When EPA began cleaning up contamination in the Libby area in 2000, it  also took steps to identify and evaluate sites that may have received  shipments of Libby ore for asbestos contamination according to CERCLA. Federal Agencies Have Assessed Sites Thought to Have Received Asbestos- Contaminated Ore but Did So without Critical Information about Safe Exposure Levels

EPA, with assistance from other federal and state agencies, has assessed  271 sites that were thought to have received asbestos-contaminated ore  from Libby, Montana, to determine if the sites are contaminated with  asbestos and if they need cleanup. As a part of ATSDR’s effort to  evaluate public-health risks posed by past and current exposures to  asbestos contamination in the Libby area and at some of the sites that  received the Libby ore, ATSDR has noted there is an absence of key  information on the toxicity of the asbestos found in the Libby ore. ATSDR  also noted that the methods EPA used to sample and analyze the air and  soil at most of the 28 sites it reviewed have since been improved and now  better quantify asbestos levels. In general, a cleanup would be  performed if sampling results indicated that asbestos was present in  amounts greater than 1 percent (based on the percentage of the area of a  microscopic field) in soils or debris or greater than 0.1 asbestos fibers per  cubic centimeter of air. In December 2006, EPA’s Office of Inspector General reported that EPA  had not completed a toxicity assessment of the type of asbestos found in  the Libby ore and that this information was necessary to determine the  safe level of exposure for humans. EPA Regions Did Not Consistently Implement Public- Notification Provisions and Adhere to Guidance

At most of the 13 sites for which EPA had public-notification  responsibilities, EPA regions did not implement key notification  provisions of NCP. Similarly, while community members  participating in two of three focus groups were disappointed overall in  EPA’s efforts to inform them about cleanups in their neighborhoods, the  participants in the third group were very satisfied with EPA’s efforts. At the Denver, Colorado site (Region 8), although officials established an  administrative record, they did not notify the public that the record was  available for review and did not hold a public-comment period. At two of the three sites, however, most discussion group  participants said EPA did not notify them about the cleanups before they  began. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We were asked to (1) describe how the U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies assessed and addressed  potential risks at the facilities that received asbestos-contaminated  vermiculite ore from a mine in Libby, Montana, and the results of these  efforts; and (2) determine the extent and effectiveness of the EPA regions’  efforts to notify the public about the cleanup of facilities that received the  contaminated ore.
Due to concerns of the Department of Justice and EPA that our work  could impact an ongoing federal criminal case against W.R. Grace—the  company that owned the vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana, and some of  the processing facilities that received ore from Libby—and the need to  avoid undue influence in the case, we designed our methodology to  minimize direct contact with EPA staff. EPA’s Public-Notification Efforts

To address the second objective, we limited our review to the 13 sites that  were being cleaned up and for which EPA had public-notification  responsibility. Four focus groups were conducted in Wilder, Kentucky;  Dearborn, Michigan; Minot, North Dakota; and Hamilton Township, New  Jersey to ensure geographic diversity. The milestone date for completing the  baseline risk assessment, including the comprehensive toxicity  assessment, is the end of fiscal year 2010.”  19.
Why GAO Did This Study

Between 1923 and the early 1990s, a mine near Libby, Montana, shipped millions of tons of asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore to sites throughout the United States. In 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to clean up asbestos contamination at the Libby mine and evaluate those sites that received the ore to determine if they were contaminated. Under Superfund program regulations and guidance, EPA regional offices took steps to inform affected communities of contamination problems and agency efforts to address them. GAO was asked to (1) describe the status of EPA's and other federal agencies' efforts to assess and address potential risks at the facilities that received contaminated Libby ore and (2) determine the extent and effectiveness of EPA's public notification efforts about cleanups at sites that received Libby ore. GAO, among other steps, convened focus groups in three of the affected communities to address these issues.

What GAO Found

Since 2000, EPA has evaluated 271 sites thought to have received asbestos-contaminated ore from Libby, Montana, but did so without key information on safe exposure levels for asbestos. Based on these evaluations, 19 sites were found to be contaminated with asbestos from the Libby ore and needed to be cleaned up. EPA or the state of jurisdiction generally led or oversaw the cleanups. In general, a cleanup would be performed if sampling results indicated asbestos was present in amounts greater than 1 percent (based on the percentage area in a microscopic field) in soils or debris or greater than 0.1 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of air. However, these standards are not health-based and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry found that the sampling and analysis methods EPA used at most of the sites it examined were limited and have since been improved. The EPA Office of Inspector General reported in December 2006 that EPA had not completed an assessment of the toxicity of the asbestos in the Libby ore. Until it completes this assessment, EPA cannot be assured that the Libby site itself is cleaned to safe levels, nor will it know the extent to which the sites that received Libby ore may need to be reevaluated. EPA has agreed to complete a risk and toxicity assessment by the end of fiscal year 2010. EPA regional offices did not implement key provisions of the agency's public notification regulations at 8 of the 13 sites for which EPA had lead responsibility. At four sites, for example, EPA either did not provide and maintain documentation about the cleanups for public review and comment or provide for a public comment period. Also, although EPA guidance emphasizes that simply complying with the public notification rules is often insufficient to meet communities' needs, at five sites EPA did not go beyond these provisions. Reaction among community members to EPA's public notification measures was mixed. At two of the three sites in which GAO held focus groups with affected community members, participants were critical of EPA's efforts to inform them about the cleanup of the asbestos-contaminated sites in their neighborhood. These included participants in Hamilton Township, New Jersey and Minot, North Dakota who noted that newspaper notices did not identify asbestos as the contaminant in question and contained unclear and bureaucratic language. On the other hand, participants in Dearborn, Michigan praised EPA efforts to, among other things, hold public meetings and hand-deliver written notices.