review, EPA must provide the public no less than 30 days to provide
comments about the cleanup. EPA must prepare a written response to
significant comments.
When time-critical cleanup activities are expected to last more than
120 days, because there is more time for community involvement and
outreach, NCP requires the following additional notification activities
be performed, as appropriate:[Footnote 25]
* Establish an information repository. To provide the public easier
access to site-related documents, EPA must establish at least one
information repository at or near the location of the cleanup site. At
least one repository must have the administrative record file available
for public inspection.
* Notify the public about the repository. EPA shall inform the public
that it has established an information repository and provide notice
that the administrative record is available for review. If EPA knows
that cleanup activities will extend beyond 120 days, it can publish a
single public notice announcing the availability of the repository and
the administrative record.
* Conduct community interviews. EPA must conduct interviews with local
officials, community residents, public-interest groups, or other
interested parties, as appropriate, to solicit their concerns, their
information needs, and their views on how and when they would like to
be involved in the cleanup.
* Prepare a Community Relations Plan. Using information gathered from
the community interviews and other sources, EPA must prepare a formal
Community Relations Plan specifying the community-involvement
activities the agency expects to conduct during the cleanup.
According to EPA regional officials, key public notification provisions
of NCP were not implemented at 8 of the 13 cleanup sites. Specifically,
regional officials told us the following:
* At the Great Falls, Montana site (Region 8), regional officials did
not establish an administrative record, did not place a notice
announcing the record was available for review, and did not hold a
public-comment period. According to Region 8 officials, they did not
create a formal administrative record because they made a mistake in
processing the site's file and did not discover the mistake until after
the cleanup was completed. Before the cleanup, Region 8 did provide an
information packet equivalent to an administrative record to the owner
of the site where the cleanup occurred and to the state of
Montana.[Footnote 26] Region 8 officials said they have since
established a formal standard-operating procedure for completing such
tasks, which includes assigning tasks to specific personnel and program
offices within the region.
* At the Denver, Colorado site (Region 8), although officials
established an administrative record, they did not notify the public
that the record was available for review and did not hold a public-
comment period. The omissions occurred because the employee responsible
for placing the notices had retired. During the time the position was
vacant, the region did not place public notices for some other removal
actions. Region 8 has since filled the position and, in December 2003,
it established formal procedures for setting up repositories and
publishing notices; the procedures include assigning these
responsibilities to specific EPA program offices and staff.
* For both the Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Dearborn, Michigan, sites
(both in Region 5), the region established administrative records and
placed notices about their availability, but it did not hold public-
comment periods. EPA Region 5 officials explained that they do not
believe that NCP requires EPA to hold a comment period for removal
actions, rather, they said NCP allows EPA latitude to determine whether
a comment period is appropriate for removal actions. Their general view
is that a comment period is not appropriate for time-critical and
emergency-removal actions because they need to proceed quickly and
because there is typically not a range of options to be considered. In
such cases, regional officials said it is more important to focus on
other community-outreach and community-relations activities.
* At the Wilder, Kentucky (Region 4), Minot, North Dakota (Region 8),
and Phoenix, Arizona (Region 9) sites, regional officials posted
notices of availability in local newspapers, but they did not place the
notices within 60 days of the start of the cleanup as provided in NCP.
At two sites, regional officials did not know why the notices were
delayed. At the Minot site, the notice was placed 22 days after the
deadline and 2 days after the cleanup was completed; and at the Wilder
site, the notice was placed 6 days after the deadline. At the Phoenix
site, regional officials said the staff person who was responsible for
placing the notice had resigned and that position was still vacant at
the time the notice should have been placed. The notice was placed 42
days after the deadline and 90 days after the cleanup was completed.
* At one of the sites located in Salt Lake City (Region 8), regional
officials did not prepare a formal community-relations plan, even
though regional officials thought the cleanup could take more than 120
days to complete. Region 8 officials explained that, at the time the
memorandum justifying the need for the cleanup was issued, it would
have been reasonable to expect that the initial scope of the cleanup
would be completed within 120 days. Unfortunately, additional
contamination was discovered during a portion of the cleanup, which
required the completion date to be extended. However, the memo
justifying the cleanup indicated the cleanup might exceed 120 days.
Specifically, the memo stated "total costs of the removal action are
anticipated to exceed $2 million due to the size of the properties and
the extensive amount of soil contamination; and the large amount of
excavation and monitoring of landscape restoration may cause the
removal to extend past 12 months." Region 8 officials said that even
though a plan was not prepared for this site, the region conducted all
substantive community-relations activities that would have been
documented in a formal community-relations plan.
EPA Regions' Adherence to Public-Notification Guidance Varied:
Since the 1980s, EPA has issued policy and guidance documents providing
more direction to regional offices on how to ensure meaningful public
involvement in the agency's decision making processes, including
decisions related to the cleanup of hazardous waste. The key guidance
issued by EPA includes:
* January 1981. EPA issued its Public Participation Policy that
provided overall guidance and direction about reasonable and effective
means of involving the public in program decisions to public officials
who manage EPA programs. This policy defined public participation as
that part of EPA's decision-making process that provides opportunity
and encouragement for the public to express their views to the agency,
and assures that the agency will give due consideration to public
concerns, values, and preferences when decisions are made.
* July 1992. EPA published public participation guidance for on-scene
coordinators, who are responsible for directing cleanups.[Footnote 27]
This guidance stressed the need to (1) inform the public of the degrees
and types of risks associated with a site, planned or ongoing actions,
and other issues; (2) provide the public with an opportunity to comment
on decisions about the site; and (3) identify and respond to community
concerns.
* April 2000. The Director of EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response instructed all EPA regional offices to contact related state
or tribal and agency officials to notify them of the potential
evaluations of sites that received ore from Libby, Montana, and to
gather relevant information from these officials and solicit their
participation in site activities.
* April 2001. The EPA Administrator issued a policy memorandum that
endorsed "vigorous public outreach and involvement."
* October 2001. In an effort to encourage more substantive involvement
of communities from the very outset of a cleanup, the Acting Director
of EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response issued a policy
memorandum supporting "early and meaningful community involvement."
This memo stressed that even if the cleanup is an emergency removal,
community involvement should not be neglected or postponed. The memo
stated that while initial calls should be to state and local
authorities, soon thereafter, efforts should be made to reach out to
the entire community, which may have a high level of anxiety and
concern about health and safety.
* April 2002. EPA issued the Superfund Community Involvement Handbook
that contained detailed guidance on how to conduct public-notification
activities. This guidance states that while it is up to EPA officials
in charge of a site cleanup to decide what public-notification
activities are needed based on a site's circumstances, EPA's experience
has shown that, at most sites, just complying with NCP provisions is
not sufficient to adequately meet community needs. This guidance
recommends that regions use many other notification activities, such as
distributing fact sheets to let residents know about EPA's activities;
hosting public meetings to deliver information to large groups of
people; and, if community demographics indicate a need, translating
documents into appropriate languages.
* September 2002. EPA issued the Superfund Community Involvement
Toolkit, which provided EPA community involvement staff with practical,
comprehensive, easy to use guidance for designing and enhancing
community involvement activities. The Toolkit includes guidance on how
to conduct both required and recommended notification activities, such
as how to place public notices and how to conduct public meetings. The
Toolkit indicated an expectation that EPA staff should not just
distribute information to the public; it should promote meaningful
citizen participation in the decisions affecting sites.
As indicated in table 2, EPA regions varied greatly in the extent to
which they followed the agency's guidance for conducting public-
notification activities--with 9 of the 13 sites employing at least some
of the notification activities that went beyond NCP provisions. For the
cleanup sites located in Dearborn and Minneapolis (Region 5), EPA
engaged in many of the notification activities that are recommended by
NCP provisions. For example, at the Dearborn site, EPA coordinated with
the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services to determine
the best approach for providing information about the cleanup to the
Arab-American residents living near the site. EPA also distributed fact
sheets, printed newspaper notices in both English and Arabic, went door-
to-door to notify residents about the cleanup, and hosted two public
meetings, and conducted two direct mailings. At the Minneapolis site,
EPA went door-to-door to discuss the cleanup with residents, held
several public meetings, and distributed fact sheets. However, for the
sites located in Glendale, Newark, Phoenix, and Honolulu (Region 9),
and for the first phase of the cleanup of the site in Hamilton Township
(Region 2), EPA did not engage in notification activities beyond those
required by NCP provisions. According to both Region 2 and Region 9
officials, even though residential areas were located near each of
these sites, additional community-outreach activities were not
performed because the site settings, limited scope of the removals, and
the nature of the removal activities led them to conclude that it would
not be necessary.
Table 14: Summary of Public-Notification Activities beyond the NCP
Provisions As Reported by EPA:
Site: Dearborn, Michigan;
Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
[Check];
Issued press releases: [Check];
Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents‘ or business
owners‘ concerns: [Check];
Hosted public meetings: [Check];
Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
questions: [Check];
Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
owners: [Check];
Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
the cleanup: [Check].
Site: Denver;
Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
[Check];
Issued press releases: [Empty];
Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents‘ or business
owners‘ concerns: [Check];
Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
questions: [Empty];
Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
owners: [Empty];
Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
the cleanup: [Empty].
Site: Glendale, California;
Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
[Empty];
Issued press releases: [Empty];
Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents‘ or business
owners‘ concerns: [Empty];
Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
questions: [Empty];
Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
owners: [Empty];
Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
the cleanup: [Empty].
Site: Great Falls, Montana;
Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
[Check];
Issued press releases: [Empty];
Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents‘ or business
owners‘ concerns: [Check];
Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
questions: [Empty];
Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
owners: [Empty];
Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
the cleanup: [Empty].
Site: Hamilton Township, New Jersey Phase I.
Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
[Empty];
Issued press releases: [Empty];
Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents‘ or business
owners‘ concerns: [Empty];
Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
questions: [Empty];
Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
owners: [Empty];
Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
the cleanup: [Empty].
Site: Hamilton Township, New Jersey Phase II.
Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
[Check];
Issued press releases: [Empty];
Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents‘ or business
owners‘ concerns: [Check];
Hosted public meetings: [Check];
Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
questions: [Empty];
Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
owners: [Check];
Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
the cleanup: [Check].
Site: Honolulu;
Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
[Empty];
Issued press releases: [Empty];
Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents‘ or business
owners‘ concerns: [Empty];
Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
questions: [Empty];
Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
owners: [Empty];
Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
the cleanup: [Empty].
Site: Minneapolis;
Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
[Check];
Issued press releases: [Check];
Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents‘ or business
owners‘ concerns: [Check];
Hosted public meetings: [Check];
Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
questions: [Check];
Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
owners: [Check];
Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
the cleanup: [Check].
Site: Minot, North Dakota;
Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
[Check];
Issued press releases: [Empty];
Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents‘ or business
owners‘ concerns: [Check];
Hosted public meetings: [Check];
Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
questions: [Check];
Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
owners: [Empty];
Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
the cleanup: [Empty].
Site: Newark, California;
Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
[Empty];
Issued press releases: [Empty];
Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents‘ or business
owners‘ concerns: [Empty];
Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
questions: [Empty];
Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
owners: [Empty];
Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
the cleanup: [Empty].
Site: Phoenix;
Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
[Empty];
Issued press releases: [Empty];
Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents‘ or business
owners‘ concerns: [Empty];
Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
questions: [Empty];
Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
owners: [Empty];
Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
the cleanup: [Empty].
Site: Salt Lake City (Intermountain Insulation);
Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
[Empty];
Issued press releases: [Empty];
Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents‘ or business
owners‘ concerns: [Check];
Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
questions: [Empty];
Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
owners: [Empty];
Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
the cleanup: [Empty].
Site: Salt Lake City (Vermiculite Intermountain);
Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
[Empty];
Issued press releases: [Empty];
Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents‘ or business
owners‘ concerns: [Check];
Hosted public meetings: [Empty];
Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
questions: [Empty];
Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
owners: [Empty];
Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
the cleanup: [Empty].
Site: Wilder, Kentucky;
Distributed fact sheets or flyers to residents or business owners:
[Check];
Issued press releases: [Check];
Went door-to-door to discuss cleanup and solicit residents‘ or business
owners‘ concerns: [Check];
Hosted public meetings: [Check];
Placed a trailer on-site where residents could walk-in to ask
questions: [Empty];
Used direct mail to distribute information to residents or business
owners: [Empty];
Developed a website to provide updated information to the public about
the cleanup: [Check].
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[End of table]
State and Local Officials' Views Varied on the Effectiveness of EPA's
Public-Notification Efforts:
State officials we spoke with were mostly satisfied with EPA's efforts
to inform them about site cleanups in their jurisdictions. That is,
state officials from 7 of 12 sites were generally satisfied with EPA's
public-notification efforts (North Dakota officials did not respond to
our request for their views about the Minot site).
* At five of the seven sites (Glendale, Denver, Dearborn, and the two
sites located in Salt Lake City), state officials explained that when
EPA is the lead agency for a site, they typically expect EPA to inform
them about cleanups but do not expect to be involved in the final
decision-making process. For these sites, the state officials were
pleased with EPA's efforts to keep them informed about the site
evaluations, sampling results, and cleanup activities.
* At the other two sites (Minneapolis and Wilder), state officials
reported they worked hand-in-hand with EPA officials and were extremely
pleased with EPA's efforts to keep them informed about site activities.
For example, officials from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) collected samples with EPA Region 5 at the Minneapolis site and
officials from both agencies agreed the site needed to be cleaned up.
EPA and MPCA held joint public meetings to inform residents about the
contamination and went door-to-door in a wide area to determine if
residents had taken contaminated waste materials from the site to their
homes. Also, Minnesota Department of Health officials reported working
closely with EPA and MPCA to review site cleanup plans, ensure that
contractors were properly licensed, and obtain access to residential
properties so they could be tested for the presence of asbestos.
Similarly, for the Wilder site, officials from the Kentucky Department
of Environmental Protection (KYDEP) reported that EPA Region 4
officials continually communicated through e-mails, telephone calls,
written correspondence, and meetings. KYDEP officials worked closely
with EPA at the site, providing general oversight on the cleanup,
including removal and disposal of the asbestos-contaminated materials.
They coordinated with EPA on all aspects of the planned removal and
reported that EPA staff were very professional, knowledgeable, helpful,
courteous, and visible.
For three sites (Honolulu, Great Falls, and Hamilton Township), state
officials said they were not satisfied with EPA's efforts to inform
them about cleanup activities.
* Honolulu. Officials from the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) said
that an EPA Region 9 official stopped by their offices and mentioned
that the Honolulu site had received vermiculite ore from Libby,
Montana. About a year later, HDOH officials said they were copied on a
letter from Region 9 stating that there had been a release of asbestos
at the site. Subsequent to receiving this letter, an EPA Region 9
official stopped by the HDOH offices "as a courtesy" to let them know
EPA would be conducting a removal action at the site. However, HDOH
officials said they did not receive any more information from EPA about
the site and that they would have preferred having more advance notice
about the cleanup and information about the status of the cleanup as it
was being conducted.
* Great Falls. An official from the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) was very dissatisfied with EPA Region 8's lack of
notification about the cleanup. The site was a residence that was being
cleaned up because a former owner of the property who had worked at a
vermiculite processing facility in Great Falls had taken contaminated
waste product home to use on his driveway. The MDEQ official first
became aware of the site through an asbestos-abatement contractor who
had heard about the cleanup. The MDEQ official said he went to
investigate the site because EPA typically coordinates such matters
with him. The MDEQ official said he was not sure why EPA did not inform
him about the cleanup, but he considered this "slipshod" behavior.
* Hamilton Township. Officials from the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) said they first learned the site was
contaminated with asbestos when they were copied on an EPA Region 2
memorandum stating that the site needed to be cleaned up. They said
they received copies of two more EPA reports about the site before
being invited to a stakeholder meeting in March 2005 (approximately 1
year after the completion of the first phase of the site cleanup) to
discuss the site cleanup.[Footnote 28] The NJDEP officials said that
EPA had improved its public-notification efforts during the second
phase of the site cleanup. For example, since the beginning of the
second phase, EPA has held several public meetings and issued numerous
community updates. The NJDEP officials felt that EPA should have
notified them and local government officials about the first phase of
the cleanup in the same manner as was done for the second phase. In
general, NJDEP officials said EPA could improve public-notification
efforts by, among other things, providing additional public notices to
state and local officials, keeping the site's Web site up-to-date, and
by asking for and obtaining feedback from community members about what
their notification needs are, and then providing this information to
state and local agencies.[Footnote 29]
For the remaining sites in Phoenix and Newark, state officials said
they were neither entirely satisfied nor entirely dissatisfied about
Region 9's efforts to inform them about the site cleanups.
Specifically, officials from the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality said they received a report from Region 9 indicating that EPA
was assessing sites that had received Libby ore and that the Phoenix
site was being assessed. A letter accompanying the report indicated the
Phoenix site would be cleaned up, but did not indicate when the cleanup
would occur. While Arizona officials found it helpful that EPA kept
them informed about the assessments of sites that had received Libby
ore, they said it would have been better if EPA had informed them ahead
of time about when the Phoenix site would be cleaned up so they could
have been better prepared to answer the public's questions about the
cleanup. For the Newark site, an official from the California
Department of Health Services said EPA did not provide any information
to them directly about the site. Instead, they received most of their
information from ATSDR, who they understood was working closely with
EPA. Since the California Department of Health officials' view their
role in such situations as providing support to ATSDR, the official
said the Department would not necessarily expect EPA to notify it about
site cleanups. However, as a part of its efforts to help ATSDR
disseminate information to communities, in September 2003, the
California Department of Health found that officials in the City of
Newark and in the county government were not aware of the cleanup or
the site's history (the site cleanup began in April 2002).
Of the seven local governments that provided their views on EPA's
efforts to inform them about cleanups within their
jurisdictions,[Footnote 30] three (Dearborn, Minneapolis, and Salt Lake
City) said they were satisfied.
* Dearborn. City officials said EPA Region 5 did everything that could
have been done to inform the public about the cleanup. According to
these officials, EPA informed the mayor's office very early in the
process and asked the city to appoint a liaison to work with EPA on the
site cleanup. City officials also said EPA met with local government
officials and the emergency-management coordinator to determine any
concerns they might have. Overall, city officials thought EPA was
professional, in control of the situation, and cognizant that they
needed to maintain frequent contact with the residents.
* Minneapolis. City officials said they already had a good working
relationship with EPA Region 5 and were impressed with EPA's efforts to
be open and available to the community through, among other things,
public meetings and door-to-door contacts. They said that EPA was very
upfront with city officials, established good credibility with members
of the community, and was respected by local activist groups.
* Salt Lake City (two sites). Officials from the Salt Lake City
government said EPA's interaction with the local government was
excellent and EPA staff were always accessible to discuss their
concerns. EPA Region 8 staff first called them to explain that the
sites had processed asbestos-contaminated ore from Libby and were
likely contaminated. When the city public utility offices raised
concerns about whether contamination under the streets near one of the
sites was a threat to their employees, EPA met with them to address
their concerns. Once EPA began the removal action, EPA kept the local
government informed via weekly e-mails, three meetings, and a site
visit.
There were four sites (Newark, Wilder, Great Falls, and Hamilton
Township) where local government officials said they were somewhat to
largely dissatisfied with EPA's notification efforts.
* Newark. A city official said a Newark Fire Department official first
found out about the site cleanup from county health department
officials and the California Department of Health.[Footnote 31] After
hearing about the contamination and activities at the site, the fire
department official informed the city manager and the city's executive
team. The city officials said that EPA Region 9 had very little contact
with the local government as the cleanup proceeded.
* Wilder. A city official said he first learned about the site from a
local newspaper reporter and that EPA Region 4 notified the city after
it decided to clean up the site. According to this official, if the
city had known earlier, it could have cordoned off the area to prevent
children from riding their bikes through the site. The city official
was also concerned that EPA did not do enough to contact former workers
and identify people who took asbestos-contaminated waste rock from the
site to use in their yards.
* Great Falls. A city official at the Great Falls site said EPA Region
8 did not notify the city about the cleanup. After finding out about
the cleanup from an asbestos-abatement contractor, the city official
decided to investigate the site. The city official discovered the EPA
contractor performing the removal was not licensed to do work in the
city.[Footnote 32] In the opinion of the city official, EPA should have
notified the state government about cleanup activities and should have
asked the local government to appoint a liaison to work with EPA on
matters concerning the cleanup.
* Hamilton Township. During Phase I of the cleanup, township officials
said EPA Region 2 invited an official from the Hamilton Township
Department of Health to attend a visit to the site. During this visit,
township officials said the city health department official was told
that EPA was going to clean up the site. Township officials said that
other than EPA's request for a permit to place a construction trailer
on the site, they did not receive any further communication until after
the first phase of the cleanup was completed. At that time, township
officials said the New Jersey Department of Health asked the Hamilton
Township Department of Health to help organize a public meeting about
the second phase of the cleanup; the Hamilton Township Department of
Health then informed the mayor's office about the cleanup. According to
township officials, while EPA did place an administrative record for
the site in the local library, the agency did not notify local
officials that it was available for review. Township officials said
that since the second phase of the cleanup began, EPA has been doing a
"great job" keeping local officials informed. According to township
officials, the catalyst for change was getting the mayor's office
involved in the cleanup. In their opinions, because staffs in mayors'
offices can help ensure communities are informed and that all parties
are working together, it is important for EPA to keep mayors' offices
informed about cleanup activities.
Many Community Members Believe EPA Should Have Done More to Notify Them
about Cleanups:
Ultimately, it is the affected community members who most need
information about the health risks posed by the presence of asbestos
contamination in their neighborhoods. Accordingly, to obtain detailed
insights into the effectiveness of EPA's efforts to reach these
individuals, we conducted focus groups at three sites--Hamilton
Township, New Jersey; Minot, North Dakota; and Dearborn,
Michigan.[Footnote 33] We discussed five key issues at these locations:
(1) how the community members first became aware of the cleanup; (2)
the content, visibility, and usefulness of the public notices EPA
placed to inform the community about the cleanups; (3) overall views of
EPA's efforts to notify the community about the cleanup; (4)
information about site cleanups that community members need; and (5)
the best methods to reach out and inform affected members of the
community. Overall, participants in Dearborn were supportive of EPA's
efforts, but their counterparts at the other two sites generally
characterized EPA's notification efforts as ineffective.
How Community Members First Became Aware of Cleanups:
According to the NCP provisions, EPA must at a minimum notify
immediately affected citizens and others of cleanup activities. EPA
notification guidance recommends that EPA perform outreach and other
community-involvement activities as early as possible. For example, the
guidance suggests EPA could meet with local officials, media, and
residents during the initial site assessment to explain EPA's removal
program. At two of the three sites, however, most discussion group
participants said EPA did not notify them about the cleanups before
they began. At Minot, nearby residents said they did not know anything
about the cleanup until they saw contractors in "space suits" working
at the site. At Hamilton Township, most focus-group participants said
they found out about the site cleanup through articles in local
newspapers. In contrast, participants in the Dearborn focus group said
they first heard about the cleanup when EPA officials canvassed the
neighborhood delivering letters explaining what was happening at the
site and through public meetings in the neighborhood.
Content, Visibility, and Usefulness of Public Notices:
The NCP public-notification provisions state that within 60 days of
initiation of cleanup activities, EPA must publish an announcement in a
major newspaper indicating the administrative record, which discusses
EPA's planned cleanup action, is available for public review.
Furthermore, the provisions state that EPA must provide a public-
comment period, as appropriate, of not less than 30 days from the time
the administrative-record file is made available for public
inspections. EPA guidance describes critical information that should
appear in public notices and states that they should contain (1)
background information about the site, which may include the location
of the site and the contaminant involved; (2) the location of the
information repository and the hours during which the repository is
open; (3) the dates of the public comment period, if applicable; (4)
the time, date, and location of the public meeting, if applicable; and
(5) the name of the agency contact to whom written comments on the
administrative record file should be addressed. The guidance also
states that public notices should be placed in well-read sections of
newspapers and specifically indicates that if a well-written notice is
hidden in the classified section of a newspaper, it will not reach many
people. The guidance also recommends using a simply-stated message in
easily understood language. It even includes WordPerfect® templates of
public notices with graphics to help regional staff easily modify the
text to fit site-specific needs.
Based on this guidance, the notices EPA placed for all of the three
focus-group sites were deficient in some respects. In particular, the
notice for the Hamilton Township site did not give the address of the
site, did not mention the contaminant of concern, and did not provide
the dates of the public-comment period. This notice also appeared in
the classified section of a local newspaper among many other classified
advertisements. Figure 8 shows the content and placement of the
Hamilton Township notice. Although the notice for the Minot site
appeared in a well-read section of a local paper, it appeared in very
small print, did not contain the contaminant of concern, or the dates
of the public-comment period. In contrast, the notice for the Dearborn
site appeared in well-read sections of multiple newspapers and
contained all the critical information except the hours during which
the repository would be open (see fig. 9).[Footnote 34]
Figure 10: Content and Placement of the Hamilton Township Notice:
[See PDF for image]
Text of the notice:
Notice of Public Availability:
The United States Environmentla Protection Agency (EPA) announces the
availability for public review the administrative record files for the
selection of the removal action at the W.R. Grace/Zonolite Site in
Hamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. The EPA seeks to inform
the public of the availability of the record file at this repository
and to encourage the public to comment on documents as they are placed
in the record file.
The administrative record file includes documents which form the basis
for the selection of a removal action at this site. Documents now in
the record file include: Action Memorandum, Sampling and Analysis
Plans, Sampling Investigation Reports, EPA Regional guidance documents
list, and other technical documents. Other documents may be added to
the record files as they become available. These additional documents
may include, but are not limited to, other technical reports, validated
sampling data, comments, and new data submitted by interested persons,
and the EPA resonses to significant comments.
The administrative record files are available for review during normal
busniess hours at:
Hamilton Township Library:
1 Municipal Drive;
Hamilton, NJ 08619:
(609)581-4060.
U.S. EPA Region II:
Removal Records Center:
2890 Woodbridge Avenue:
Building 205:
Edison, NJ 08837:
(732)906-6980.
Additional guidance documents and technical literature is available at
the following location:
U.S. EPA Region II:
Removal Records Center:
2890 Woodbridge Avenue:
Building 205:
Edison, NJ 08837:
(732)906-6980.
Written comments on the Administrative Record should be sent to:
Michael Ferriola, On-Scene Coordinator:
Response and Prevention Branch:
U.S. EPA Region II:
2890 Woodbridge Avenue:
Building 209 (MS-211):
Edison, NJ 08837.
Note: This is the EPA public notice for the Hamilton site that appeared
in the classified section of a local newspaper.
[End of figure]
We asked participants from the three focus groups to evaluate the
usefulness of the public notices that EPA had placed for the sites in
their neighborhoods. Focus group participants at two of the sites
(Hamilton Township and Minot) said they did not see the notices when
they were published. After examining the notices during the focus-group
meetings, all the participants said the notices did not indicate a
threat to their health, did not leave them with the impression that
they were to seek out additional information, or that there was a site
in their neighborhood contaminated with a hazardous material. For the
Hamilton Township site, one participant said the notice gave the
impression that all the studies had been completed and nothing more was
to be done. For the Minot site, the participants said the notice was in
such small print that it would be hard to find in a newspaper,
especially if the notice ran for only one day. Another participant from
Minot said they would probably ignore the notice because it does not
convey useful information and is very bureaucratic and vague. After
examining the Minot notice, one participant who owns a business in the
city commented, "I run ads for a living, and if I ran ads like that,
our company would've been broke a long time ago."
All but one of the participants in the Dearborn focus group said they
had seen the notice for the site when it was published, and all the
participants commented that it was placed in a well-read section of a
newspaper and conveyed useful information up front. This information
included the address of the site, the contaminant involved, essential
information about a public meeting, and contacts for further
information. When the Dearborn group compared the notice for that site
with the Hamilton Township notice, they commented that the Dearborn
notice was much clearer and the Hamilton Township notice lacked key
information, such as the location of the site and the contaminant of
concern.
Figure 12: Content and Placement of the Dearborn Notice:
[See PDF for image]
Text of the notice:
Work to begin and meeting to be held for former W.R. Grace site,
Dearborn, Michigan.
EPA contractors will begin moving equipment and mobile ofices to the
former W.R. Grace site at 14300 Henn Street, Dearborn. This is for work
towards cleaning up asbestos particles in and around the former
vermiculite (asbestos) stite there.
EPA will also be talking with residents and homeowners the week of
April 4 to find out whether any of the asbestos-tainted vermiculite
material could have made its way into their yards. EPA is primarily
concerned about the residential areas bounded by Chase Road on the
west, Schaefer Road on the east, Ford Road on the south, and the
railroad tracks and Warren Avenue to the north.
EPA is hoping to have contacted these residents and homeowners no late
than April 8 in order for the work to proceed on schedule. In addition
to contacting residents individually, EPA employees will be leaving
instructions in the doors of homes they visit. One item being left is a
small card for the residents/owners to fill out and drop into a box
located by the Henn Street site trailers. This card will let EPA know
the best time to contact the resident/owner. There are alos two toll-
free numbers to reach EPA: (866) 242-3224 or (800)621-8543, extension
67578. Locally, the number to the Arab Community Center for Economic
and Social Services (ACCESS) facility is (313)216-2227.
EPA will hold a public meeting in the auditorium of Fordson High
School, 13800 Ford Road, Dearborn, Tue3sday, April 5, from 6:30 p.m. to
8:30 p.m. You should enter the meetiing from the southeast corner of
the building in the east parking lot and follow the signs. At the
meeting we will discuss the work being done in the neightborhood and
how we can amke this project easier on you. Joining us at the meeting
will be our project partners, Michigan Department of Community Health,
the Federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality and others. We will also be
available individually to talk about your property.
Technical information for the former W.R. Grace site can be found in
the official site administrative record at Henry Ford Community
College, Eshleman Library reference section, 5101 Evergreen Road,
Dearborn.
For information and special accomodations for the meeting, or about the
project in general, please contact:
Dave Novak:
EPA Community Involvement Coordinator:
(800)621-8431, extension 67478:
Weekdays, 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Source: Heritage Newspapers/Press and Guide, March 30, 2005.
Note: This is the EPA public notice for the Dearborn site that appeared
in the news section of a local newspaper.
[End of figure]
Views on EPA's Overall Efforts to Notify the Community about the
Cleanups:
For two of the three focus groups (Hamilton Township and Minot),
participants reported that EPA's efforts to inform them about the
cleanups were largely ineffective. For the Hamilton Township site, most
of the participants said they did not receive any fliers or any other
information from EPA about the cleanup. None of the participants in the
Minot focus group said they had heard anything about the cleanup before
it began, even though they all lived close to the site. None said they
had received any fliers or saw EPA officials walking around the
neighborhood. One participant, whose backyard borders the site, said he
noticed workers in hazmat suits working at the site and asked them what
they were doing. The participant said the engineer in charge of the
cleanup provided him with information and agreed to set up air monitors
to ensure that he and his neighbors were not exposed to elevated levels
of asbestos during the cleanup. None said they had heard about the
administrative record for the Minot site or about any opportunities for
providing comments to EPA.
In contrast, participants in the Dearborn focus group said EPA
effectively informed the community about the cleanup. They reported
that EPA held several public meetings and even had a wrap-up meeting
after the cleanup was completed. The participants said all the notices,
fliers, and letters had contact information on them in case the
residents had questions, and EPA had an information trailer at the
cleanup site where residents were welcome to stop in with their
questions. In addition, according to the participants, EPA officials
were always readily available to respond to concerns. For example, when
EPA became concerned that some residents might have taken the
contaminated waste product home to use in their yards, the participants
said EPA walked around the neighborhood and hand delivered letters
asking permission to access people's properties for inspection. Also,
according to one participant, when some residents expressed concern
about the spread of contamination during windy conditions, EPA set up
monitors and stopped work at the site when the wind speed went above a
certain level. Finally, because of the number of Arab-American
residents in the community, participants said EPA provided notices and
letters in both English and Arabic.
Information That Community Members Need about Site Cleanups:
For those focus-group participants who did not have an opportunity to
ask EPA questions about the site cleanups, we asked what information
they would have wanted EPA to provide. While Dearborn participants said
they had ample opportunities to ask EPA questions and received the
information they needed, participants in the other two focus groups
(Hamilton Township and Minot) said they would have asked questions
about the following:
* Sampling, including what areas EPA sampled; whether there would be
any off-site sampling; the results of the sampling; and how they could
be sure their property was not contaminated.
* Conduct of the cleanup, including what areas are being cleaned up;
how the soil will be removed and what precautions will be taken to keep
asbestos fibers from becoming airborne; how EPA will dispose of the
contaminated dirt; whether there will be a follow-up information
session after the cleanup is completed; and whether there will be
continued monitoring for a designated period of time after the cleanup.
* Health risks, including what health risks are associated with the
site cleanup; what health risks are present before the site is cleaned
up; who the contact is for questions about the risks and health effects
associated with asbestos exposure.
Best Methods to Inform Affected Members of the Community:
In the three focus groups, community members suggested several methods
of notification that would have helped them understand the situation.
In general, participants from all focus groups thought using multiple
methods of communication would help ensure that more people are
informed about cleanups. One participant pointed out, for example, if
someone does not read a notice about a cleanup in a newspaper, they
might find out about it instead by reading a flier that is placed on
their door. Participants from all three groups agreed that fliers,
letters, public meetings, and door-to-door contacts were effective.
Some in the Hamilton Township focus group commented that since they
received automated phone calls to remind them to vote, perhaps it would
be possible for EPA to provide information about cleanups in a similar
fashion. The importance of including contact numbers on all handouts,
fliers, and letters was stressed by some participants in the Dearborn
focus group. In addition, some of the Dearborn participants said that
it was useful to have the trailer at the cleanup site.
Conclusions:
To its credit, EPA has agreed to undertake a risk and toxicity
assessment for the type of asbestos found in Libby ore. It expects to
complete the assessment in 2010. Until then, EPA cannot be assured that
of the 271 sites that it assessed, only 19--those generally exceeding
thresholds for asbestos contamination--need to be cleaned up; nor can
it be assured that the sites still having detectable levels of asbestos
do not pose a risk to public health and the environment. As we noted,
the thresholds EPA used are not health based. Furthermore, the methods
EPA used to determine levels of asbestos contamination early in its
assessment process are not as accurate as currently available methods.
Resampling the sites that EPA initially sampled with these newly
available and more reliable sampling and analytical techniques would be
a major commitment for EPA; this step may nonetheless need to be taken
for at least some of these sites to provide a more accurate assessment
of the threats they pose. Hence, in addition to identifying a
defensible health-based threshold, EPA will also need to determine the
implications of the new sampling and analytical techniques to determine
which sites may still need to be cleaned up.
Community members who live and work near sites where hazardous
materials are being removed need to understand how cleanups are being
conducted and have opportunities to voice any concerns they have. While
EPA has recognized the need to obtain early and meaningful community
involvement in cleanup decisions, and taken actions in recent years to
strengthen its efforts to inform the public, we found that at the 13
sites where asbestos contamination from Libby ore was being cleaned up,
several of the EPA regions did not fully implement NCP notification
provisions and some did not adhere to the notification guidance. We
believe this provides sufficient indication that similar problems may
be occurring at other cleanup sites nationwide where EPA is responsible
for conducting public-notification activities. Also, the feedback that
we received during focus groups from community members living and
working near cleanup sites indicates, among other things, that the
notices EPA relies on to inform community members about cleanup
activities were deficient in some respects.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the EPA Administrator direct the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response to determine (1)
the manner and extent to which newly available sampling and analysis
techniques should be used to re-evaluate the threat that the sites
receiving Libby ore may pose to human health, and (2) whether any
additional sites that received the Libby ore need to be cleaned up when
the results of the risk and toxicity assessment--now scheduled to be
completed in 2010--are available.
We also recommend that the Administrator direct the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response to review regional offices' implementation
of the National Contingency Plan public-notification provisions and
associated guidance and ensure that, in the future, (1) regional
offices appropriately determine the extent of community outreach needed
and (2) newspaper notifications are prominent and written in clear
language that contains all critical information, such as the name of
the contaminant, the location of the site, and the associated health
risks.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to EPA and ATSDR for comment. EPA
responded in a letter dated September 21, 2007, which indicated that it
generally agreed with our recommendations and said that the agency is
taking steps to address many of the issues identified in the report.
Both EPA and ATSDR also provided technical comments which we
incorporated as appropriate. Appendix II includes EPA's September 21,
2007 letter, along with our point-by-point response to their individual
comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the congressional requesters
and other interested parties. In addition, we will send copies to the
EPA Administrator, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the
Secretary of Labor. We will also make copies available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We were asked to (1) describe how the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies assessed and addressed
potential risks at the facilities that received asbestos-contaminated
vermiculite ore from a mine in Libby, Montana, and the results of these
efforts; and (2) determine the extent and effectiveness of the EPA
regions' efforts to notify the public about the cleanup of facilities
that received the contaminated ore.
Due to concerns of the Department of Justice and EPA that our work
could impact an ongoing federal criminal case against W.R. Grace--the
company that owned the vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana, and some of
the processing facilities that received ore from Libby--and the need to
avoid undue influence in the case, we designed our methodology to
minimize direct contact with EPA staff.[Footnote 35] Accordingly, we
obtained most of the information we needed about EPA's assessments of
the sites that received Libby ore and the agency's public-notification
activities at the sites that were cleaned up by submitting questions to
EPA in writing; the agency provided written responses. We did not
further pursue access to this information because we had sufficient
data to respond to our objectives.
EPA's Assessment of Sites:
To address the first objective, we obtained from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services' Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) a table of sites that had potentially received
contaminated ore from Libby, Montana. This table was largely based on
data that ATSDR received from EPA about each of the sites identified as
receiving ore from the Libby mine. The table included, for each site,
the location, type of facility, and limited information on the status
of EPA's assessments of the sites as of April 2003. The table also
included information on the amount of ore received by each site as of
April 2001. After revising the table to include only the information
needed to address our objectives, we sent the revised table to EPA and
requested that EPA verify, update, and complete the information in the
table. We also submitted in writing a set of questions to clarify the
data in the table and a set of questions to assess the reliability of
the information in the table for the purposes of our report, focusing
mainly on the data about the amount of ore received by each site.
From March 2006 to May 2007, through a series of correspondences, we
obtained EPA's responses to our written questions and information about
the site data, which are reflected in this report. Based on EPA's
responses regarding the accuracy and completeness of the information in
the table of sites, we determined the data are adequate to provide
conservative estimates of the amount of ore received by each site.
We also collected and analyzed relevant documentation about sites from
EPA's Superfund record centers, which are public repositories. In
addition, we collected and analyzed ATSDR's health consultations
prepared for selected sites that received ore from Libby, Montana.
We also obtained and analyzed several documents that relate to EPA's
actions to clean up sites in Libby, Montana, and the sites that
received Libby ore. These documents included: the National Contingency
Plan (NCP) regulations that implement the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA); February
and April 2000 memoranda from EPA's Director of the Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response to all EPA regions regarding assessment of sites
that received Libby ore; 2001 EPA Office of Inspector General's report
entitled "EPA's Actions Concerning Asbestos-Contaminated Vermiculite in
Libby, Montana"; GAO's 2003 report entitled "Hazardous Materials: EPA's
Cleanup of Asbestos in Libby, Montana and Related Actions to Address
Asbestos-Contaminated Materials"; and an August 2004 memorandum from
the Director of EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation to EPA regions regarding clarification of asbestos cleanup
goals.
EPA's Public-Notification Efforts:
To address the second objective, we limited our review to the 13 sites
that were being cleaned up and for which EPA had public-notification
responsibility. These sites were located in Phoenix, Arizona; Glendale
and Newark, California; Denver, Colorado; Honolulu, Hawaii; Wilder,
Kentucky; Dearborn, Michigan; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Great Falls,
Montana; Minot, North Dakota; Hamilton Township, New Jersey; and two
sites located in Salt Lake City, Utah. We interviewed officials from
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response to obtain general
information about public-notification provisions to which EPA is
subject and any guidance that EPA has issued instructing regional
offices about their responsibilities for complying with these
provisions. In April 2006, we submitted structured questions in writing
to EPA's headquarters and 10 regional offices to determine compliance
with public-notification provisions and any additional community-
notification efforts that took place at the 13 sites. From April 2006
to May 2007, through a series of correspondences, EPA provided
responses to these questions and various follow-up questions in
writing.
We developed sets of structured questions to assist in obtaining state
and local government officials' perspectives on the public notification
that took place in communities where cleanups occurred. To identify the
state and local government agencies involved in the cleanups and
officials in those agencies most knowledgeable about the notification
that took place at each site, we obtained some names from the
administrative records for the sites being cleaned up. In some cases,
we asked EPA to provide the names of state and local agencies or
officials they worked with during the cleanups. For sites where we only
had the name of an agency, we called the agency and asked for the
person who would be most knowledgeable about the site. We conducted
these interviews in person and by telephone. We interviewed officials
in the following state offices: Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality, California Department of Toxic Substances Control and
California Department of Health Services, Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment, Hawaii Department of Health, Kentucky
Department for Environmental Protection, Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality, Minnesota Department of Health and Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Montana Department of Environmental Quality,
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey
Department of Health and Senior Services, and the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality.[Footnote 36] We also interviewed officials from
the following local governments: Newark, California; Alameda County,
California; Wilder, Kentucky; Dearborn, Michigan; Minneapolis,
Minnesota; Great Falls, Montana; Hamilton Township, New Jersey; Minot,
North Dakota; and Salt Lake City, Utah.[Footnote 37]
To obtain community members' perspectives on the extent and
effectiveness of EPA's public-notification efforts, we conducted focus
groups to gather qualitative information about their attitudes,
beliefs, and perceptions. Four focus groups were conducted in Wilder,
Kentucky; Dearborn, Michigan; Minot, North Dakota; and Hamilton
Township, New Jersey to ensure geographic diversity. In order to help
compare notification practices across EPA regional offices, we selected
sites that were located in different EPA regions. Other criteria for
selection included the amount of ore received and whether the cleanup
action had been completed or was ongoing.
We contracted with a marketing research firm, Marketing Systems Group,
to obtain randomly selected names, addresses, and telephone numbers of
100 community members who lived or worked within a half-mile radius of
each of the sites. We mailed a letter and brief questionnaire to each
randomly selected community member to provide them some background
information about our study, obtain information about the number of
years they had lived in the communities, and determine whether they
would be willing to participate in a focus group. We contacted the
community members who returned questionnaires indicating they would be
willing to participate. To increase the number of focus-group
participants, we called the community members who did not return
questionnaires, to determine if they could participate. We also
contacted former workers and their family members who lived in each
community to determine if they would be willing to participate in focus
groups. The focus groups had between 4 and 14 participants.
In conducting the focus groups, the focus-group moderator encouraged
the participants to speak freely. Following a GAO-developed discussion
guide, the moderator asked the participants to give their perspectives
on (1) how they first became aware of the cleanups, (2) the content and
usefulness of public notices about the cleanups, (3) EPA's overall
efforts to notify their communities about the cleanups, (4) information
that the community members need about site cleanups, and (5) best
methods for informing them about the cleanups.
While generating mailing lists for the focus-group sites, the
contracting firm inadvertently provided contact information for
residences that lived over one-half mile from the Wilder site. After
the error was discovered, the contractor provided corrected contact
information for residences within a half-mile of the site. However,
because the people who attended the Wilder focus group were either
former workers or residents who lived more than one-half mile from the
site, we decided not to include the results of that focus group in this
report.
We also obtained and analyzed several documents that related to EPA's
responsibilities for notifying the public about cleanups at sites that
received Libby ore. These documents included: the public-notification
provisions of the NCP regulations that implement CERCLA as amended;
EPA's 1981 Public Participation Policy; EPA's 1992 Public Participation
Guidance for On-Scene Coordinators; EPA's 1997 guidance on Publishing
Effective Public Notices; EPA's 2002 Superfund Community Involvement
Toolkit; EPA's 2002 Superfund Community Involvement Handbook; and EPA's
FY 2006/2007 Superfund Program Implementation Manual.
We performed our work from August 2005 to October 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Office Of Solid Waste And Emergency Response:
Washington, D.C. 20460:
September 21 2007:
Mr. John B. Stephenson:
Director Natural Resources & Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G. Street, NW, Room 2135:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft GAO-07-1008 Report
entitled "Hazardous Materials: EPA May Need to Reassess Sites Receiving
Asbestos-Contaminated Ore from Libby, Montana, and Should Improve Its
Public Notification Process". We generally agree with the
recommendations in the report and are taking steps to address many of
the issues identified by GAO.
In addition to our response provided below to the GAO recommendations,
we have also included additional detailed comments on the draft report
in an effort to more accurately present the Agency's activities.
I. EPA's Response to GAO's Recommendations:
GAO Recommendation 1:
We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, direct the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response to (1) determine
the manner and extent to which newly available sampling and analysis
techniques should be used to reevaluate the threat that the sites
receiving Libby ore may pose to human health and (2) when the results
of the risk and toxicity assessment - now scheduled to be completed in
2010 - are available, to determine whether any additional sites that
received Libby ore need to be cleaned up.
EPA Response:
Historically, asbestos has been addressed in the Superfund program by
applying the definition of asbestos-containing material (ACM) contained
in the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP). Under the NESHAP, ACM is material containing > 1% asbestos as
analyzed by polarized light microscopy (PLM). OSWER Directive 9345.4-05
(Clarifying Cleanup Goals and Identification of New Assessment Tools
for Evaluating Asbestos at Superfund Cleanups, EPA 2004), which was
released in August 2004, indicated that the 1% definition may not be
reliable for assessing potential human health hazards from asbestos
contaminated soils at hazardous waste sites, and that instead a risk-
based, site-specific action level is appropriate when evaluating
response actions for asbestos.
The 2004 OSWER Directive was instrumental in steering asbestos
investigations to a risk-based paradigm. However, it did not provide
guidance for investigating and evaluating asbestos risk at sites. EPA
believes that further work is needed in this area and a recently
developed draft Asbestos Site Assessment Framework (i.e., draft report:
Framework for Investigating Asbestos-Contaminated Superfund Sites - a
report by the Asbestos Committee of the Technical Review Workgroup
(TRW) of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response) provides
systematic procedures for consistently evaluating asbestos sites and
could serve to provide a technical basis for addressing the GAO
recommendation to reevaluate sites receiving Libby ore. The document
(1) provides a recommended flexible framework for investigating and
evaluating asbestos contamination that can be used for removal and
remedial actions within the Superfund program, and (2) it provides
detailed recommended standard operating procedures (SOPs) for
collecting data on the nature and extent of asbestos contamination at
Superfund sites. The framework discusses specific strategies and
methods that are based on the best available science for characterizing
exposure and risk from asbestos. In brief, the approach recommended in
the framework is as follows:
* Asbestos fibers in outdoor soil, indoor dust, or other source
materials present the greatest concern when the asbestos is released
from the source material into air where it can be inhaled. If inhaled,
asbestos fibers can increase the risk of developing lung cancer,
mesothelioma, pleural fibrosis, and asbestosis.
* The relationship between the concentration of asbestos in a source
material and the concentration of fibers in air that results when the
source is disturbed is very complex, depending on a wide range of
variables. To date, no method has been found that reliably predicts the
concentration of asbestos in air given the concentration of asbestos in
the source.
* Because of this limitation, this Framework emphasizes an empirical
approach, a combination of soil, dust and air samples. Concentrations
of asbestos in air at the location of a source disturbance are measured
rather than predicted.
* Measurements of fiber concentrations in air that are based on
personal air monitors are generally preferred over stationary air
monitors, since the personal monitors more accurately reflect the
concentration of asbestos in the breathing zone of the exposed person.
Activity based sampling (ABS) is a personal monitoring approach that
can provide data for risk assessment and is emphasized in this
framework. ABS is a standard method used by industrial hygienists to
evaluate workplace exposures. ABS can be useful for assessment of both
outdoor soil and indoor dust.
* To allow for improved risk assessments, the analytical procedure used
to analyze samples from a site should capture information concerning
the specific mineralogy and morphology of asbestos fibers that are
present. Hence, the TRW is recommending that a modification of the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Method 10312
generally should be used for measuring asbestos at Superfund and other
hazardous waste sites.
Depending on its application, potential limitations of the ABS approach
may include the representativeness of samples over an area of concern
and the ability to generalize findings from a point in time and space
to future exposures, other locations, and differing environmental
conditions. Site specific data quality objectives and sampling plans
should consider such issues prior to sample collection. Furthermore,
cost of ABS approaches and sample analysis, analytical sensitivity, and
difficulties of the situation should be considered in the planning
process.
The Framework does not seek to provide direction or guidance on risk
management decisions which may be required during a site assessment.
The key management decision, however, typically is how to interrupt or
eliminate the complete inhalation exposure pathway. As always, EPA
believes that risk management issues should be evaluated by the site
manager, with input from the site scientific teams, stakeholders,
Regional management, and legal staff, as appropriate. The document is
currently being distributed for regional review with an expectation of
a final document early in FY 08.
The toxicity studies being performed in the Libby Action Plan will
provide additional toxicity data that can be used to determine whether
additional clean-up is needed at sites receiving Libby ore. These
studies will assess the toxicity of the form of asbestos found in Libby
ore, and an epidemiological study of workers processing Libby ore will
provide toxicity values for additional health effects (i.e., non-
cancer).
GAO Recommendation 2:
We also recommend that the Administrator direct the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response to review regional offices' implementation
of the National Contingency Plan public notification provisions and
associated guidance to ensure that, in the future, (l) regional offices
are appropriately determining the extent of community outreach needed
and (2) newspaper notifications are placed prominently and are written
in clear language that contains all critical information, such as the
name of the contaminant, the location of the site, and the associated
health risks.
EPA Response:
EPA agrees that it is important to communicate with the community and
state and local government officials regarding cleanups in their areas.
Sections of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) are specifically
designed to allow rapid action by EPA responders when there is an
urgent threat to human health and the environment.
A key principle guiding EPA public outreach efforts under the NCP is
the discretion allowed in how much public outreach should be conducted
during site cleanups. EPA believes that the GAO report does not
adequately discuss the differences in the scope of cleanup at the
various vermiculite sites and its impact on the type and extent of
public outreach efforts.
For example, the Great Falls site in Region 8 was a single residence
where a former worker at an exfoliation plant had taken asbestos wastes
and placed them in his driveway, exposing his family to asbestos as
well as the families who later purchased the home. For this type of
site, the privacy of the homeowner must be considered and it would be
inappropriate to widely distribute fact sheets or conduct public
meetings. Instead, the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) met with State and
local officials and with neighbors in the near vicinity of the one-yard
cleanup. (See comment 1.)
Conversely, the Region 5 site in Minneapolis involved hundreds of
residences where residents had taken home contaminated "free crushed
rock" from the exfoliation plant. Region 5 provided extensive outreach
in identifying those contaminated properties and communicating with
hundreds of potentially affected homeowners. The Dearborn site which
involved the sampling of hundreds of homes is another similar example.
It is EPA's experience that there are a variety of community concerns
during cleanup. For example, communities may be sensitive to the
perceived stigma of having a Superfund site. The neighborhoods
surrounding sites may be residential, industrial or rural. Commercial
businesses may be sensitive that customers could have a negative
impression if the business is located within or near a Superfund site.
Farmers and ranchers may be sensitive that their commercial food
production may be rejected if the public erroneously believes that the
food has been impacted by contamination. EPA takes all these factors,
and many others, into account to exercise their discretion of the
appropriate level of public outreach.
There are a number of national activities sponsored by EPA Headquarters
which provide an opportunity to strengthen community outreach and
public notification efforts and review and improve upon current
practices. EPA believes that existing mechanisms can be used
effectively to address public notification and community outreach
concerns raised in the GAO report.
Notably, EPA holds an annual national conference, "On-Scene-Coordinator
Readiness Training" which offers nationally approved training along
several technical and policy tracks including community outreach. Over
the past several years, OSC Readiness has offered courses on Risk and
Crisis Communication and Temporary Relocation issues focusing on the
impacted community. The upcoming February 2008 OSC Readiness Conference
will include training courses on Advanced Media Relations, Conducting
Effective Community Involvement at Removal and Emergency Response
Sites, and Temporary Relocation.
Another significant national effort conducted annually is the Core
Emergency Response and Removal Program Evaluation. This evaluation
methodology was first used in 2001 and, since then, has been conducted
annually with ongoing improvements. In its current version, a team of
EPA reviewers conducts the evaluation of each region's Emergency
Response and Removal Program across key elements including Public
Information and Community Involvement. The review typically addresses
such issues as following established protocols for interactions with
the media and adherence to policies and guidance for site-specific
community relations.
Regions have scored high on this element, although continuous
improvement is always an objective and, based on the GAO
recommendations in this area, a specific focus on community outreach
activities and newspaper notifications may be warranted.
II. EPA Detailed Comments on GAO's Report:
Page 4, lines 24-25 (see also page 27, 5th bullet, page 28 line 16 and
page 29, lines 9-11):
Delete "and in Minneapolis, MN and Dearborn, MI, they did not hold a
comment period." The public comment period is discretionary for a time
critical removal. (See comment 2.)
Page 6, lines 7-9:
Sentence should read: "Thus, even though the Libby mine closed around
1990, many residents, including former workers as well as non-workers,
have been recently diagnosed....." (see comment 3.)
Page 6, the paragraph below Figure 1:
We do not believe that "Between 1980 and 1982 EPA conducted several
studies on the potential health risks from exposure to asbestos-
contaminated vermiculite". Our understanding is that the MRI
study/report was not a "health risk" study, but an unsuccessful attempt
to understand the kind of environmental air releases that were
occurring at the mine site. While other study or literature reviews
were produced at EPA, the only "health" related studies that were being
undertaken at this time were the Lockey/O.M.Scott study in Marysville,
Ohio and the NIOSH DRDS study, which had been initiated in 1980 but had
not yet obtained W.R. Grace's (WRG) cooperation by 1982. (see comment
4.)
Page 7, at the end of the paragraph carrying over from page 6:
Suggest that the report mention that EPA cited and fined WRG (in the
early 1990s) for failure to submit relevant information under Toxic
Substance Control Act (TSCA). The information that WRG had generated
over a decade earlier (prior to the O.M. Scott incident) was an animal
study which concluded that exposure to Libby tremolite produced
fibrosis and malignancies in the test population in a far more
aggressive manner than other fowls of asbestos. (See comment 5.)
Page 7, in the paragraph beginning with line 14:
The draft report states that "...EPA began investigating, and, in 2000,
began cleaning up contamination at the Libby mine." (see comment 6.)
EPA has not ever undertaken a cleanup of the Libby Mine, but of former
WRG-owned properties in the Libby community that were sold (by WRG) to
individuals and the city, and of locations in the community where
tremolite contaminated vermiculite and vermiculite wastes were found.
Recommend making a correction to the statement in the report.
Page 8, after the paragraph carrying over from page 7 and footnote 8:
GAO may want to additionally cite the criminal indictment's allegations
that W.R. Grace engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the EPA and NIOSH
during the late-1970s/early 1980s (see [hyperlink,
http://www.mtb.uscourts.gov/mtd/images/590.pdf] for details). The GAO
and IG reports cited only looked at EPA's activities during that time
frame, they did not look at the conduct of W.R. Grace. (At this time,
the indictment is only an allegation.) (See comment 7.)
Page 8, lines 10-11:
Suggest removing "and determining whether a cleanup action is needed."
Determining whether or not a cleanup action is needed is done in the
EE/CA (Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis) for non-time critical
actions or in the Action Memorandum for an Emergency Response or Time-
Critical Removal. (See comment 8.)
Page 10, lines 24-25:
Suggest revising the sentence to read, "These 194 sites together are
believed to have received at least 6 million tons of ore from the
Libby, Montana mine and ore processing operations". (See comment 9.)
Page 15, lines 10-13:
The report states that the clean up standard of 1% asbestos is based on
weight. The l% threshold is based on percent area (of a microscopic
field). (See comment 10.)
Page 15-16 and as a general comment regarding 1% threshold value:
There is a need to clarify that a 1% cut-off (i.e., not cleaning up
asbestos at levels below this threshold) level for asbestos soil
contamination is not sufficient for EPA Superfund sites. A 1% level can
and has been used for identification of areas at a site that can be
rapidly remedied but is not adequate as a cut-off for areas that are
contaminated below 1%. In fact, the GAO report's discussion of the use
of 1% as cleanup threshold should mention that the scientific findings
of EPA and ATSDR regarding the Libby, Montana Superfund site were
specifically cited in a 2004 nationwide memorandum to all EPA Superfund
National Superfund Managers which advised that, although 1% is used as
a threshold Ievel in a variety of regulatory programs, "Regions should
not assume that materials containing less than 1 percent asbestos do
not pose an unreasonable risk to human health." Please refer to
previously submitted memorandum from Michael B. Cook, Director, Office
of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, August 10, 2004. As
noted in response to GAO recommendations, EPA is currently drafting
additional guidance on this subject. (See comment 11.)
EPA requests that GAO clarify the significance and intent of the 1%
threshold value where it is referenced throughout the document, in
order to prevent creating confusion that may mischaracterize EPA's
position on asbestos site assessment and cleanup efforts.
Page 16, footnote 13:
For a site in Brutus, New York, assessment activities are on-going and
EPA has not yet determined if a cleanup action will occur" This
statement should be changed to indicate that the assessment decision
has been made and the Region is drafting a report to document its
decision at this time. (See comment 12.)
Suggested edit: "For a site in Brutus, New York, after a review by a
Regional risk assessor and the OSC working on the project, it has been
decided that the Site is not eligible for a federal CERCLA removal
action. The assessment report documenting the decision is being drafted
for management review and approval."
Note: This decision was reported in the comment's column of the Region
2 Site Summary Chart (Attachment 1 - Appendix B Region 2 List of
Asbestos Sites 5-17-07.xls) on page 2, GAO ID Number 123 and in the
Weedsport Fact Sheet (Attachment 3 - FS Weedsport.5-16-17.wpd). These
attachments were submitted to the GAO through EPA HQ on May 21, 2007.
Page 16, footnote 13 and Page 17, note under Figure 5:
The footnotes make reference to Ellwood, Pennsylvania. The correct
reference should read Ellwood City, Pennsylvania. (See comment 13.)
Page 20, lines 27-28:
Report states: "Since the plants no longer process Libby ore, current
residents living around the sites are not now being exposed through
processing." (See comment 14.)
This statement fails to recognize that current residents may still be
exposed through residues at the site. The Hamilton, NJ facility had not
been in production for over ten years, but there was still tremendous
amount of residues from the expansion plant on the inside of the
building that was owned and operated by a document destruction company.
We believe that the experience Region 2 had at the Hamilton, NJ
expansion plant should factor in this analysis. A closed investigation
(statute of limitations issues) disclosed that information received
from WRG was misleading and inaccurate. The same offices at WRG that
ATSDR and EPA were using to gather information from are tied to charges
of obstruction. This was borne out in Hamilton where enormous
quantities of vermiculite wastes were found buried behind the facility
and underneath concrete pads laid just prior to the closure of the
expansion plant in 1994-96. As it has been previously discussed, the
inclusion of the criminal case in the equation of these facilities
alters their evaluations significantly.
Page 21, footnote 18:
As a point of additional information and clarification, Region 2 used a
combination of a PLM Standard Method (CARE 435) which has a detection
limit 0.25% followed by TEM analysis on a selected number (10%) of the
PLM samples, as a check and to further assess its soil samples at the
Hamilton Township and the Weedsport sites. This was one of the
approaches recommended by the Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. (See comment 15.)
"The PLM method can detect fibers with lengths greater than – 1 um,
widths greater than 0.25 µm, and aspect ratio (length to width ratios)
greater than 3. Detection limits for PLM methods are typically 0.25% -
1%." [Footnote 38]
Page 22, lines 7-8:
Last sentence of the first paragraph is incomplete (i.e., text appears
to be missing from the last sentence). (See comment 16.)
Page 22, footnote:
Where does this text belong? "This is the analytical technique that
many regulations are based on (e.g. occupational exposure). PCM has
limited use because it cannot differentiate between asbestos and non-
asbestos fibers. For this reason, it was sometimes used in combination
with TEM." (See comment 17.)
Is it part of Footnote 18 on page 21?
Page 25, lines 7-12:
"Detailed work plans for these studies are currently being developed
and will involve consultation with other agencies and will undergo
external peer reviews. Two of the studies are scheduled to be completed
by the end of fiscal year 2007 and the other 10 studies by the end of
fiscal year 2009. The milestone date for completing the baseline risk
assessment, including the comprehensive toxicity assessment, is the end
of fiscal year 2010." (See comment 18.)
Should be replaced with the following:
"Detailed work plans for five new toxicology studies have been
completed with consultation from other agencies and external peer
reviews. Two studies are continuations of on-going efforts. Detailed
work plans for remaining studies are currently being finalized. All
studies are scheduled to be completed by the end of calendar year 2009
although some test animals may be evaluated beyond this date depended
on the latency of responses. The milestone date for completing the
baseline risk assessment, including the comprehensive toxicity
assessment, is the end of fiscal year 2010."
Page 27, 5th bullet:
..EPA must, as appropriate, provide the public no less than 30 days to
provide comments about the cleanup and prepare a written response to
significant comments. (See comment 19.)
Page 28, line 16:
Delete, "and did not hold a public comment period." The public comment
period is discretionary. (See comment 20.)
Page 28, footnote 26 (also page 35, line 17):
The footnote should state that a previous owner had worked at a
facility... (See comment 21.)
Page 29, lines 9-11:
Suggest revising to the following, "EPA Region 5 officials explained
that the NCP does not require EPA to hold a comment period for removal
actions. They noted that the NCP allows EPA latitude.... (See comment
22.)
Page 29, lines 24-25:
The revised report states the notice for the Wilder site was placed 21
days after the deadline. While the review findings correctly state that
the region did not announce the notice of availability for the
administrative record within 60 days of the response initiation,
regional records indicate the region issued a press release regarding
the notice on the 66th day. EPA mobilized onsite for the response
September 8, 2003, and issued a press release to announce the
availability of the administrative record on November 13, 2003. A copy
of the press release was provided with the May 21, 2007 review
comments. Including the above information will more accurately present
EPA community activity at this site. (See comment 23.)
Page 33, Table 2:
Mass mailings were used at the Western Mineral site in Minneapolis, MN.
Please update Table 2 to reflect the use of direct mail to inform
residents. (See comment 24.)
For the Minot, ND site, the EPA OSC was available at the on-site
trailer (see also comments for page 46). Please update Table 2
accordingly.
Page 35, lines 7-16:
Regarding the Honolulu site, a Hawaii State OSC was contacted by the
U.S. EPA OSC. During the removal action, two Hawaii State OSCs visited
the site and reviewed the removal action while the cleanup was being
conducted. This removal action consisted of excavating one cubic yard
of soil from a planter box; scraping approximately 4 square feet of
vermiculite off a wall; and wet wiping, followed by spray encapsulation
of three wood trusses. The removal action was concluded in a short time
period, and the Hawaii State OSCs expressed satisfaction with the
conduct of the removal. Information regarding the scope of the cleanup
effort should be included in the final report along with the
involvement of the Hawaii State OSCs. (See comment 25.)
Page 35, lines 15-17:
Great Falls: "An official from the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) was very dissatisfied about EPA Region 8's lack of
notification..." This is inaccurate. EPA Region 8 notified the Montana
DEQ regarding the Great Falls cleanup. The personnel notified at the
Montana DEQ were John Podolinsky and Craig French. EPA does not know
who GAO contacted at the Montana DEQ, but it is inaccurate to report
that EPA Region 8 did not notify this agency. Suggest that this
information is removed from the draft report or that the report
includes EPA's position on notification of the Montana DEQ. see comment
26.)
Page 36, footnote 29:
Region 2 believes that its contacts.and communications with the NJDEP
during the early stages of the site investigation process were not
"informal" communications. The communications did initially begin as
verbal communications at the Joint EPA, NJDEP, and NYSDEC Program
Meeting in March of 2000. At the request of the NJDEP, an e-mail was
sent to them on April 13, 2000. It provided additional information on
the proposed approach, the intent of the agency to conduct CERCLA
investigations and, if warranted, CERCLA responses at the sites on the
inventory of sites. The NJDEP was notified of the Region's plan of
action and requested to provide any relevant information in their
possession to assist the Region with its .investigations. The program
outlined in the e-mail was followed at the Hamilton Township, NJ site
and the ultimate outcome of the EPA investigative effort was that a
CERCLA action (Phase I) was completed and a Phase II CERCLA action is
currently ongoing at the site. If desired, EPA can provide copies of
the actual correspondence and information sent to the NJDEP on April
13, 2000. (see comment 27.)
During the time of the Hamilton site work, telephone conversations
between Janet Smolenski, NJDEP removal/remedial project coordinator,
and James Daloia Team Leader for the EPA Region II Emergency Response
program took place on a regular basis. The purpose of these telephone
conversations was to share information between the two program offices
of the NJDEP and the EPA and to receive and provide timely updates of
various removal site activities including the Hamilton Township site.
As far as this project is concerned, it was and is the belief of the
Removal Program that EPA/NJDEP communications continue to be effective.
Page 38, lines 13-19:
In March 2003, EPA Community Involvement staff traveled to Wilder,
Kentucky to meet with city officials for the purpose of informing them
of the site as well as to establish a location within city hall to use
as an office for community relations activities. EPA mobilized onsite
for the response on September 8, 2003. This information should be
included in the final report. (See comment 28.)
Page 38, lines 20-21:
Great Falls: The EPA OSC did notify city officials regarding the
cleanup. Regarding the contractor licensing issued raised by a city
official, EPA is not required to use contractors licensed with a
particular city or to obtain permits. This information should be noted
in GAO's report. (See comment 29.)
Page 40, lines 13-15:
"At two of the three sites, however, most discussion group participants
said EPA did not notify them about the cleanups before they began. At
Minot...." As previously provided in response to GAO's "Questions and
Request for Documents" dated April 5, 2006, for the Minot site EPA
distributed fact sheets, held a public meeting, and went door-to-door
to discuss the upcoming removal action. Information pertaining to EPA's
community outreach activities for this site should be included in this
section. (See comment 30.)
Page 46, lines 20-21:
EPA conducted a number of effective community outreach activities for
the Minot, ND site including: (l) EPA's hand-delivered fact sheet; (2)
EPA's public meeting; (3) EPA's door-to-door visits; (4) the front page
article in the Minot Daily News; or (5) the availability of the EPA On-
Scene Coordinator at the on-site trailer. Documentation regarding these
efforts was provided to GAO in the site file and response to their
"Questions and Request for Documents" dated April 5, 2006. By limiting
questioning of the focus group to the public notice for the
administrative record, the draft report reaches an inaccurate
conclusion regarding EPA's efforts for community outreach at the site.
Page 46 of the draft report states that, "participants from all three
groups agreed that fliers, letters, public meetings, and door-to-door
contacts were effective." The Minot Site included three of these four
recommendations. Because the focus group interview was conducted nearly
four years after the cleanup and because relevant materials from this
site do not appear to have been used in the interview, EPA disagrees
with the findings of the Minot focus group and recommends that they not
be included in the final report. The Minot Site should not be used as
an example of poor community outreach either in the lead paragraphs of
the report, or anywhere in the body of the report since this site did
have good community outreach by EPA. (See comment 31.)
Page 47, lines 6-7:
"...nor can it be assured that even these 19 sites now pose minimal
risk to public health and the environment." (See comment 32.)
This conclusion as written is too broadly. At many sites, such as
Minot, Salt Lake City, and Great Falls, cleanups were performed to
remove all amphibole asbestos on the ground surface. Confirmation
samples on the excavated ground surfaces showed no detections of
amphibole asbestos following cleanup. EPA would agree with a statement
that sites still having detectable levels of asbestos may pose a risk.
If this is the intent of the GAO conclusion, the report should state
this more specifically and not include broad statements about sites
which were cleaned up to no detectable levels of asbestos.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review GAO's draft report. Your
consideration of our comments will be appreciated.
Signed by:
Susan Parker Bodine:
Assistant Administrator:
The following are GAO's comments on the Environmental Protection
Agency's letter dated September 21, 2007.
GAO Comments:
1. GAO does note in the report that the Great Falls site in Region 8
involved a single residence where a former worker at a facility that
processed Libby ore had taken contaminated waste product from the plant
to his residence to resurface his driveway. While GAO acknowledges that
the privacy of the homeowner should be considered, providing the public
with information about such contamination could alert others who also
used the waste ore for similar purposes on their properties. Our review
of information on EPA's evaluations of sites that received Libby ore
revealed that one of the primary concerns was whether former employees
or the general public took asbestos-contaminated waste ore from the
sites to use in their gardens or to landscape their properties. Indeed
a review of EPA documentation related to the plant in Great Falls where
the homeowner worked indicates that another former employee interviewed
by EPA stated that some people requested and were allowed to take dust
left over from the processing of the ore to use in their gardens.
While GAO acknowledges that it is important to consider community
concerns in deciding the extent of public notification needed during
site cleanup, for the sites that received Libby ore, widely
disseminating information about these sites to the general public could
help identify former workers and others that could have been exposed in
the past to the asbestos in the ore. These people, in turn, could
provide valuable information that could help EPA in identifying
contaminated areas that need to be cleaned up, such as where waste rock
was dumped.
2. We did not make the suggested change. The statement is factually
accurate and we already note the discretionary nature of the relevant
NCP provisions in the report. Region 5's reasoning for not holding
public comment periods for these sites is also reflected in the report.
3. We changed the text to read, "Thus, even though the Libby mine
closed around 1990, many residents, former workers, and others who were
exposed to the asbestos-contaminated ore recently have been diagnosed
with asbestos-related diseases and many more may become ill in the
future."
4. We changed text to read, "Between 1980 and 1982, EPA issued a series
of reports related to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite. Most of these
reports indicated that there was a lack of data on both exposure to
asbestos-contaminated vermiculite and its adverse health effects.
Further, the reports identified problems in sampling, analysis, and
reproducibility of data regarding low levels of asbestos in
vermiculite, which made it difficult to acquire data on exposure and
health effects."
5. We added a footnote stating that EPA cited and fined W.R. Grace in
the early 1990s for failure to submit relevant information under the
Toxic Substances Control Act.
6. We changed the text throughout the report as appropriate to clarify
that EPA is cleaning up properties in the Libby area.
7. We revised the report to include the following statements: "As part
of an ongoing criminal case against W.R. Grace, the government has
alleged that Grace engaged in a conspiracy to defraud EPA and the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health by concealing and
misrepresenting the nature of the asbestos-containing vermiculite
produced at the mine. Grace has denied the allegations."
8. Under the NCP, a removal site evaluation includes a removal
preliminary assessment and, if warranted, a removal site inspection. 40
C.F.R. § 300.410(a). A preliminary assessment includes, among other
things, an "evaluation of factors necessary to make the determination
of whether a removal is necessary." 40 C.F.R. § 300.410(c)(1)(iv). We
now use this language in the report.
9. We changed the language to read, "These 195 sites are believed to
have received a combined total of at least 6 million tons of ore from
the Libby, Montana mine and ore processing operations."
10. We changed the text throughout the report as appropriate to clarify
that the 1 percent asbestos standard is based on the percentage of the
area of a microscopic field.
11. We did not make any changes as a result of this comment because the
report already includes a discussion of this memorandum.
12. EPA had previously indicated to us that that the Removal Evaluation
Report was pending for this site. We interpreted this as meaning that
the final decision had not been made. The report has been updated to
indicate that a final assessment decision has been made for the site in
Brutus, New York, and the Region is drafting the report to document
this decision.
13. We made the change suggested by EPA.
14. We clarified the language to read, "Since the plants no longer
process Libby ore, current residents living around the sites are no
longer being exposed through air emissions from processing activities
at the plants."
15. We did not make any changes based on this comment because it was
for additional information and clarification and was not intended to
suggest a specific change to the report.
16. The sentence is now complete. It reads "After conducting additional
sampling at one of these sites, EPA determined the site required
further cleanup."
17. We did not make any changes based on this comment because the text
is part of a footnote.
18. We changed the text to read, "Detailed work plans for five of these
studies have been completed with consultation from other agencies and
external peer reviewers. Two other studies are continuations of ongoing
efforts. Detailed work plans for the remaining five studies are
currently being finalized. All studies are scheduled to be completed by
the end of calendar year 2009. The milestone date for completing the
baseline risk assessment, including the comprehensive toxicity
assessment, is the end of fiscal year 2010."
19. No change was made; the text in the bullet already contains the
phrase "as appropriate".
20. We did not make the suggested change. The statement is factually
accurate and we already note the discretionary nature of the relevant
NCP provisions in the report.
21. We made the change suggested by EPA.
22. We did not make the suggested change. We already noted the
discretionary nature of the relevant NCP provisions in the report.
23. We revised the text to read, "and at the Wilder site, the notice
was placed 6 days after the deadline."
24. We made the changes suggested by EPA.
25. We did not make the suggested change. In our correspondence with
EPA about the Honolulu site, EPA indicated that the Hawaii Department
of Health was involved in the cleanup. We contacted the Hawaii
Department of Health and were directed to officials identified as being
knowledgeable about the cleanup. The views expressed in the report are
those of the officials we were directed to. During our interview with
these officials, they stated the state OSC did do a drive by of the
site before the cleanup began, but said the state was not involved
around the time of the removal.
26. We did not make the suggested change. In the case of the Great
Falls site, we called the Montana Department of Environmental Quality
and asked to speak to the state staff EPA said were involved with this
site. We were directed to another person identified as being
knowledgeable about the cleanup. The views expressed in the report are
those of the official we were directed to. In response to EPA's
comment, we tried to contact the two staff named by EPA again. One
person was no longer working for the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality and the other person said the official that we
spoke to originally was the main contact for that site and that he had
nothing to add to the information we already had about the site.
27. We sent a copy of EPA's comments to the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) for their review. These officials
responded that they agree with GAO's summary of NJDEP's comments as
presented in the report. They further stated that concerning the Phase
I removal action at the Hamilton Township site, NJDEP continues to
maintain that EPA's notice to NJDEP of the Phase I removal action at
the site could have been better. The officials said the March 24, 2000,
meeting referred to in EPA's comments was a regularly scheduled,
biannual meeting between NJDEP's Emergency Response Bureau and EPA's
response unit to discuss general removal activities and to coordinate
the activities of the Region 2 states (New York and New Jersey) with
those of the EPA. NJDEP officials said the attendees at this meeting
remember a short discussion about the probability that the vermiculite
ore from Libby, Montana, contained asbestos and that this ore was
shipped throughout the United States, but none of the attendees
construed this as official notification to NJDEP of asbestos
contamination at the Hamilton Township site. NJDEP added that the
"inventory of sites" and the "Agency Statement on Vermiculite Facility
List" sent by EPA to NJDEP following the March 2000 meeting
specifically stated that the "list [of vermiculite sites] is evolving
and is subject to change as more information becomes available;
therefore, EPA cannot verify the accuracy of this list." NJDEP did not
view these documents as any kind of official notification of a clean up
action to be undertaken at the Hamilton Township site.
NJDEP reiterated that it first learned of the proposed removal action
at the Hamilton Township site not in 2000, but rather only when it was
copied on a November 6, 2002 Action Memorandum. It subsequently was
copied on two Pollution Reports, dated January 30, 2004, and February
27, 2004, but did not learn that the removal action was completed until
March 2005, when NJDEP attended a stakeholder meeting.
During the time of the Phase I removal action, NJDEP said that it does
not dispute that EPA communicated with Janet Smolenski of NJDEP by
copying her on the two Pollution Reports referenced above and by
general telephone conversation(s) with Jim Daloia of EPA. The officials
said there are no other records in NJDEP's files to indicate that EPA
sent any additional Pollution Reports to NJDEP, nor are there records
of the specific telephone conversations held.
28. We did not make the change suggested by EPA. In the case of the
Wilder site, we called the city of Wilder and asked to speak to the
staff with the most knowledge about the cleanup. This person was also
listed as a city contact in EPA's community-relations plan for the
Wilder site. The views expressed in the report are those of that
official.
29. We did not make the first change suggested by EPA. In the case of
the Great Falls site, we called the city of Great Falls and were
directed to a person identified as being knowledgeable about the
cleanup. The views expressed in the report are those of the official to
whom we were directed. Regarding the contractor licensing issue raised
by a city official, we noted the information that EPA provided in a
footnote.
30. Table 2 of the draft report already indicates that, for the Minot
site, EPA distributed fact sheets, held a public meeting, and went door-
to-door to discuss the removal action. The views presented in the
report are those of residents who lived within a half-mile of the Minot
site. In fact, as pointed out in the report, one focus group
participant's backyard bordered the cleanup site. GAO cannot explain
why EPA's public-notification efforts apparently failed to reach the
participants in the focus group.
31. Focus-group participants were asked if they had heard that EPA was
cleaning up the sites before the cleanup started, including receiving
any fliers from EPA, hearing about any public meetings sponsored by
EPA, or seeing any EPA officials walking around their neighborhoods.
For the Minot site, the views presented in this report are those of
residents who lived within a half-mile of the site. In fact, as pointed
out in the report, one focus group participant's backyard bordered the
cleanup site. GAO cannot explain why EPA's public notification efforts
apparently failed to reach the participants in the focus group.
32. We clarified the language to avoid any inference that sites that
were cleaned up to non-detectable levels still pose a risk.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Steve Elstein, Erin
Lansburgh, David Stikkers, and Lisa Turner made key contributions to
this report. Also contributing to the report were Richard Johnson,
Jeremy Manion, Stuart Ryba, Stephanie Sand, Carol Shulman, and Monica
Wolford.
Footnotes:
[1] 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et. seq.
[2] Facilities that exfoliated the ore--or heated it until it expanded
or popped--are of particular concern because this processing method
released higher amounts of asbestos than methods used at other
facilities.
[3] United States v. W.R. Grace, Crim. No. 05-07, D. Mont., filed Feb.
7, 2005.
[4] Asbestos minerals fall into two groups or classes--serpentine and
amphibole. The vermiculite ore from the Libby mine contained amphibole
asbestos. Regulated minerals in the amphibole class are actinolite,
anthophullite, amosite, crocidolite, and tremolite.
[5] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, Priority Review Level 1--Asbestos-Contaminated
Vermculite (Washington , D.C., June 1980).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances,
Decision Paper for Asbestos-Contaminated Vermiculite (Washington, D.C.,
August 1981).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances,
Disposition Paper for Asbestos-Contaminated Vermiculite (Washington,
D.C., August 1982).
Midwest Research Institute, Collection, Analysis and Characterization
of Vermiculite Samples for Fiber Content and Asbestos Contamination, a
report developed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (Washington, D.C., September 27,
1982).
[6] Versar, Inc., Exposure Assessment for Asbestos Contaminated
Vermiculite, a report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, (Washington, D.C., February 1985).
[7] EPA cited and fined W.R. Grace in the early 1990s for failure to
submit relevant information under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
[8] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Inspector
General, EPA's Actions Concerning Asbestos-Contaminated Vermiculite in
Libby, Montana (Washington, D.C., March 31, 2001) and GAO, Hazardous
Materials: EPA's Cleanup of Asbestos in Libby, Montana, and Related
Actions to Address Asbestos-Contaminated Materials, GAO-03-469
(Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2003).
[9] The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is the
federal agency responsible for conducting research and making
recommendations for the prevention of work-related injury and illness.
The Institute is a part of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention in the Department of Health and Human Services.
[10] Since data on the amount of ore received at 76 of the sites is not
available, the 6 million tons is likely to understate the amount of ore
shipped.
[11] For 11 sites in Region 4, EPA's files did not contain sufficient
documentation to determine definitively whether the sites had been
visited.
[12] For 22 sites in Region 4, EPA's files did not contain sufficient
documentation to determine definitively if sampling had taken place.
[13] For one site in Region 5, sampling results were unavailable
because the site file was lost. For one site in Region 6, sampling had
been completed but the results were not available when we last received
data about sites located in that region in November 2006.
[14] There were three sites that had asbestos contamination in excess
of the 1 percent threshold but were not cleaned up. For one of those
sites located near Center, North Dakota, residual contamination was
limited to a hopper used to process vermiculite ore. According to
company officials, Libby ore was used for a 28-day trial period in the
early 1980s and had not been used since. The company agreed to have
trained asbestos workers remove the residual vermiculite from the
hopper, and EPA Region 8 officials decided no further action was
needed. For a site in Brutus, New York, after a review by a regional
risk assessor and the EPA official in charge of the project, it was
decided that the site is not eligible for cleanup under CERCLA. The
assessment report documenting this decision is being drafted for
management review and approval. In May 2007, EPA notified us that it
had recently decided to also clean up a site located in Ellwood City,
Pennsylvania. Since this decision was made after we completed our
analysis of the site data, we did not include this site as one of the
cleanup sites in this report.
[15] ATSDR is also conducting several other projects focusing on the
health effects of exposure to asbestos fibers in Libby ore. For
example, ATSDR is evaluating available data on asbestos-related cancers
and asbestos-related mortality in communities located near
approximately 70 vermiculite processing facilities to help determine
whether additional health studies are needed. Also, ATSDR has initiated
Pilot Mesothelioma Surveillance projects in New York, New Jersey, and
Wisconsin to (1) better understand environmental and occupational
exposure to asbestos among newly diagnosed mesothelioma patients, (2)
evaluate a possible association between mesothelioma and the asbestos
fibers in Libby ore, and (3) determine if further study is needed to
clarify the ways in which people were exposed to asbestos fibers in
Libby ore. ATSDR is also involved in the National Asbestos Health
Program, which is intended to assess the prevalence of asbestos-related
conditions among current and former workers and their household
contacts at selected sites in Arizona, California, Minnesota, and New
Jersey that processed Libby ore.
[16] These reports and fact sheets have been made public through the
media and on the Internet. The health consultations can be found at
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/asbestos/sites/national_map/.
[17] Facilities that exfoliated the ore--or heated it until it expanded
or popped--are of particular concern because this processing method
released higher amounts of asbestos than methods used at other
facilities.
[18] EPA used polarized light microscopy (PLM) at most of the 28 sites
to visually estimate the percent of asbestos in bulk samples. This type
of analysis can distinguish between asbestos and nonasbestos fibers and
different types of asbestos fibers but cannot reliably detect asbestos
in low concentrations. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM), a more
sensitive analytical method than PLM, was also used at some sites. TEM
can distinguish between asbestos and non-asbestos fibers and asbestos
types. It can be used at higher magnifications, enabling identification
of smaller asbestos fibers than can be seen by other techniques. One
disadvantage of this technique is that determining asbestos
concentration in soil and other bulk material is difficult. Phase
contrast microscopy (PCM), which is generally used to measure asbestos
fibers in air samples, was used at a few sites. This is the analytical
technique that many regulations are based on (e.g., occupational
exposure). PCM has limited use because it cannot differentiate between
asbestos and non-asbestos fibers. For this reason, it was sometimes
used in combination with TEM.
[19] 38 Fed. Reg. 8821.
[20] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response Directive 9345.4-05, Clarifying Cleanup Goals and
Identification of New Assessment Tools for Evaluating Asbestos at
Superfund Cleanups (Washington, D.C., August 10, 2004).
[21] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Asbestos Project Plan
(Washington, D.C., November 2005).
[22] IRIS, prepared and maintained by EPA, is an electronic database
containing information on human-health effects that may result from
exposure to various chemicals in the environment. IRIS was initially
developed for EPA staff in response to a growing demand for consistent
information on chemical substances for use in risk assessments,
decision-making, and regulatory activities.
[23] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General,
EPA Needs to Plan and Complete A Toxicity Assessment For the Libby
Asbestos Cleanup (Washington, D.C., December 2006).
[24] The National Toxicology Program, based in the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, is an interagency program that was
established in 1978 to coordinate toxicology testing programs within
the federal government; strengthen the science base in toxicology;
develop and validate improved testing methods; and provide information
about potentially toxic chemicals to health, regulatory, and research
agencies, scientific and medical communities, and the public.
[25] Cleanups at 3 of the 13 sites (Wilder,Ky.; Minneapolis, Minn.; and
one of the sites in Salt Lake City, Ut.) were expected to exceed the
120-day time limit.
[26] The site was a residential property. A previous owner of this
property had worked at a facility in Great Falls, Montana, that
processed Libby ore. The property was heavily contaminated because the
owner had taken asbestos wastes from the processing facility to his
residence and used it to resurface his driveway.
[27] The on-scene coordinator is the federal official responsible for
monitoring and directing responses to all oil spills and hazardous-
substance releases reported to the federal government.
[28] Due to funding limitations, this removal was conducted in two
phases. Phase I was initiated in November 2003 and completed in April
2004. Phase II was initiated in August 2006.
[29] EPA Region 2 officials indicated they had additional contacts with
NJDEP officials during which the Hamilton site was discussed. NJDEP
reviewed EPA's written account of the additional contacts. NJDEP
officials stated that they continue to maintain that EPA's notice to
NJDEP of the Phase I removal action at the site could have been better
and that they agree with GAO's summary of their views as presented in
this report.
[30] Local government officials for the other five sites either
declined to provide their views or did not respond to our request for
their views.
[31] A county health department official also reported that they did
not receive any information from EPA about the Newark site.
[32] In commenting on this report, EPA stated that it is not required
to use contractors licensed with a particular city or to obtain
permits.
[33] We also conducted a focus group in Wilder, Kentucky, but decided
not to use the results of this focus group. Our approach in selecting
focus group sites, the procedures used in conducting these focus
groups, and reasons for not using the results of the Wilder group are
discussed in detail in appendix I.
[34] Since EPA Region 5 decided not to hold a public-comment period for
this site, the Dearborn notice did not contain the dates of the public-
comment period. GAO did not consider this a deficiency of the notice
itself.
[35] United States v. W.R. Grace, Crim. No. 05-07, D. Mont., filed Feb.
7, 2005.
[36] Officials from the North Dakota Department of Health did not
respond to our request for an interview regarding the site located in
Minot, North Dakota.
[37] For the Phoenix, Glendale, Denver, and Honolulu, either the
officials contacted did not respond to our request for an interview or
they declined our request.
[38] Health Consultation Zonolite/W. R. Grace Site 35 Industrial Road
Hamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. (Prepared by the New
Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services for ATSDR.)
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, DC 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice:
(202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, DC 20548:
Public Affairs:
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, DC 20548:
