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