U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

66–377 CC WASHINGTON : 2001

S. HRG. 106–950

ASBESTOS CONTAMINATION IN LIBBY, MONTANA

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FROM ASBESTOS CONTAMINATION IN

LIBBY, MONTANA

FEBRUARY 16, 2000—LIBBY, MONTANA

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

HARRY REID, Nevada

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

RON WYDEN, Oregon

DAVE CONOVER, Staff Director

TOM SLITER, Minority Staff Director

(II)
(III)

CONTENTS

Page

MAY 2, 2000—LIBBY, MONTANA

OPENING STATEMENTS

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 1

Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana ........................... 16

WITNESSES

Anderson, Ron, director, Lincoln County Environmental Health Department .. 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55

Beasley, Terry, Libby, Montana ............................................................................. 50

Berget, Hon. Tony, mayor, City of Libby, Montana .............................................. 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56

Black, Brad, M.D., medical officer, Lincoln County Environmental Health

Department ........................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54

Damrow, Todd, Ph.D., M.P.H., State Epidemiologist, Montana Department

of Public Health and Human Services ............................................................... 21

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57

Falk, Henry, Assistant Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services ................................................................................................... 36

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66

Rosco, Jim, Libby, Montana .................................................................................... 49

Rumelhart, Paul, Libby, Montana .......................................................................... 53

Simonich, Mark, Director, Montana Department of Environmental Quality ..... 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58

Stringer, Alan, W.R. Grace ..................................................................................... 51

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69

Williamson, Lloyd, Libby, Montana ....................................................................... 47

Windom, Rita, Lincoln County Commissioner ...................................................... 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53

Yellowtail, William, Region VII Administrator, Environmental Protection

Agency ................................................................................................................... 32

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63

(1)

ASBESTOS CONTAMINATION IN LIBBY,

MONTANA

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2000

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

Libby, Montana.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in the Memorial Gym, Libby, Montana, Hon. Max Baucus [ranking minority

member of the committee] presiding.

Present: Senator Baucus.

Also present: Senator Burns.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Senator BAUCUS. I’d like to welcome everybody to this field hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. We

are here today to review the government’s response to the asbestos

contamination here in Libby. I’m very pleased to be joined by my

colleague, Senator Burns, who’s temporarily detained over in the

corner by modern technology. I assume he’ll be back during the

hearing.

Unfortunately, Congressman Rick Hill and Governor Marc

Racicot are unable to be here. They were invited, but they had

other business that required their attention. I would like to recognize on behalf of Congressman Rick Hill, Julie Altemus. Julie,

where are you? If you have any questions, I want to direct you to

Julie.

I’d also like to identify other key people who are here. First, of

my staff, Bill Lombardi, who works for me in Helena, and then

Barbara Roberts and Tom Sliter who are staff Environment and

Public Works Committee. Could you three please make yourselves

known? Barbara and Tom Sliter. He’s the minority staff director of

the Environment and Public Works Committee, and then Bill

Lombardi over there in the blue jacket.

Senator Smith is the chairman of the Environment and Public

Works Committee. He is represented here by Kirstin Rohrer. This

is Kirstin Rohrer who represents Senator Bob Smith from New

Hampshire, chairman of this committee. Lori McDonald. Is Lori

here? Lori’s over there on the side, representing Senator Burns.

And in addition, probably the most important people here is Bambi

Goodman. Bambi Goodman is over here who is physically typing

away making a record of everything that we say.
2

Also, I’m very happy to see some very familiar faces here: John

Konzen, Rita Windom, Brad Black, Ron Anderson, Tony Berget,

George Bauer, Mark Simonich, Todd Damrow. A lot of you have

worked very hard. Thank you very much for being here, in addition

to Bill Yellowtail who’s flown in from Denver. He’s the head of Region VIII of the Environmental Protection Agency—Public Works

Committee, and Dr. Falk, who’s come all the way from Atlanta to

come here to help solve some of our problems.

We all know that Libby’s been in the spotlight lately, which is

probably the understatement of the year. But attention from people

in a position to help who are committed to taking concrete steps

to give some relief to this community is what we’re trying to find

out and get some help from. That’s the kind of attention we are

really looking for. This is a rare opportunity, having in one room

key representatives from the city, from the county, from the State,

from Federal agencies working toward a common goal. And that’s

why I called this hearing, primarily, just to get everybody together

so that we can compare notes, take stock of where we are and to

be sure that we’re working together and working together for

Libby. Because after all, it’s Libby’s solution, with the aid of outside agencies where appropriate, is going to, I think, reach the kind

of result that makes more sense for all of us here.

One of the main goals of this hearing is to help ensure that the

citizens here get the assistance that they deserve. Again, some outsiders will know, but we want them to be listening to people here

at home so that the right assistance is provided.

The two priorities are to determine if the health of the people of

Libby is threatened by continuing exposure to asbestos. Is there

any continuing exposure? And if there is, clearly, steps must be

taken to eliminate the threat to the maximum amount possible. We

must ensure that whatever cleanup is needed is performed quickly

so this community can have a clean bill of health. That’s paramount.

I know a lot of people here, rightly, are very concerned about the

image of the community, of Lincoln County. The clear primary goal

of ours is to be sure that that image is a shining one, that people

know that Libby has a clean bill of health, as quickly as we possibly can. It’s good for jobs, it’s good for tourism, it will help real

estate values and just help our various economies.

The other, probably, is to support those who suffer from asbestosrelated illnesses. That would be including screening, treatment, as

well as public education. We’ll learn this morning what steps have

been taken, what is planned for the future to address these priorities.

I particularly want to learn how work is being coordinated

among all the different government agencies. That includes how

the agencies are communicating with the citizens; getting input

from the community and keeping citizens actively informed as information becomes available. I also hope to hear from the people

of Lincoln County, Libby, their perspectives on whether the community’s needs are being met by steps that have been taken or

being planned.

So far I’ve heard mostly positive things about the coordination

from local, State and Federal personnel. I know it takes work to
3

keep on track. Everyone has a lot on their minds. More than we

can address at a single hearing. But I want to emphasize, just this

little anecdotal conversation with people, that the coordination

sounds pretty positive. It sounds like things are working real well.

I’ve heard from many of you about your feelings of helplessness,

anger, confusion, guilt, just to name a few. Those are obvious

human reactions. The goal here is to soothe all of those, make them

go away so that we can feel good and confident about the community. And I believe that with commitment, the commitment of the

people here in this room, that’s going to happen. Because that is,

after all, the purpose of this hearing: to ensure that the people of

Libby and the community get the assistance they need to meet

their needs.

We have three panels. The first will be basically local officials.

The second panel will be representatives of our State, State of

Montana, and third, representatives of Federal agencies. I’m going

to ask each of the witnesses of each of the panels to speak up to

5 minutes. And that’s what these lights up here are all about.

When you start, the light’s going to be green. When there’s about

1 minute left, that is after 4 minutes have transpired, it’s going to

turn yellow. And then when it’s all over, it’s red.

Now, I’m going to be flexible but firm about this. So just know

that I’m not going to just gavel you down exactly 5 minutes. But

on the other hand, please don’t abuse the privilege. We have to

keep the interest of others, be polite and courteous to others, keep

it within our time frame. I’ll ask some questions then of the witnesses, and Conrad will also ask some questions too. And that will

be the procedure from each of the panels.

However, at the end of each panel, I’m going to ask a general

question whether—is there something that should have been said

that hasn’t been said, or has somebody said something so outrageous that needs to be addressed. That’s for each of the panels.

Then, finally, after we go each of the three, I’m going to come back

to the first one again. Because they will have, at that point, heard

from State officials and they will have heard from Federal officials.

So that the county folks, the local folks, will have an opportunity

then to address what they’ve heard. We want to make sure that all

of you here, you know, get the word out of what you want everybody to hear.

We’ll be flexible. If somebody in the audience has something to

say, if there’s some expert in the audience that has something to

say, we want to recognize that person as well.

Before I start, though, just as a symbol of coordination and working together, I’d like to mention the name of Paul Peronard.

Where’s Paul? I hear Paul’s been doing a really good job. And people like their work, Paul, and you’re a real good servant to the people of this community. And let’s give Paul a big round of applause.

[Applause.]

Senator BAUCUS. He’s shaking his head over there.

All right; first panel is Rita Windom and John, the commissioners here in Lincoln County, Brad Black. Ron Anderson is the

director of Lincoln County Environmental Health Department;

Tony Berget, mayor; and George Bauer, acting president, Libby city
4

council. I apologize for the small table. We’ll just move the microphone around.

Okay, Rita?

STATEMENT OF RITA WINDOM, LINCOLN COUNTY

COMMISSIONER

Ms. WINDOM. Thank you, Senator Baucus and Senator Burns.

Senator Baucus, Senator Burns, we would like to thank you so

much for taking time out of your busy schedule to hold this formal

hearing on the asbestos problem that we are faced with. This is a

very important issue to all of us, especially those that have had

their health adversely affected by this problem.

Credit needs to be given, and I thank you, Senator Baucus, for

doing that, to the EPA and the ATSDR for their quick response for

the concerns that have been raised. They have acted in a very open

and professional manner, and they have done an excellent job in

earning the trust of our local citizens by being openly accessible to

address concerns and answer all questions as—and keeping everyone fully informed. The on-site coordinator, Paul Peronard, really

does deserve to be personally thanked for managing this team in

such a proficient method.

There are several issues that are of current concern to all of us.

An immediate concern, of course, is the level of contamination

within the Libby area, especially any risk of people’s homes. Current testing by the EPA shows that 2 homes out of 32 have asbestos detected. One of those homes has tremolite asbestos which is

the kind associated with vermiculite mining.

The EPA testing has also discovered asbestos at the two former

vermiculite crossing locations. One is at the old railroad loading of

the Kootenai River at the base of the Rainy Creek Road. That property is currently being used as a plant nursery. The other is in

Libby at the old export site near the ball fields. Currently, this

property is owned by the City of Libby who has leased a portion

of the property to a local business. We know, for a fact, that both

of those businesses are extremely concerned whether they will be

able to continue in business or remain in business during any

clean-up efforts.

There are many areas of concern to private citizens where there

have been areas of testing, including soil sampling and garden

areas, driveways, roads, and outside air quality in Libby and near

the mine site. The test results from these locations should be available around the middle of March. With that information in hand,

a plan can be determined on how much and where further testing

needs to be done.

Another major concern is the health of our residents, especially

the former workers and their families. We believe, as a board of

commissioners, that it is important to follow through with developing a screening and treatment center right here in Libby to reduce

the fears of hose who have not had an opportunity to be screened,

but more importantly, to lessen the financial and traumatic impact

on those that have contracted asbestosis or related diseases. These

folks affected may not be financially nor physically able to travel

the long distances they now have to travel to seek treatment. But

in addition to that, I think it’s very important to have local screen-
5

ing and treatment because it provides the emotional support of

family and friends.

The local hospital has submitted a plan that they feel will meet

these needs right here in Libby. We, as Lincoln County Board of

Commissioners, strongly support the efforts of St. John’s Lutheran

Hospital to accomplish this. There are still so many unknowns on

how many people will need to be screened and treated. Asbestosis

may take years to develop to a point where it is detectable. The

need to offer this screening and treatment locally will continue for

years to come.

We are also concerned about the effects this has already had and

we know it will continue to have on our local economy. The Libby

area, as well as the rest of Lincoln County, was already faced with

economic challenges due to the major downturn in timber sales and

other natural resource-based industries these last several years. To

survive this additional roadblock will require all of us working together to address and identify the problem collectively, get it

cleaned up, and we can do that, and identify ways to recover from

the negative and sometimes exaggerated publicity.

Our taxpayers are understandably worried. They know that Lincoln County has been affected by major losses of revenue the past

few years. Many of our county services have been reduced or eliminated because of a loss in tax valuation due to the closure of major

industry. We are aware there will, undoubtedly, be a demand on

many county departments for continuation of some services associated with this very distinct problem. Due to the long latency period

associated with asbestos disease onset, the lengthy duration of the

illness and the likelihood of additional asbestosis source discovery,

citizens will need to rebuild their confidence that the environment

in which they live is currently safe, and it will continue to be safe

through extended sampling programs. We foresee additional funding requirements for our district court, the Department Of Environmental Health, our county nurse’s office, the road department,

mental health services, and other areas of support needed by our

constituents. As part of the partnership working to solve this problem, it would be beneficial for the Federal Government to help us

defray the cost of these additional burdens, rather than to attempt

to shoulder all this additional burden by those who are most affected.

Again, we all would like to thank this committee for taking the

time to come to Libby, to listen to us, and to address the problems

and the uncertainties that are on the minds of all our residents.

We appreciate this opportunity; thank you.

Senator BAUCUS. You’re very welcome. It was a very good statement; we appreciate that.

I’ll turn to John. Do you have a statement, John?

Mr. KONZEN. Same.

Senator BAUCUS. Good; thank you.

Dr. Black?
6

STATEMENT OF DR. BRAD BLACK, M.D., MEDICAL OFFICER,

LINCOLN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT

Dr. BLACK. My name is Brad Black. I hold the position of Lincoln County Health Officer and have lived and practiced medicine in

Libby for the past twenty-two years. As cases of asbestosis surfaced in the area that involved people

with nonoccupational——

Senator BAUCUS. Can everybody hear Dr. Black? You have to speak a little more slowly and right into the micro- phone.

Dr. BLACK. I’ll start over. My name is Brad Black. I hold the po- sition of Lincoln County Health Officer and have lived and practiced medicine in Libby for the past 22 years. As cases of asbestosis surface in the area with people with nonoccupational exposure, our health department began the process of

determining where that might have occurred. Communication with

Dr. Alan Whitehouse, pulmonary specialist in Spokane, gave indication that at least 23 cases of nonoccupational asbestosis had occurred. When we identified some of these areas and realized they

extended into youth recreation and the various areas, there was

real concerns over more widespread exposure.

And then in the fall, of course, late November, he EPA arrived

and—under the direction of Paul Peronard, and felt like things

went very efficiently in the initial assessments, and with EPA toxicologists Chris Weis and Aubrey Miller, took on a very professional—they took on a very professional approach to look at the situation. And their observations supported the concerns of over—possible widespread asbestos exposure.

We, together, discussed the immediate needs to determine, first of all, if there’s current risk of asbestos exposure through environmental screening; if there was significant past exposure, which

would require medical screening; and then also, the need in our

community to develop infrastructure in the medical system that

would accommodate people and carry on the ongoing monitoring

and care for patients that were affected with significant asbestos

exposure.

In discussions with our medical providers in the community,

there was consensus that we should take a lead role in providing

this medical support and follow-up care. Our medical staff is very

interested in one of the more important issues that came to mind

was how can we help people too. And we were very interested in

some component that might look at potential therapies in this area.

We also discussed that the Lincoln County Health Board this—

our desire to take a lead role, and we received heir support with

us also. And also we discussed this with Dr. Whitehouse as an expert consultant, and he was very supportive of us taking on this

plan.

At this stage, our role appeared to be in providing assistance to

the EPA and medical screening process and to proceed with securing the elements necessary to provide medical care and follow-up

care.

In the first part of this year, the ATSDR was engaged. And

under the direction of Jeff Lybarger, physician, we continued to

proceed with the development of some infrastructure needs. There
7

was initially concern locally, that with the EPA and the ATSDR together on the project, there might be a problem concerning the

leadership. However, both groups have demonstrated a level of professionalism that has allowed things to move along in a positive direction. They have come to fulfill their role but have been listening

and responding to State and local input quite well.

Development of the community advisory group is seen as an essential element. I would strongly recommend an initial phase of development of this interactive process, that the EPA take a more

formal role in facilitation. This could help break down community

tensions and help create an environment of participancy that is

comfortable and respectful of individual rights when discussing differing pinions. Then the group function can mature to a level that

allows it to sustain an independent character.

As environmental screening and medical screening are in

progress, we feel that it is essential to be developing a system to

receive, evaluate, continue monitoring, and provide for all aspects

of care for these people with significant asbestos exposure. This

would be accomplished with the assistance of expertise offered by

Dr. Whitehouse, a pulmonary specialist who is experienced with

this clinical course of tremolite exposure. In addition, it is our interest, along with Dr. Whitehouse, to investigate the possibility of

finding a therapy for the fibrotic process caused by the asbestos fibers. The ATSDR, represented by Dr. Lybarger, has indicated a

support for a research component.

As we receive the aid of the EPA and environmental screening

and the ATSDR in developing a local program that would begin by

being involved with the medical screening and continue the process

and be ready to receive the identified population, I am concerned

we are not going to be prepared. St. John’s Hospital is in a serious

need of operational capital in order to take an active role in hiring

a local program coordinator, clerks, interviewers and pursuing education for health providers and respiratory therapists, to mention

a few immediate needs. As a health care community, we are ready

and waiting to move ahead. With adequate capital and expertise,

I’m certain we can construct a quality infrastructure.

There had been indications that there might be monetary aid

somewhere in the future, and I’m hopeful that we will see some

success in this area.

I think—in closing, I think our role still is to continue to work

in a negotiating relationship with W.R. Grace to address the longterm health care needs of persons affected by asbestos-related disease. This would involve regular monitoring and care with appropriate interventions for those who have been impacted by asbestos

exposure.

Thank you.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Brad.

Ron, are you going to add to the statement?

STATEMENT OF RON ANDERSON, DIRECTOR, LINCOLN

COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT

Mr. ANDERSON. Senator Baucus, Senator Burns, I wish to express my appreciation for your consideration and efforts in evaluat-
8

ing the impacts on, and concerns of, this Libby community as we

deal with this asbestos issue.

I echo the acknowledgments of others in regard to the Federal

and State assistance rendered to date in evaluating conditions and

assessing the problem. These efforts will result in public health

risk assessments, health screening for asbestos disease presence

and clean-up of known asbestos sources. This process will go a long

way toward alleviating immediate health concerns and anxieties

harbored by the community.

However, asbestos and its impacts presents a long-term issue.

Asbestos does not readily deteriorate in the environment, and exposure to its fibers take many years to develop into a debilitating and

deadly affliction. It is inconceivable to assume the efforts currently

being expended in response to the asbestos conditions in Libby will

result in a 100 percent clean-up of all asbestos risk. Long-term

planning is proceeding for personal health issues associated with

asbestos presence in our community. These include screening, longterm care and research efforts.

In order to rebuild and maintain citizen and visitor confidence in

the Libby environment, it will be necessary to maintain an ongoing

environmental asbestos monitoring program. This program must

address ambient and indoor air quality, drinking water and source

sampling of such things as dirt and insulation. As people remodel

houses, dig up yards and gardens and transfer real estate, new asbestos sources and concerns are going to be uncovered. People will

need to have a local agency to assist them. The Lincoln County Environmental Health Department has experienced staff personnel to

deal with air and water monitoring programs regularly. Asbestos

training and appropriate monitoring equipment will allow our department to expand this role to provide this service. It is also logical that we assume the role as the educational outlet for asbestosrelated topics when the EPA Libby storefront information center is

phased out.

The scope of these long-range community needs falls beyond the

current EPA and State efforts. These needs will require extended

funding, and that leads me to the basis of my request. The citizens

of the Libby community need your assistance in providing a means

for sustained and assured long-term funding to provide these essential environmental programs. Assurance, and reassurance, that

the local environment does not pose a public health risk is critical

to the healing and rebuilding process facing the citizens of the

Libby community.

I’m appreciative of your efforts and concerns and express my

thanks.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson.

Mayor Berget?

Mayor Berget. I basically feel like everything I’m going to say

has already been covered, but I’ll do it.

Senator BAUCUS. There’s a famous Member of Congress named

Mo Udall who once said—when he was at the end of the line and

everybody had said everything that had to be said, and he said,

‘‘Everything’s already been said but not everybody has said it.’’
9

STATEMENT OF HON. TONY BERGET, MAYOR, CITY OF LIBBY,

MONTANA

Mayor Berget. We are experiencing one of the most difficult

times in Libby’s history. It is diagnosis of hundreds of Libby area

residents with asbestosis that is devastating on many levels. I have

lived in this community for almost my entire life. It is where I

choose to raise my family, not because it is the most economically

advantageous place to be to do so, but because this is where my

heart is. Libby is a beautiful and a great place for kids. But the

reason I choose to live here is because of the people.

It is only recently that I’ve become aware of just how many families have been affected by this debilitating and deadly disease. I,

like many Libby citizens, knew of the court cases but had no idea

of the scope of the problem until recently. The more I’ve talked

with victims of this disease during the past few weeks and months,

the more I realize how horrifying the diagnosis can be. My heart

goes out to everyone affected. It is imperative now that we determine the extent of the problem and assess the steps necessary to

remove any residential danger. It is clear that health care facilities

need to be expanded and staffs of the testing and health care services can be received in Libby. I am encouraged that W.R. Grace has

made a commitment to help St. John’s Lutheran Hospital provide

these services. It is still unclear how much money will be required

to do what is necessary. There may also be environmental cleanup issues that surface as we continue the investigation. This community does not have the resources to face these economic challenges. We will need help.

I am also concerned about the effect the intense media attention

will have on the future of Libby. This media coverage, aside from

making us more aware of the situation, has only done damage. Not

only to the Libby as a community, and yes, to the economic issues

we have been striving to turn around, but also, and most severely,

to the very individuals who have already suffered the most. The

national exposure to the situation means that many more individuals are seeking legal recourse against Grace, including most recently a class action suit. I’m concerned that the lawyers will fair

better than the victims of asbestosis. The publicity has already led

to the delay of a pending court case. Should the change of venue

be granted, the plaintiffs may have to travel to eastern Montana,

at their own expense, to have their day in court. Meanwhile, these

individuals with asbestosis who are still able to work, or who may

need to sell their home, will be subject to the same economic hardship as the rest of the community, as we continue to be labeled

‘‘The town left to die.’’

I’m glad the EPA is here and I’m very impressed with the team.

I’m very impressed by their expertise and professionalism. They

are very approachable. I am cautiously optimistic about the preliminary findings. I believe there’s minimal risk of exposure to the

citizens of Libby today. I believe Libby is still a safe community in

which to live. This in no way should diminish the fact that many

people are suffering from the past exposure. We must continue to

work together at local, State and Federal levels to ensure the wellbeing of Libby’s future.
10

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Tony. I’d like to ask

some questions. I’m encouraging others to chime in, if you have additional points you want to make of particular relevance. I want

this to be more in the nature of a discussion than a formal hearing.

Conrad’s going to chime in too.

Dr. Black, I was struck with your suggestion that EPA take on

the more formal role in facilitation. What do you have in mind?

Does that mean going beyond the community advisory group?

Dr. BLACK. No. For those of us who went to the first meeting,

I think we felt like there was enough tension in the room, varied

feelings about this. It was an opportunity for our community to

start healing and getting through and understanding each other

and hearing about people’s past. You know, some of the pain

they’ve gone through, and also for those of us who do not—or those

members who don’t understand what other people have gone

through, it’s very important to share those feelings.

Those feelings only come through breaking down of the tensions

and starting into conversation. Certainly, at first, it’s a bit tenuous

because of those feelings and things can be very difficult. It needs

a more formal process, I think, from the EPA in terms of coordinating and facilitating the process to where people get to a very comfortable level and respect for each other in that setting so that that

group can then take over and become a very——

Senator BAUCUS. How has it been working so far?

Dr. BLACK. It’s been moving slow, I think. It’s starting to move

some. We did go out and obtain a facilitator. But I felt like that

could have been handled by the EPA to get us started and maybe

the first—maybe until we saw the group maturing to a level as far

as being able to interchange and do it in a very——

Senator BAUCUS. But the EPA helped in getting the community

actually grouped together; is that correct?

Dr. BLACK. Yes. Excellent idea, there’s no question. A very appropriate thing to do. I just felt like it could have gone a little smoother. That was the only criticism. That’s not a major criticism.

Senator BAUCUS. So it’s a little slow in developing, but do you

think that’s a good group to kind of sort of be the clearing house

for the community?

Dr. BLACK. I think that it’s not been defined fully. I have a little

different expectation of it. Right now I think it’s been a—considered a clearing house for information. I suspect, over time, it could

become an area where when it comes to some decisions we make,

because of the impacts of the decisions on this—in this process, it

affects everybody. And I think the community has to have some

sense it’s time for the community to work together and actually

stand behind something together. And I think it’s an opportunity

to do that.

Senator BAUCUS. Am I correct in assuming that’s a good way for

the community to decide among itself what it really wants, or

doesn’t want, in working with the State and Federal agencies? Others might want to speak to this.

Dr. BLACK. To me it has this potential. I’ll turn it over to whoever wants to speak.

Mr. ANDERSON. In the late 1980’s we were faced with Clean Air

Act violations here and were deemed to be a noncompliant commu-
11

nity, according to the clean air standards. As part of the process

for addressing the problem and coming up with an action plan, we

developed a citizens’ advisory group that worked very effectively.

This group involved all the various interests in the community—

wood stove users and those opposed to wood stoves, road districts,

etc.—everybody we could think of. That group quickly focused on

the issue of developing a plan and control measure that everybody

could live with. Through compromise and whatnot, we were able to

effectively cure the problem.

Senator BAUCUS. Does this group have the confidence of the community? That’s a hard question to answer, but it’s only going to

work if it has the confidence of the community.

Mayor Berget. I think it does. I mean, the group is made up of

quite a few different individuals. I’ve been really impressed with

Wendy as part of that triple-A team we had here in Libby. But I

think all of us have our own expectations of what the group is

going to do. So I think over time, as Dr. Black said, we will get

comfortable together and we will be able to strive.

Senator BAUCUS. Does the community advisory group have a

leader?

Mayor Berget. Just our facilitator at this time and Wendy.

Senator BAUCUS. Okay. Rita, do you have a comment?

Ms. WINDOM. Senator Baucus, I have attended both of those

meetings. They have been frustrating for everyone in attendance,

but I believe that it’s our own responsibility. I have noticed that

we still represent certain sections of the community in the way we

sit at those meetings. The elected officials sit together, the victims

sit together, other community members sit together, EPA sits together. And we haven’t come to that comfort level that we should

have with one another that we mix up and sit in varied seats in

the arena and that we are able and comfortable to share the information.

We need strong leadership in that direction. Maybe it needs to

come from EPA, maybe it needs to come from the community, but

we need the support of EPA in bringing all of these different

groups together to have a spokesman in this group and raise our

comfort level so that we can actually share our most intimate

thoughts on these subjects.

Senator BAUCUS. What facilities and equipment are needed for

screening, testing and counseling? Probably we won’t know until a

little later on, but what are the parameters? What’s the minimum,

and then what is a reasonable maximum?

Dr. BLACK. We’re looking at short-term needs and the long-term

needs. Short-term, I think that some of the upgrading of x-ray

equipment, the provision of a specific pulmonary function apparatus, which has not been in our community before, is in the process

of being worked out also. Those things will be essential in order to

fill a role. We’re working with the ATSDR and EPA to bring them

into the community.

The areas that I think we need immediate help involve the development of the initial infrastructure. Somebody needs to coordinate

our program. This is a new program for the hospital and the health

care community to take on. It’s going to need ongoing, long-term
12

organization to carry this out. We think a clinical coordinator is a

very critical role in this.

Senator BAUCUS. What’s it take to get one?

Dr. BLACK. You’re asking probably the wrong guy on that.

Senator BAUCUS. Who do we ask?

Dr. BLACK. Well, I think probably hospital administration, Mr.

Rick Palagi.

Senator BAUCUS. You work at the hospital. We’ve got a good

sense of what it takes.

Dr. BLACK. You caught me off guard on that one. I’m not the

money man.

Senator BAUCUS. I’m just trying to get a sense, John and Rita

and everyone. You’ve thought about this a month or so now. Quantify the amount, in dollar terms maybe, the equipment, the trained

personnel, coordinator you’re talking about that’s going to be necessary here short-term, long-term. We’re trying to get a handle on

this.

Mr. KONZEN. I think that is what frustrates everybody. We’re not

experts in this area at all. We are covering new ground. The role

each agency plays in the delivering of service to help these folks

and to get this community on the path to assistance and recognition of their potential and the therapy that could come on after the

end of this process is important, I think. My frustration is in trying

to understand what role W.R. Grace plays monetarily, what role

EPA plays monetarily and the other organizations. So far, we have

heard a lot of talk, and not seen a lot of money. We’re looking to

fleece America. We’re looking to get what this community needs to

do the job, and that’s what you’re trying to do.

I wonder, when W.R. Grace comes to the table with money, if we

should take it or not. We have never been through this process.

Who is out there to advise people on this kind of issue? There is

a concern that we could draw upon advisers to help us better focus

on what we need to do. About $6 million was mentioned a couple

times, but I don’t think we know where that’s going to go. The

costs could be far greater than that.

Senator BAUCUS. Now, you’re asking a question of some State

folks here and some of the Federal people like EPA and ATSDR

folks. Do you get a sense that they’ll be able to help you answer

those questions fairly soon?

Mr. KONZEN. No, I think it’s becoming clearer that they are going

to be able to do something, but we still haven’t seen that commitment on paper.

Dr. BLACK. I think we’re talking about an issue that’s short and

long-term. Clearly, you know, on the short-term, I think we could

probably get, you know, some idea on costs from the right people.

But on the long-term, until we identify the impacts, we do not

know how many people are affected with significant asbestos exposure. Until we identify it, it’s very difficult to put together figures.

You know, is it going to involve 500 people? What’s it going to involve? We don’t know and we’re—we need that piece of information

once a medical screening does get enacted and we get some rulings.

Senator BAUCUS. Let’s assume it does involve 500 people. Let’s

make that assumption. Then what flows in terms of medical and

screening and equipment, personnel screening needs?
13

Mr. KONZEN. Senator, could we bring Rick up here?

Senator BAUCUS. Sure; Rick.

Rick, you’re paged here. You’re requested. Why don’t you identify

yourself, Rick.

Mr. PALAGI. I’m Rick Palagi. I have the honor of living in this

community and representing the finest rural hospital in America.

And you can take that back to Washington with you.

I don’t know how to respond to this. The big deal is to identify.

We assume 500? I’m not the medical expert. I believe there’s a

group of them getting together next week to further discuss medical models of how to manage and look at this process. There are

resources, I believe, that ATSDR, EPA and maybe independent facilities that could forecast, let’s say, what it might cost in terms of

care for a person who has an asbestos-related disease. So I don’t

now what that figure is. We could discuss a million dollars over the

course of a lifetime. Is it—whatever that might be.

Senator BAUCUS. Well, I got word yesterday that the Department

of Health and Human Services is going to give Libby $80,000.

That’s probably just a drop in the bucket, but it’s—the Department

of Health and Human Services, yesterday, announced they’re going

to give Libby $80,000 for medical care. It’s a start. Once you get

your foot in the door, it could lead to other Federal possibilities.

Now, we also know that Grace has offered $250,000 a year. John

wondered out loud, is it good to take that money or not. We’d like

a little more comfort in attempting to answer that question.

What’s your knowledge about that $250,000? It’s my understanding is it’s there for the hospital to spend as it wishes on asbestosrelated problems. But they want to be sure that there’s some kind

of an independent screening of some kind. Could you tell us a little

more of your understanding?

Mr. PALAGI. That pretty well reflects my understanding of what

we’ve been in discussion with those folks for.

Senator BAUCUS. Would that be fair to the people or—that is the

independent screening or not? I just don’t know I’m asking.

Mr. PALAGI. Would an independent screening be fair? I believe

that’s what most of us would want to have is an independent

screening, yes. And I guess that’s representing the hospital. We

want to make sure that what we do is independent and used that

way in the most supportive way that it can be with all the community members. So that’s some of our debate within the board.

Senator BAUCUS. Would you also tell us all that’s involved in

looking at and examining x-rays—the expertise that’s needed. It’s

my understanding you need something called a ‘‘B reader.’’ I was

talking to somebody at the ATSDR, and they said you need three

B readers. What does that mean?

Dr. BLACK. Basically, B reading is a standardized method that

was developed, and I can’t tell you what year. But it’s been the

standard for quite sometime in terms of assessing on chest x-ray

what involvement somebody would have with what’s called a

pneumonoconiosis, which would be asbestos, asbestosis or silicosis

or that type of disease. They’ve been used for years. Once again,

it’s the only standard that has been used.

The kicker on this, and I’ll be very frank with you and our real

concerns are that the nature of this tremolite exposure is that it
14

involves the pleural surface of the lung, which is very active in that

area, and it predominates in that area. The standard B reading is

not as accurate in that area. That’s why we want an active part

in the process of screening those x-rays also. With the assistance

of people that have really been taking care of this disease for quite

sometime, we have the chance to get much more expertise. I think

we can do a very good job of that.

Senator BAUCUS. Would telemedicine help here, that is of x-rays

taken and then sent Internet or somehow?

Dr. BLACK. I think there is a place for that in certain cases, yes.

Mr. PALAGI. That’s like a lead-in for me, isn’t it?

Senator BAUCUS. Right.

Mr. PALAGI. Telemedicine has a lot of things. Let’s talk a little

bit about what’s commonly referred to as televideo or interactive

television, which requires for transmission and message purposes,

T-1 telephone lines, big pipelines or fiber optic. Both those elude

us here significantly. Would it be helpful? Yes. If we have physicians caring for a group of patients who require visits in consultations with pulmonary specialists, be those in Spokane or Chicago

or Washington, DC, that would be very helpful. That’s an interactive two-way process. That could be achieved without having

families bear the burden of travel and time with that travel. So

that would be certainly something that could be helpful.

Senator BAUCUS. What’s the cost of a T–1 line to Spokane?

Mr. PALAGI. I’m going to guess—I might be off—but it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of $2,500 to $3,500 a month, in terms

of maintaining that expense. We just worked one in terms of some

work we were doing with Missoula, and that was about $3,500 to

$3,700. That’s an ongoing expense. Doesn’t sound like a lot, but to

a hospital with an $8 million revenue stream, it’s a big bunch of

money.

Senator BAUCUS. Another question: obviously the facilities and

we want to solve this problem as quickly as possible. We hope this

health problem is going to come to a time where it tapers off. So

this would be a large, but not be a permanent effort. It would be

somewhat temporary or intermediate. T-1—some Federal dollars

paying for a T-1 connection during in the near-term would then reduce. Once the issue was basically solved, then there would be

other facilities in place for a lot better rural telecommunications.

That is a huge problem that Senator Burns and I have been working on for Montana, generally. I want to make sure we’re not goldplating this thing. We want to dedicate the needed dollars, but we

don’t want a big rush of pork in here as well. What we really want

is just to address the need for as long as it lasts.

Mr. PALAGI. There is a component of use that extends beyond

medical that that equipment obviously could be used for.

Senator BAUCUS. Absolutely.

Mr. PALAGI. There is many economic development kinds of things

that would be very positive to allow community and business access, let’s say, to a telemedicine suite of that nature. So there are

some long-term benefits to our community.

Senator BAUCUS. I have a little different kind of question here.

This is a huge problem, and we are going to do all we can to

solve it. But it seems to me that simultaneously, at the same time,
15

it really helps psychologically if there’s some other community effort going on. Something to spend one’s positive energy on so we’re

not just devoting all our time to a problem or maybe get a little

disconcerted with or frustrated with or something.

I mean, are there some ongoing sort of positive, like one or two

major community efforts to—you know, boy, we’re proud of this—

football team or a basketball team or something? My God, you’re

the State champs or so on and so forth? I don’t know, I’m just

thinking out loud here, if there’s something like that that we can

kind of put some positive energy into at the same time we’re looking into this.

Audience Member. Timber resource.

Senator BURNS. Timber resource; okay.

Mayor Berget. There’s a community effort with the Kootenai Heritage Council and what they’re using on. There’s a pool. There’s a

group that’s still working in Libby in an area to accomplish that.

And as far as the—I don’t know, the T-1 line or fiber optics into

Libby so that we could be up to speed with any of you guys, that’s

all it would take, is getting the speed to the access of the Internet

things. Because it speeds up the speed and the ability to come in

and out of Libby at faster rates you know, we’re going to be able

to create some jobs that way as well. So I guess those can.

Mr. PALAGI. I’m a newcomer. I’ve been here 5 years. I don’t think

I get my card-carrying Libby residency status for about another 10

or 12, I’m told. More than that, Senator? This is a community of

the proudest people I have ever been associated with. The news

cameras will catch the tattered screens behind us and the tattered

drapes and the kind of cold we’re in in this building, and that does

not at all represent the spirit of people that are here.

Two weeks ago or so we had a public fund-raiser to bring public

radio to town. Local bluegrass band, a packed house at the Elks

Club. It’s a neat thing, it’s going to happen. Raising $20,000,

amongst many of our folks who don’t have a nickel in their pocket,

is a big deal. It will happen. The performing arts center will happen. There are many, many positive things here. Unfortunately,

now, we’re under a cloud with this particular situation to work

through. So it’s troublesome for us. But that doesn’t mean we won’t

keep pushing for those things.

Senator BAUCUS. And I appreciate that very much.

Is there anything any of you want to say to the State folks that

will be coming up soon or to the Federal folks that will be coming

up soon? Anything that you want to say to us or to them so that

Conrad and I can talk to them about?

Mr. KONZEN. I’d like to see things move fast, and I realize that

this is not going to move fast. But I think if this can get some positive data out to the folks in this community and to this nation of

ours that’s now involved, that it will help stop some of the decisiveness that’s going on in this community. That if this thing continues

to linger and the unknowns continue to be out there, it’s going to

continue to cause the decisiveness that I’m seeing. And so I think

a clear goal and a clear plan needs to come forth as soon as possible.

Senator BAUCUS. Are there any areas where you think perhaps

it can be a little more speedy?
16

Mr. KONZEN. Put people in the lab; I don’t know.

Senator BAUCUS. What’s that?

Mr. KONZEN. More people in the lab that are getting this stuff

tested.

Senator BAUCUS. The tests are just taking a long time.

Mr. KONZEN. Yes. I think these folks are doing what they can,

locally. But I guess, you know, trying to figure out—I wear two

hats; the hospital board member and the commissioner. And watching the hospital struggle with this process, trying to coordinate and

set up something hat could be palatable for the people in this community without knowing where the source of funding is at, is really

a question. And our EPA doesn’t give funding. They do it through

a contract, and then we don’t know where all this stuff goes. So

like I mentioned before, we’re still frustrated with the process of

securing funding to make sure these people get the health needs

met. And if we don’t do that pretty soon, I think we’ll continue to

have problems.

Senator BAUCUS. That’s a good point. Maybe I’m a little naive

here. But it’s my hope that we could, you know, turn this into

something that makes that community really, really proud. I mean,

it’s kind of like turning a sow’s ear into a silk purse. That is, we

got a problem here, we just—we get people working together and

a story that would be written maybe a year or two from now about

what a great job the folks from Libby did there and whether we

could make a real positive story out of it. Everything’s an opportunity, and it’s my hope that that’s the result of this, my goal, to

help work toward that goal.

Mr. PALAGI. Senator, I would be remiss if I didn’t take the opportunity to speak to the research component. Brad’s mentioned that

some. There’s a very definite positive silver lining in this, if we can

develop some kind of research component or someone can here. Not

only can we hold out hope for folks suffering that would be transforming event to have that happen here. And so we’re very anxious

with that.

STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF MONTANA

Senator BURNS. Thank you, today, Mr. Chairman. I want to

thank Max for holding this hearing. I think it’s very essential in

the way we reacted to this situation that we have up here, and I

appreciate him doing that. And I appreciate him letting me sit here

and listen today. I’m not a member of the Environment and Public

Works Committee, but I am a member of the Senate subcommittee

that appropriates its money.

I was interested in, Ron, your statement today. Also, I knew

John Konzen when he was younger and faster and quicker on the

handball court. I can just take one look at him right now and tell

him he can’t be that quick anymore. Of course, neither can I. So

we’ve had some real sessions on the handball court.

But I want to take this a little further with you, Ron, Mr. Anderson, just for a second. You want the capability to monitor and to

assist in whenever we start talking about property transfer, we

start talking about putting confidence back into the community. I

think you will have a lot to do with that. Can you give me any kind
17

of a figure, what do you think—and this is going—how long you

going to have to do it and what are the resources you’re going to

need as far as manpower, and then we’re going to convert that into

dollars. Because I’m going to look at it the way the commissioners

look at it. I was a commissioner before I was this. And I know that

in providing those funds, it will finally end up in our committee.

So if you could give me an idea what idea you have of resources,

personnel and what—tell me what you define your job to be.

Mr. ANDERSON. Well——

Senator BURNS. You got to feel like an old auctioneer and just

grab a hold of the microphone and talk. There you are.

Mr. ANDERSON. How much am I bid for this?

I, too, am frustrated by the uncertainty of this, as far as determining an actual dollar value. And it’s——

Senator BURNS. If you can say how many people do you think

you’ll need. Let’s solve a problem here. How many people do you

think you’ll need if you decide to monitor; that if people come to

you and say Okay, I’m buying a home or a property or a business,

can I come to you to make sure that everything is taken care of

environmentally and especially in environmental health.

Mr. ANDERSON. I envision that the resources that we have, manpower wise, will adequately cover the sampling program. The cost

of analyzing filters for asbestos and the latency period in getting

results for those, we’re not doing this—we’re not envisioning doing

his as we do with the daily air quality monitoring that we do right

now. We feel that it’s necessary to, possibly once a month, collect

a sample and have it analyzed for the presence of asbestos fibers.

What would be involved—there is an agreement with the lab to

process those filters on whatever basis. The equipment for collecting that sample. It’s a matter of just, you know, one shot deal. The

installation would be compatible with what we already have in

place.

As far as people discovering new sources, relay transfers, that

sort of thing, the actual sampling process is fairly simple for the

source materials such as the insulation; a matter of collecting the

sample.

Senator BURNS. Equipment. How about equipment? Are you

going to need extra equipment or new equipment?

Mr. ANDERSON. We would need the air sampling device. We

would also need the indoor sampling devices, whichever was selected to be most appropriate and most affordable.

Senator BURNS. How about training? In other words, have you

got trained folks, and do you think you’ll have to have additional

training from other labs, other places that deal with these problems?

Mr. ANDERSON. I think training would be essential for the people

in the department. Like I say, we’ve had the experience—continual

experience with sampling techniques and running equipment. But

this would be just a different set of equipment. As far as educational purposes, if we’re looking at being somebody in a department that people can come to, we would need to have some training about the asbestos and other related issues.

Senator BURNS. I think it would be quite helpful to Senator Baucus and to me if you could set down and make some sort of an as-
18

sessment on where we are and where you want your department

to go and what role it plays and what it’s going to take to bring

you up to speed to do a job. And for the county. Also, I think it

could be very important as far as the State’s concerned. I think

that’s what the commissioners are looking for. And if there’s a way

we can help you with that, if it takes funding, let’s look at it. Let’s

get our name in the pot and start moving into those areas. I think

we owe that not only to this generation but the next. I think that’s

the most acute problem that we have right now is dealing with the

environmental problem; that we make sure we’re helped with our

properties and everything.

Now, as far as Dr. Black and Mr. Palagi’s concern on the T-1

line, we are already moving on a broad-band digital transfer of

extra eight and stuff like that. But I’ll talk bout that later on. But

I think right now, I’m more concerned about do you have the

money to do what you want to do environmentally so that we can

address that problem, and can you give us a ballpark figure and

would let Senator Baucus and I work on that for you?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, I will; thank you.

Senator BURNS. Okay.

Senator BAUCUS. I think George had a comment to make.

Mr. BAUER. Senator Baucus, and Senator Burns, as far as the

litigation process, I personally would like to see another judge

brought into this area at the district level. And, second, on the Federal Court list, you know, that seems to be an ongoing list of about

30 or 40 people. If that could be speeded up, you know, to a certain

degree, because sometimes that takes a long period of time, as long

as 10 years. So those are two issues that people have asked me,

so I’d like to see that addressed.

Senator BAUCUS. That’s a really very important question. I essentially kept the scope of this hearing to the health needs of the

area and then also the exposure problems and questions of the future where asbestos might hurt people. And I’ve stayed away from

liability issues. My view is, let’s get focused on the health needs

first and let’s see what clean-up needs are and get the resource dollars there.

Now, clearly, one of the pressures on Lincoln County is going to

be the cost of trials and judges and things like that. It’s a huge

cost. And that is related to costs and resources; there’s no doubt

about that. My judgment is that we should start looking at that a

little bit later, not much later, but a little bit later but focus first

on those first two problems.

Mr. BAUER. And, second, as far as the insulation situation in

homes in Libby, Montana, I would consider that there’s probably

60 to 80 percent of these homes in Libby that have zonolite insulation. There are a lot of people that have addressed this to me that

they feel this should be handled a little bit speedier. As John

Konzen mentioned, that if this is going to be a problem, it should

be addressed at a faster pace. We look at the 5 micron level. What

is the danger point? Is it under 5 or so, I think this is

something——

Senator BAUCUS. Those are all very good questions. And so at

some point—and later on this morning we will talk to—the Federal

and State people supposedly have a little more expertise on ver-
19

miculite and asbestos and begin to tell us what system you set up

to know what to do about insulation in homes.

Sometimes asbestos should be removed. Sometimes asbestos is

best just left there, as long as it’s not getting in the way or getting

in people’s bodies. It’s a judgment call. And it’s really—it’s going

to take people, not me, but others to know, you know, when to do

all that.

This is a huge issue with asbestos over the years and other situations. There’s asbestos in walls and so forth and ceilings, and sometimes you just start scraping the stuff away trying to get it out and

you don’t know what you’ve created.

Mr. BAUER. I agree. We talked about a judgment call. But we’re

talking about people’s homes. And if they want to sell their house,

I think it can be a considerable problem.

Senator BAUCUS. That’s a very good point.

Mr. BAUER. And they talk about sealing off the problem, I’m not

so sure that’s a long-term situation.

Senator BAUCUS. Have you been asking these questions of the

Federal and the State people in town?

Mr. BAUER. I’ve talked to Senator Burns about it.

Senator BAUCUS. Have you talked to the feds about it? Have you

talked to Paul about it? What does Paul say?

Mr. PERONARD. One of the things we’ve had to do with the number of samples we collected——

Senator BAUCUS. Paul, could you come over to the microphone?

Sorry. This is your big buildup, you better tell us something.

Mr. PERONARD. One of the things that we’ve done is the number

of samples we’ve collected and tried to prioritize them. And we’ve

done that so that we can assess where we think some of the risks

are. In the entraining samples that we have now, we did the air

samples first. And we’ve got a direct measure of what people are

going to be exposed to, what they’re breathing right now.

The second set of samples that we put in line are in queue at

the laboratory with the samples around the screening plant and

loading station, as we saw vermiculite there out in the open and

it was the unexfoliated, unexpanded material. Historically, that

has shown higher asbestos levels.

Third in the queue was the insulation samples from the 32

homes that we have in there. I’m going to have a complete set of

data for all the samples back by mid March. I can look and see

where the insulation samples are and bump them up as a priority.

What that means is that I take other samples which I’m analyzing,

take them out of the queue and I replace them. So, you know,

there’s a balance to be struck there.

In the meantime, the reason I put the insulation samples down

is just the point that Senator Baucus raised. It’s not—there are two

things that we need to figure out. One, is there, in fact, asbestos

in the expanded insulation? As it turns out, nobody’s ever sampled

and analyzed, at least on the government side, expanded vermiculite in this mine. So that’s a question one.

And then two, does that create an immediate exposure problem

even if it’s in there? How we get to the second answer is by doing

the air sampling, which we bumped up to the first priority.
20

So I actually think we’ve done this in the appropriate order. I

certainly can move it around in the lab. In any event, we’ll have

all the answers from the first round of samples back by March. I’ll

be able to come up here and tell you We have this percent at this

level of asbestos and vermiculite sample in Libby. So that’s sort of

how we approached it and that’s why.

Senator BAUCUS. Paul, while you’re here, you might address the

basic question about speeding things up a little bit and, you know,

what’s in the queue, and maybe the way to set up different or more

queues someplace in the universe in order to get the data and the

information here a little more quickly. It’s a basic point that John

was making.

Mr. PERONARD. You know, I used to have a larger part of my

stomach lining intact. And I don’t mean to whine about this. We

can certainly try to pick up the pace.

But especially with the air samples, there’s a limited number of

laboratories in the country that can run the samples with the type

of analysis that—transmission electromicroscopy that we are using.

In each of the samples, somebody’s got to sit under a microscope

after the sample has been prepared and count the fibers. It’s a tedious, tedious process. Something I hope never to do in my entire

life. So physically it takes time. There’s not a whole lot of laboratories I can go to for the analysis.

Senator BAUCUS. Where are the samples going to?

Mr. PERONARD. Right now they’re being done by two commercial

laboratories in Denver. So we also have to set up the contracting

to do that. The more laboratories I contract with the more time I

lose in the procurement cycle. I can add more labs and I can spend

more money off the project in the procurement cycle, and I’m not

sure what the net gain in time is.

Senator BAUCUS. Is there anything that we can do, like myself

or Senator Burns?

Mr. PERONARD. Unless you want to open an asbestos laboratory

that meets the QA standards and certification, there’s actually—because of the type of analysis, there’s a very rigorous quality control

procedure with it. And only so many labs are certified and capable

of giving you verifiable data. We can pick it up. I’ll get back to

doing that, and I’ll see if I can pull out the vermiculite insulation

samples.

Frankly, one of the other exposure areas that I’m a little more

worried about is actually the garden material. It’s something we

put back in the priority because people don’t garden in the wintertime, typically, unless they want to shovel the snow out of the way.

So, again, we’re trying to prioritize the samples and run through,

help see if we can pull out the insulation samples.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Paul.

Any other questions?

Ms. WINDOM. I just wanted to make one more comment. You’ve

heard from these panelists, and I think it’s pretty evident that this

is a wounded community. We were wounded before this event with

a bad economy, very high unemployment, a lot of struggles in families. And now we’re further wounded. And if we’re going to talk to

the Federal and State agencies, what I want to say is, We don’t

want to hemorrhage to death in this community while we’re trying
21

to resolve this situation. Please make sure that the results are

timely, that the figures, the facts that you give us are quantifiable

so we can go out to the press and the rest of the world and say

These are the facts. This isn’t rumor, this isn’t emotion, these are

the facts. And until we have the facts, we can’t begin to heal and

to rebuild our community and move forward. So that is extremely

important to us.

Thank you.

Senator BAUCUS. That’s a very good point, in fact. You can be

sure Senator Burns and I are going to be talking to Federal agencies to accomplish just that goal so that you can know more quickly

otherwise.

Okay, Tony, one more and then we’ve got to go to the next panel.

Mayor Berget. And I guess that word pork boys comes up. But

even some public works jobs or something up here, a little more

highway work in this area, so there are some jobs for the next couple years while we get through this difficult time. You know, if a

road was scheduled for 2005, we could move it back or something

and try to get some other public works jobs up here.

Senator BAUCUS. That’s a good point. This committee also has jurisdiction over the highway dollars. And we’ve got a 60-percent increase in highway dollars for Montana over a 6-year period compared to the previous 6-year period. And that began a year ago. We

used to get Montana 160 million dollars, roughly, of Federal highway funds. Now we get about 260-some million dollars in highway

funds. There are three of us that did that; myself, John Chafee and

John Warner basically were on this committee that—the general

rule was 40-percent increase. I made sure Montana got a 60-percent increase in that highway funding.

Now the question is where the money is spent in Montana. That

primarily is up to the highway commission. And so we’ve got to

really talk to Jim Roscoe sitting over here. He’ll give you some

ideas on that, where some of that money is spent. But that’s basically where it’s at. I hear you.

Okay; next panel. Thank you very, very much.

Next panel is Dr. Todd Damrow, Mark Simonich, DEQ.

Okay; Todd, start with you. This is Todd Damrow. He’s with the

Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services.

Dr. DAMROW. Senator Baucus, Senator Burns, for the record, my

name is Todd Damrow. I’m the State epidemiologist with the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services.

Senator BAUCUS. I’m sorry, don’t forget to hold the microphone

a little close to you.

STATEMENT OF DR. TODD DAMROW, Ph.D., M.P.H., STATE EPIDEMIOLOGIST, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES

Dr. DAMROW. Okay. I appreciate this opportunity to testify before

your committee about our department’s involvement in the various

State and Federal activities here in Libby.

On behalf of the department, I wish to sincerely thank the Federal Government for the assistance which they have provided to

our department on numerous occasions over the years.
22

As you might suspect, health care resources in this State are

rather limited. Public health workers with the highly specialized

training and expertise needed in Libby are not available in this

State. Thus, in these situations, it becomes necessary for us to appeal for help from Federal health authorities in order for our residents here to be properly served.

Our department has enjoyed a long history of good working relationships in Montana with Federal health experts from EPA and

ATSDR. Their responsiveness to the public health needs in Montana continues to this day, as evidenced by the strong showing of

Federal health workers here in Libby. And we are most appreciative for their assistance in providing residents of Libby with the

care that they expect and deserve.

Our department is currently involved in response activities in

several different ways.

First, the State medical officer and the State epidemiologists

have been working together with local health officials to help them

in decision making, when requested.

Since the public health system in Montana is set up by statutes

such that local/county health agencies have primacy over health

matters in their jurisdiction, the Lincoln County Health Department ultimately has the final decision making authority with respect to public health actions in Libby. State and Federal health

workers are very careful to respect this right of the counties.

It’s been our experience that county health departments appreciate our department’s assistance in decision making, especially

when dealing with large agencies like EPA and ATSDR. County

health departments are quite understandably nervous about becoming out on the limb alone when making decisions in isolation.

They recognize our department’s experience working with these

agencies, and they value our input because of insight obtained from

past situations in Montana. And we’re working closely with the

Lincoln County Health Department to make sure the health decisions that are made are logical, scientifically defensible and cost effective.

Close cooperation between county and State health agencies is

the norm here in Montana. We’ve worked hard over the years to

successfully establish good, close collegial working relations with

all of our county health departments, including Lincoln County.

Second, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human

Services is working closely together with health officials from EPA

and ATSDR to assist them in accomplishing their mission here in

Montana.

Since public health infrastructures and resources vary considerably among States in the nation, Federal health workers often rely

on State health workers to help them transition the work in the

locale. State health department workers are helping to facilitate

their work here in every manner possible. We stand firmly united

with EPA and with ATSDR in their efforts to protect the health of

the public in Libby.

Third, our department has engaged all the personnel and resources within our agency that are able to bear on the situation in

Libby. Workers in our department’s Bureau of Vital Statistics and

Records have provided data for analysis by State and Federal epi-
23

demiologists. Similarly, workers in the Montana Central Tumor

Registry have provided aid on cancer residents for analysis.

In an unprecedented action, departmental administrators

accessed medicaid claim databases for medical utilization review of

current and former residents of Libby. This action was undertaken

in an effort to help Federal health workers in their assessment of

the current health status of residents in Libby.

And last, our department has created new partnerships and

strengthened goal partnerships with other State agencies in response to the incident here.

Health professionals in our department are currently on call to

meet with the Department of Environmental Quality incident managers as developments unfold here. Face-to-face meetings of workers in our two agencies occur on a frequent basis to help ensure

that the State response actions are coordinated and comprehensive.

The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services

is also collaborating with the Montana Office of Rural Health in

Bozeman to evaluate and redress unmet needs regarding health

care delivery in Montana.

This office serves as the State’s single point of contact for the

Federal Office or Rural Health Policy and for funding from HRSA,

Health Resources and Services Administration.

Together, we’ve been working with the county health officer, with

the administrator of St. John’s Lutheran Hospital in an attempt to

secure funding for two critical unmet needs which have already

been mentioned. One would be to get a clinical coordinator, locally

hired, to work out of the hospital to assist the health officer with

medical screening and follow-up of patients here in Libby. And second, as telemedicine capabilities for the hospital to allow for teleradiology, pulmonary function telemetry and consulting on patient

evaluations and follow-up care.

So on closing, let me say that the State health department is

committed to working closely together with local, State and Federal

colleagues to ensure that the public health response to the situation in Libby is the best available anywhere.

Thank you.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Dr. Damrow.

Mark Simonich?

STATEMENT OF MARK SIMONICH, DIRECTOR, MONTANA

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Mr. SIMONICH. Thank you, Senator Baucus, Senator Burns. My

name is Mark Simonich. I’m the director of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. And I’d like to extend Governor

Racicot’s regret that he was not able to be here today. He certainly

did appreciate the offer to attend. We also appreciate this opportunity to address the committee and explain all the involvement

that our department has had and will continue to have with not

only the mine site but the various environmental issues here in

Libby.

The DEQ was formed just 5 years ago by an executive branch reorganization that brought into place the responsibilities for nearly

all environmental regulation in one agency. The DEQ, as it now

stands, administers more than 25 environmental laws in Montana.
24

Many of those are State laws. DEQ also has responsibility and delegation of authority for, in administering certain Federal laws as

well. We administer air quality laws, water quality laws, solid and

hazardous waste laws and are also responsible for development of

natural resources such as hard rock, open pit and coal mining operations in Montana. The department also has the responsibility for

overseeing cleanup activities for instances from the past. For example, underground storage tanks, abandoned mine, petroleum releases and, of course, Superfund. So DEQ has many responsibilities

in regard to the operations here in Libby, and has actually been

involved with the mine up here since the early 1970’s when the

State legislature first passed the Montana Metal Mine Reclamation

Act.

Prior to 1971, there was not a reclamation law in the State of

Montana, and so there wasn’t a direct regulation or requirement

for reclamation of that. At the point in time that that law was

passed, the department started working with Grace so that it could

be properly permitted to operate in Montana. Through the 20 or so

years after that that the mine operated, of course, Montana adopted a number of environmental laws, including our native air quality and water quality regulations.

Through that period of time, the department and its predecessor

permitted the mine as an operating mine, under the Metal Mine

Reclamation Act, also permitted, I think, 10 different air quality

permits during that period of time, as well as issuing water quality

permits for discharges from that facility. The department has continued to work with the company throughout that period of time

doing the necessary monitoring of every aspect of that.

As you know, the mine closed in 1990, and we are still administering what we refer to as a post-mine closure area where they

are continuing to do reclamation of the site. Other than under the

mining reclamation law, the company is required to put up a

bond—post a bond that will ensure that reclamation will take

place.

The mine was originally permitted to cover a potential area of

1,200 acres. Some 325 acres of that had already been disturbed

prior to a reclamation law going into place in Montana. So as a

part of working with the company over those years, a reclamation

bond was established for areas that were disturbed as the mine

was mined. Then as reclamation took place, the department would

take steps to reduce the bond that was in place at the time.

At this point in time, we now have, out of that entire 1,200-acre

area within the mining permit, only 125 acres is still held under

the bond. The bond is $66,700. That is the specific area of responsibility and the amount of money that is currently held by the

State just for mine reclamation as it relates to 125 acres on the

site.

Now, there have been a variety of concerns, Senator, that because the bond is so small that, in fact, if there are additional

areas of work that may need to be done, that there won’t be enough

money to get that work done. I would like to assure the committee

that we do not see it in that same fashion. The Metal Mine Reclamation Act is very specific, the bond is very specific in terms of

what we can require to be done on the site. But as I indicated, the
25

State has a responsibility for other environmental laws, and we’re

fully prepared to utilize each one of those laws to ensure that adequate reclamation or cleanup is done at the mine site as we proceed through that area.

I won’t speak to all the testing that’s been done in the homes in

the community. I’m sure EPA will touch on that. But I would like

to indicate that through the course of the spring and into the summer, we will continue to do a fair amount of sampling, particularly

of the Rainy Creek Road and Rainy Creek itself and some of the

drainages of some of the other tributaries around Rainy Creek, as

well as the mine site, so we can determine if, in fact, outside of reclamation that was done and vegetation that was established, is

there any ongoing concerns at the mine site particularly that need

to be addressed. Even if they have already been reclaimed, we still

have the authority, if need be, to require additional work to be

done if we find that there is asbestos that is exposed and potentially being re-entrained in the air which might cause some type

of health concern.

I would like to speak, just briefly if I can, to water quality. Asbestos is not something that will be water soluble. So we don’t anticipate that public water supplies will necessarily be at risk in

Libby. But to try and help bring some level of comfort, we did go

out and sample several groundwater wells that are used for domestic purposes up in the valley, near the mine, mobile home courts,

at the nursery, with the screening plant. We also coordinated with

the City of Libby and have taken water samples at the water treatment plant, both the raw, untreated water going into the treatment

plant and the treated water that comes out of the plant. All those

samples have come up clean, no asbestos.

We wanted to make this point again that we do not see any concern with the public water supply in Libby with asbestos. The concern, really, would be more from the standpoint of what might be

in the soils, what might be entrained in the air, and we will continue to work through this spring and summer with the EPA and

local officials to try and determine what those areas of contamination may be in trying to determine appropriate steps to take to

clean up areas in those particular areas so we can remove that.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank very much, Mark. Basically, you heard

the earlier panel. And as I understand it, essentially there’s a concern that—if I can state it in their words, We really don’t quite

know, yet, the degree with which we’ve got a problem on our

hands; how much it’s going to cost; what resources we’re going to

need; what efforts to hire medical personnel and equipment or

whatnot. nd, second, Gee, is there some way to speed up these tests

so we have a better idea more quickly of what the situation is here

so we can get a handle on it.

So as State representatives, what advice do you have in answer

to those questions? And how much of those concerns can you State

officials solve?

Mr. SIMONICH. Senator, I think I’ll take the first shot of that,

particularly from the environmental side.

As you and I spoke before the meeting, it will take us several

months to continue the sampling that we need to do, from the envi-
26

ronmental side, because, again, we’re looking at trying to sample

new soils, we’re trying to sample high stream flows in streams that

might be carrying asbestos off the mine site that wouldn’t occur

normally at other times of the year. It’s very difficult to get to

those soils when we have frozen conditions.

Senator BAUCUS. To make it clear to everybody, when you talk

about the environmental side, you’re saying the environmental side

as opposed to the health side; is that right?

Mr. SIMONICH. Yes, sir.

Senator BAUCUS. You’re talking about clean-ups here more

than—are you talking—more than you’re talking about health

needs and taking care of people that——

Mr. SIMONICH. That’s correct, sir. I’ll let Dr. Damrow address the

health side.

But from the clean-up side, we need to be able to see those same

areas during drier conditions. Those drier conditions are the ones

that, more than likely, would cause some potential health risk from

the asbestos getting airborne. Much less likely that we would be

seeing that, particularly in the outdoor environment, in the wintertime. So we will continue to do that kind of sampling during the

summertime and then begin putting into place the protocol to do

the clean-up.

Now, I’m convinced that we have the ability to work very closely

with the EPA and the local people in Libby to put those clean-up

activities in place very quickly, once we determine what exactly

needs to be done on the ground.

I’ll let Dr. Damrow speak to the health side.

Dr. DAMROW. Senator, from the public health standpoint, until

we know for sure just exactly what we’re dealing with, and can accurately determine the impact of the incident, it’s going to be tough

to come up with appropriate response actions and fiscal figures associated with those actions.

As I said in my testimony, the State must necessarily appeal to

the experts at the Federal level. We’re in over our heads on this.

We recognize that. And we want to be sure the folks here get what

they expect and deserve; they get an appropriate response. And so

we’re turning to the feds with ATSDR and EPA to provide us with

some of the answers for us to go on from here.

Senator BAUCUS. Mark, could you maybe just tell us—maybe delineate a little bit more where—first of all, I have the utmost confidence in you, but you still use the words ‘‘in over our heads.’’

Where are some areas that we need some help? If you could just

delineate those, as you see from it the public health perspective.

Dr. DAMROW. As was pointed out earlier, we need some timely

results back to determine the impact of past activities on the

health of the public. We need to assess the human health. That’s

why these medical screenings are so important. Perhaps Dr.

Spence, our State medical officer, having interacted with physicians

in the community and the specialists, could address that.

Senator BAUCUS. Okay.

Dr. SPENCE. I think two things are critically important. One is

what Paul Peronard pointed out; is that the testing that we want

done and is being done, the transmission electromicroscopic testing,

that is the ultimate.
27

Asbestosis is a disease. It’s caused by very minute fibers. You

cannot conduct insensitive tests to determine the magnitude of fibers in samples, whether it’s air samples or earth samples. Paul

has prioritized, looking at the most dangerous areas first. He is

looking at the air quality. That has been done. We do know that

there is a health hazard here, but certainly not of major magnitude. It is something that needs to be addressed, and it is being

addressed.

The other thing is to have an idea of how many people we’re

dealing with. The screening that is proposed will look at the overwhelming majority of residents in this immediate valley that are

currently residing here and have resided here for the period of time

in question. We want to determine what health effects they have

suffered. We know, for example, that there are numerous people

that worked in the plant that had exposures. Although we have

identified many of those individuals, we want to identify more of

them and their families. What we don’t know and what we need

to know is about those individuals that are neither plant workers

or family members of plant workers and what degree of disease

they may or may not have. We also want to know what are their

sources of exposure. This is going to take medical screening on a

timely scale right now and hopefully it will be accomplished in the

not-too-distant future.

Senator BAUCUS. We’re depending on ATSDR and EPA to get

this data, and it’s the Federal agencies that are getting——

Dr. SPENCE. EPA is the Agency that is capable of getting the

screening. We do not have those resources. As Paul pointed out,

there are very few laboratories in the country that even have the

capability of doing that type of testing that needs to be done to get

the information we need, that needs to be done, to address the

medical issues. And they have very rigorous quality control measures that have to be in place, as Paul pointed out also. So we are

highly dependent upon them.

Then with regard to medical screening, we have put together,

and we are in the process, of initiating screening. Once we have an

idea of the magnitude of people, we will get a denominator of the

number of people we screen. And then we will get a numerator of

the number of people that have evidence of the disease. And once

we have an idea where they are, then we can focus more specifically. But we need to get that information first.

Senator BAUCUS. But is it true, then, that we don’t have the facilities in our own State to do that. The State agencies do not have

that——

Dr. SPENCE. We are heavily relying on the Federal agencies; that

is a correct assumption. We are——

Senator BAUCUS. Okay. But, Mark, the DEQ has taken some

tests. Is that more with respect to exposure and potential cleanup?

Is that what that’s about?

Mr. SIMONICH. Yes, Senator. DEQ’s interest is, of course, from

the standpoint of do we find any continuing sources that may be

putting the people at risk. Are there sources of contamination, particularly out in the environment, potentially around the homes,

that would cause the people to be at risk? So that we need to then

determine what steps we can take to clean these up and eliminate
28

that risk. From that standpoint, I think the DEQ is in a very good

position, and we do have a good relationship—working relationship

with EPA to address those. We do that kind of work all the time

on sites all across the State.

Senator BAUCUS. Let’s say, under the best case scenario, there’s

no exposure. Worst case, we’ve got exposure problems. Maybe air,

maybe ground or somewhere. Then, is it the EPA that does the

cleanup and addresses that, or is it DEQ, or who does that?

Mr. SIMONICH. Senator Baucus, there’s no one formula for that.

That’s something that I would anticipate we would work together

with EPA to determine.

Right now, Mr. Peronard and those folks that are here under a

particular area of authority under Superfund to do a removal action. They believe that there’s an imminent threat, and they will

come in and spend money, engage the EPA to potentially undertake a cost recovery from the responsible party that’s there.

What we’re looking at is, we’re unsure whether or not what we

will find up here will be of the magnitude that it will ultimately

result in a Federal Superfund. It may be that the State will take

it on under our own respective authorities. And in either case, the

agencies would look to companies that may have been responsible

to actually perform the work at our direction.

Senator BAUCUS. And be responsible, financially responsible?

Mr. SIMONICH. That’s correct. We would anticipate, through all

this—and I believe Grace has indicated a willingness to step up to

the plate and do whatever is necessary—we would anticipate working with Grace once we determine levels of cleanup that may be

done to, in fact, carry that out. Even if Grace does the work, and

quite often the Federal agencies or State agencies look to the company to do the work directly, it is done under the guidance with

the specific approval of the State and Federal agency. So there is

that oversight.

Senator BAUCUS. Any thought been given to how to preserve land

use restrictions, in the event that the solution is not removal but

it’s maybe capping or some conservation, to use a better term, some

easement, some of the—some use restriction that makes—how use

is maintained in the future, 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now when

title transfers? How does that work out?

Mr. SIMONICH. That’s a very good question. Because just last

year with the Montana legislature, it took steps and amended the

State Superfund law that allows us the ability to place institutional

controls. It gives us greater ability to create an institutional control. That’s what you’re talking about.

If we want—for example, on a normal site, if we’re going to create a repository where we’re going to collect a bunch of waste and

bury it on-site, we want to make sure it’s not going to be disturbed;

that we’re not going to be digging in it for the basement of a home

and drilling a well. We will now have the ability to create these institutional controls and, in fact, create, at the State and at the local

level, an authority to place a specific restriction on how that property might be used. That restriction, then, could be enforced either

by the State or by local government. So that in the future, as potentially a subdivision might be proposed in an area, the people

that would need to be in place would be in place potentially looking
29

at that, making the decision, would be ware of that, looking at that

to make sure that if it wasn’t a complete cleanup, that there was

some capping or something like that that would be in place, that

it would not be disturbed.

Senator BAUCUS. Are there any State programs that address asbestos contamination from installation in residences?

Mr. SIMONICH. Senator Baucus, the areas that the State regulates asbestos from an indoor standpoint really gets to when you’re

in remodeling and removing it. And if the houses have been sampled, or if commercial buildings have been sampled and asbestos

levels are found at certain levels, then it falls in an area that we

regulate. And so the individuals during that work would have to

be licensed individuals. Otherwise, generally the State does not get

involved in directly working in individuals’ homes.

And to me, I think you struck on probably one of the biggest

questions that needs to be answered in terms of Libby. Because of

the concern of the insulation—the vermiculite insulation that was

used in many homes, not only in Libby but throughout Montana

and around the country, questions have been raised about is there

asbestos contamination and what needs to be done. Mr. Peronard

explained very, very well the level of sampling and the analysis

that’s being done.

What I don’t think any of us have been able to explain to the

people of Libby, yet, is at what point in time, at what level do we

really see that there is a specific risk that needs to be addressed

and at that point in time then what should be done in the house.

And who would be there to step in and assist the homeowners in

that regard. And that might be a question that the folks on the

Federal panel could better answer for you. The State—that’s not an

area that the State normally has ever been involved in.

Senator BAUCUS. Dr. Spence?

Dr. SPENCE. Senator, I’d like to clarify the last question that you

asked. I don’t think we can take a brush fire or SWAT team approach to this. This is a longstanding problem and may be a longstanding problem for years to come. We do not know that.

What we anticipate the Federal Government will provide us is

not pulling up in a van dropping out people that will completely

attack our problem, solve it, then get in the van and leave, and

that’s not what we’re looking for. We’re looking for them to come

in and help us to make the decisions of how to set up the infrastructure and where to go from here; what type of screening, and

help us leave that infrastructure and help us realize how much we

need in the way of support, financial and otherwise, to get the job

done or not only now but for years to come and also for possible

similar types of episodes outside of Libby.

Senator BAUCUS. One question I have is, as I recall looking at

the newspaper accounts, there are about 30-some homes that were

tested for airborne insulation or problems—asbestos problems, and

maybe there are two that had the concern. But all those homes

were people who volunteered. And how do you deal with the question of, you know, if asbestos is in the community, either in the

home or on land and the owner doesn’t volunteer his property? So

you may have asbestos there but nobody really knows. It affects

other people in the community, I imagine, in some respect.
30

Mr. SIMONICH. Senator, that’s a very good question. Again, it’s

one that the EPA may better be able to answer than we can. Although there have been three dozen or so homes that have been

sampled so far, I understand the EPA has a much longer list that

they’re still working on that haven’t. They’ve tried to prioritize that

in some fashion. But, again, there’s a fair likelihood that there will

be many, many homes in Libby that wouldn’t necessarily be sampled for a variety of reasons; the homeowners may have asked for

them not to do that.

Again, I would anticipate that unless those homes that are sampled begin to show some real concerns that you’re finding widespread contamination or widespread validated levels of asbestos,

there may not be a need to try to go pursue that any further into

the community. Whether or not there’s any specific authority or

ability to go further into the community if that contamination is

found, I don’t know that we have it at the State level. It may be

something that will have to be done at the Federal level.

Senator BAUCUS. Has the department or anyone looked to see

whether there’s asbestos installation in other homes in Montana

other than Libby?

Mr. SIMONICH. We can tell you for a certainty that the same material that was used throughout Libby, the vermiculite, has been

used throughout the State of Montana.

In other words, one of the individuals who’s our reclamation specialist who deals with the reclamation site of mining up here at

this mine, he has two homes in Townsend that are both insulated

with it, since this insulation was used throughout the United

States.

Again, the real question is not whether or not there is insulation

in the town but the condition that the insulation is in; whether or

not it’s something that would be open for exposure at this point in

time, whether it’s trapped in the walls or the ceilings. Those are

the kinds of things that need to be addressed to determine whether

or not whether, in fact, there might be a risk in the homes.

Senator BAUCUS. All right. Do you have anything you want to

say either to the last panel or to the next one?

Mr. SIMONICH. I’ll take this chance. To me, again, I made the

point earlier that the removal team that the EPA has in here right

now is normally a team that comes in, they clean up the site and

leave. They do very good work. We’ve experienced their work in a

variety of areas in Montana. But because of the uniqueness of the

situation in Libby, it’s more than just an abandoned mine site that

needs to be cleaned up and then you’re okay with it.

There is a question about ongoing concern within the community;

whether there is additional contamination in people’s homes; how

the medical help will handle those things; the nature of the ongoing need for health screening in Montana. I think it really points

to the need to ensure that there is a great deal of coordination

done, particularly at the local level. To make sure that any of us

that are participating, either at the State or Federal agencies, all

the steps are taken humanly possible to make sure that is coordinated very closely with the local people that will be here for the

very, very long term that will be involved and be responsible. I
31

think Ron Anderson said it very well, and I would certainly echo

the sentiments.

Senator BAUCUS. Kind of institutionalize, systematize what

you’re talking about, so that it’s not cut and dried or get running

so it’s followed up and followed through.

Mr. SIMONICH. As an example, and this is something we thought

about at our department. The last panel talked a lot about health

screening, the funding to do that, potential responsibility or liability with the hospitals and others being involved. And of course EPA

is here now monitoring. We don’t know whether there will be a

need for EPA necessarily to be involved for the long-term. Locals

certainly will need to be and I suspect State health will be as well.

It would seem to make sense to look to see if, and I believe there

is some authority within Federal law, to begin to create some type

of a trust where there can be a specific trustee established working

with the local board that could help oversee those health

screenings; to be able to set up the program, so you can have appropriate medical expertise like from a variety of areas, from State

and Federal agencies as well as the local people, where they really

have an ability to control that, to create the mechanism to do those

health screenings and to direct the funding over the long term. I

think those trusts are established. They’re able to be done in a way

that they can insulate the parties participating from liability so

that local hospitals wouldn’t suddenly be as concerned about potential liabilities.

Senator BAUCUS. That’s an interesting thought. I’m glad you’re

thinking creatively like that. All right, good; I want to thank you

very much.

We’ll take a slight break here.

[Recess.]

Senator BAUCUS. Our next panel is going to be Bill Yellowtail,

also Dr. Henry Falk. Would you both please come to the table? And

we’ll get started now. Probably one of the more important parts of

this hearing.

Mr. Yellowtail is the EPA Regional Administrator of Region VIII.

Max Dodson is the EPA assistant administrator of Region VIII.

Paul Peronard is the on-scene coordinator. Dr. Chris Weis, toxicologist; Dr. Aubrey Miller, physician. John Wardel, director of

Montana operations office; Wendy Thomi, community relations and

program. Dr. Falk is the assistant administrator with ATSDR and

will be accompanied by Dr. Jeff Lybarger.

Okay; folks, you may proceed. We’ll first start with you first, Bill.

We are very honored to have Bill Yellowtail here. As we all know,

Bill is a Montanan, serving this region very well. And we’re very

honored, Bill, with the good work that you do for us as a Montanan

in the Denver office, and I’m sure you heard the accolades.

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. Thank you, Senator Baucus, we very much appreciate it.

Senator BAUCUS. I give you all the credit since you took over as

the regional manager.

Please proceed, Mr. Yellowtail.
32

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM YELLOWTAIL, REGION VIII

ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. Thank you, Senator Baucus, Senator Burns. Thank you for inviting me the opportunity to offer testimony concerning the asbestos situation in Libby, Montana. EPA Region VIII

will complete the investigation it is conducting within Libby with

all due speed and thoroughness and as a top priority. Senators,

you’ve already introduced the EPA team, and I very much appreciate that.

Senator BAUCUS. Why don’t you reintroduce them?

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. If you don’t mind. Max Dodson is the Assistant Regional Administrator for, among all things, Superfund. Paul Peronard you’ve already met, is our onscene coordinator. Dr. Chris Weis is a regional toxicologist. Can

you stand up, Chris? Dr. Aubrey Miller, M.D., a physician. John

Wardel is our director of our Montana operations office. Wendy

Thomi is the community involvement coordinator. Matt Cohn is our

senior enforcement legal counsel. And not here, but worth some

mentioning because she’s important to the community, is Linda

Newstrom, who is our office manager out at our storefront office

downtown on the corner of Fifth and Mineral.

I’m Bill Yellowtail. I’m regional administrator for the Environ- mental Protection Agency, Region VIII, in Denver. I’ve provided

written text of my presentation for your record but, if you don’t

mind, in the interest of time, I’ll hit the high spots and abbreviate

my remarks somewhat today. And I want to speak, then, directly

to the activities EPA has been involved in since November 1999

and where we’re headed in the future.

First, the Agency’s recent actions. On Monday, November 22, 1999, I made the decision to send to Libby an on-scene coordinator

from my emergency response program, along with a team of scientists, toxicologists and a physician and a community involvement

specialist, to investigate the situation. They arrived in Libby on

November 23, 1999, the very next day.

This investigation confirmed two things. First, there is a large

number of current and historic cases of asbestos-related diseases

centered around Libby. A pulmonologist in Spokane was currently

treating over 200 cases of asbestos-related diseases among folks

who had either lived in Libby or worked at the mine. Further, he

had provided care to dozens more who had already died. Of 33 incidents of apparently nonoccupational exposures, six had no family

or other ties to anyone working at the mine.

The second thing our investigation confirmed was he likelihood

that significant amounts of asbestos-contaminated vermiculite still

remain in and around Libby such as at the former mine itself, at

the former screening plant, the railroad loading station. And the

base material of Rainy Creek Road appears to contain tailings and

samplings of the mine. Residents have stated that piles of expanded and unexpanded vermiculite used to sit at the former expansion/export plant next to two former youth baseball fields. And

they’ve indicated that children regularly played in and around

these piles. Further, local residents used both expanded and

unexpanded vermiculite from the mine site waste piles in their

yards and gardens as a soil conditioner, and the expanded vermicu-
33

lite was used as wall and attic insulation in many homes. The descriptions of historic operations of the mine, mill and processing

center show that large amounts of dust and other fugitive emissions were released into the environment when these operations

were still running.

These findings led EPA to initiate a larger-scale investigation

with three overall goals: First, to determine the current distribution of asbestos contamination in Libby. Second, more accurately to

determine the extent of asbestos-related health impacts, in Libby.

And finally, third, to distinguish the effects from past asbestos exposures from any that might be ongoing currently or may occur in

the future.

In December 1999, EPA collected samples of air and dust from

inside 32 homes and two businesses around Libby and conducted

samples—or collected samples from yards, gardens, insulation and

driveways at these same locations. Air and oil samples were collected from the former screening plant and railroad loading station,

as well as at the former expansion/export plant. Samples were also

collected from along Rainy Creek Road. To date, EPA has collected,

in fact, over 600 samples. Seasonal sampling of ambient air around

Libby and the former mine site began in January and will continue

through this fall, as conditions are favorable.

In December we began planning a wide-scale community medical

testing and exposure assessment. Chest x-rays, where indicated,

follow-up pulmonary evaluations, will be given to residents and

former residents of the Libby area. This effort should help determine the full scope of asbestos-related medical impacts in Libby

and, in conjunction with the ongoing environmental sampling, help

distinguish between past and current sources of exposure. The

medical testing is planned for start-up this spring.

Let me move to what we know about asbestos-related health effects in Libby. It’s very apparent that the asbestos-related health

effects associated with the vermiculite mining and processing operations in Libby have been significant. The vast majority of cases

that EPA and the Public Health Service have reviewed appear to

be occupational in nature. But the next largest group appears to

be family members of those involved in the mining operation.

Beyond the occupational and secondary exposures, that is exposures to workers’ families, it is difficult to identify the sources for

other asbestos-related diseases and whether they exist today. It is

probable that people who played in the piles or lived near the

former expansion plant when it was in operation are in greater

risk. But this has not yet been confirmed by a rigorous investigation. EPA has not yet concluded whether or to what extent having

this vermiculite in the home garden, in a yard or a wall or attic

insulation, correlates to an increased incidence of asbestos-related

disease. It is these latter two questions which form the crux of the

ongoing investigation.

Let me move to the state of the environment in Libby today and

what we know about it. The piles of vermiculite around the export/

expansion plant are gone. Air emissions from the mill and processing operations no longer exist. And ambient air conditions in Libby

have greatly improved over the last decade. The results from the

air samples collected by EPA in December indicate that unsafe lev-
34

els of asbestos fibers still exist in some areas of the former screening plant and railroad loading station and the export/expansion

plant.

EPA has already initiated discussions with W.R. Grace about

conducting and/or paying for cleanup actions at those locations.

One of the 32 homes sampled in Libby also showed unsafe levels

of tremolite-actinolite fibers. EPA is currently trying to determine

the source of those fibers, and then EPA will take steps to reduce

those levels. We expect to have the results from the remainder of

the samples collected in December by mid March and will announce our findings at that time.

Now, let me turn to next steps. The next step is the implementation of the community medical testing and exposure assessment

that EPA and ATSDR will jointly conduct, with assistance from the

Public Health Service. The outreach education efforts will begin in

March 2000, next month. The actual medical evaluations will begin

in April 2000. EPA and ATSDR have both committed to conduct

this action under the above-mentioned time frames. If done successfully, this evaluation should also help to serve to develop the

local medical infrastructure in Libby so that residents can receive

proper diagnosis, treatment and care locally.

Senators I see that my time has expired. If you’ll forgive me, I’d

like to continue.

Senator BAUCUS. It’s important that you’re here. You traveled a

long distance, and we want to hear what you have to say.

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. Thank you, Senator.

Montana EPA, along with Montana’s DEQ, will continue to continue its investigations in and around Libby and will begin cleanup

actions at the two former processing centers this spring. As more

information is gathered and more information data become available, EPA will discuss its findings publicly and take action accordingly. It is EPA’s intent to identify all areas where unacceptable

exposure to tremolite and actinolite asbestos are occurring and remediate them. EPA plans to test an additional 75 to 100 homes

starting in late February. Ambient air sampling will continue

through next fall. Investigations as to the present physical condition of the mine and the area surrounding the mine will be started

as soon as the snow melts this spring.

Finally, and I know this is of importance and interest to you, I

want to address the matter of coordination of local, State and Federal efforts. Given the critical nature of the situation in Libby

today, it is imperative that the efforts of all the agencies involved

be well coordinated. I can and will take steps to ensure that he

agencies work together in a coordinated manner. We have conducted several briefings and interviews with officials from the City

of Libby and Lincoln County.

In addition EPA, ATSDR, Montana DEQ, Montana Department

of Public Health and Human Services, and the Public Health Service have met extensively with the county medical officer, hospital

officials and local physicians to exchange information about these

investigations. Local medical resources will be used to a great extent in conducting the community medical screening and exposure

assessment and have participated in the development of this

project.
35

EPA and the other Federal agencies involved will continue to

communicate with local officials and medical personnel as the investigations progress. EPA and Montana DEQ have helped to facilitate the formation of a community advisory group, which is a

citizen-based group designed to better transmit, receive and evaluate the information collected during our investigations. The group

will serve to act as a forum to discuss and debate publicly many

of the inevitably controversial issues surrounding the investigations.

Montana DEQ has been participating jointly with the EPA in

this investigation since it was begun. Montana DEQ personnel

have been involved with the investigation, design and implementation and will participate with EPA when clean-up actions actually

begin. Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services

has been integrally involved in the current medical information

and has participated in the design of the community medical testing and exposure test assessment. This relationship will continue

as this project evolves.

Coordination among the Federal agencies involved is also paramount to the success of this project. Because of the overlap in authorities that’s potential, and to eliminate any duplication of efforts, ATSDR and EPA are jointly conducting their investigations

in Libby where that is appropriate. To this end, the two agencies

are now in the process of finalizing an agreement on how the work

will be conducted and ensuring a sharing of information and resources. As a result, EPA has agreed to fully fund the community

medical testing and exposure assessment while relying on ATSDR’s

expertise in its design and implementation. In addition, the agencies have agreed to coordinate their enforcement and cost-recovery

actions concerning W.R. Grace.

Senators I want to assure you that I personally have charged my

on-scene coordinator with the directions discussed above. And he

will, and I will, stand fully accountable to the success of their implementation.

Senator Baucus, Senator Burns, I want at this time to acknowledge and express EPA’s appreciation for the generous compliments

for the EPA team that Libby folks have delivered today. We will

work hard to continue to earn your confidence. Thank you, Senators, for your attention and consideration.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Bill. It’s clear that conversations you and I had when I called you up when this issue

broke, as well as Dr. Falk, when I encouraged you to be expeditious

and also burn the midnight oil to make sure everybody works together and pays proper close attention and listens to the local folks,

that you’ve done that. It’s—whether through Paul or through your

other people, it’s clear you made that point very strongly. And I

know from speaking for the people of Libby, we appreciate and

know that you’re going to continue in that regard. Thank you very

much.

Dr. Falk?
36

STATEMENT OF DR. HENRY FALK, M.D., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE

REGISTRY

Dr. FALK. Senator Baucus, Senator Burns and members of the

Libby community, thank you very much. My name is Dr. Henry

Falk, and I’m the assistant administrator of the Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry public health agency within the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Accompanying me

is Dr. Jeffrey Lybarger who’s the director of the Department of

Health Studies and has been our lead coordinator for the project

here, and Sharon Campolucci who has been working with Dr.

Lybarger here in the community. I’d like to start by saying we appreciate the opportunity to be here to address the public health issues. We have been listening to

the concerns, and I’d like to assure you that we will do our utmost

to provide whatever assistance we can.

Second, I know that the issue of coordination has been very criti- cal and is very much on your mind. I’ve been listening to that all

morning. And I’d like to echo Bill Yellowtail’s comments that we

will work very closely with the EPA. We always work very closely

with the State and health community officials and, again, we will

do our most on that score.

I just want to briefly summarize the areas that we can work in, in terms of public health, but I want to point out we share the desire to develop both the immediate as well as the long-term steps

to address this issue. Among the activities ATSDR will pursue initially in Libby are, first, providing advice and consultation on environmental sampling; second, reviewing medical and vital records

for residents already diagnosed with asbestos-related disease;

third, developing protocols from the medical testing which will

begin later this spring; and fourthly, developing and distributing

health care provider and community education materials and providing relevant training to health care professionals who may need

to provide services to residents and workers in the Libby area.

As you know, ATSDR was created by Congress in 1980 under the

Superfund legislation. Our mandates derived from the Superfund

legislation and they are to provide health assessments and health

investigation in relation to sites where there are toxic chemicals or

hazardous substances, and so we work in communities through our

authorities that come from that legislation. Because of that, we

work very closely with the EPA, as a part of the Superfund process

and, again, the State health department, local health agencies and

affected communities.

I’m a little bit in the Mo Udall situation you mentioned before,

and I’ll try to be quick. I don’t want to repeat things that have

been said before.

I do want to point out that we are in the Department of Health

and Human Services. We are, at ATSDR, closely related to the sentence review for which is also a plaintiff and one of the closely related agencies, National Institute for Occupational Safety, or

NIOSH, which, as part of CDC, carried out work in the Libby area

in the 1980’s; documented asbestos exposure and related health effects, including respiratory and lung ailments in workers at the

Libby vermiculite facilities.
37

Senator BAUCUS. Dr. Falk, would you pull the microphone a little

bit closer.

Dr. FALK. And that work conducted by NIOSH was critical to our

understanding of the potential health impact of the situation.

ATSDR initiated site activities with a site visit to Libby from

January 18 to January 21. We had a follow-up visit here February

2–9, during which time our staff and DHHS regional worked with

State and local health officials to outline future public health activities. The key elements of the overall health response plan for

Libby that were worked out are to: One, provide input and advice

on environmental sampling;.

Second, collect and analyze medical and epidemiologic data to

better characterize the nature and extent of asbestos-related disease in the community. And this would involve review of medical,

pathology and vital records date for the residents of the Libby area

who have already been diagnosed with the disease. And that will

be important for our understanding of the full picture of what the

impact has been on the community;

Third, is the coordination of the medical testing for people in the

community who have had past exposure to asbestos in order to

identify people with asbestos-related conditions so they can be referred for further medical care as needed; and

Fourth, to provide the public health education program, as I

noted.

I would like to amplify, briefly, some comments related to the

medical screening. The desire to identify the extent of the site-related adverse health effects is a very key component to our work

here. Planning by us to provide medical testing to persons through

Federal, State and local agencies has been ongoing to develop this

effort. The medical testing will provide screening services and advice on diagnosis and long-term care needs for people who were exposed to asbestos; it will also help us to estimate the prevalence

of this condition for people who have been exposed; and assist the

local health department and local physicians to estimate the magnitude of asbestos-related illnesses that must be addressed in the

future by local physicians, a point which was brought out earlier

by Dr. Black and others.

Under this plan, people who lived near the site, worked with vermiculite, lived in a household that had a vermiculite worker, or

had some other activities which allowed them to have frequent contact with vermiculite in the Libby area, would be identified and included in the medical testing.

We are progressing on this plan. There is, as has been mentioned, a meeting coming up next week which will include local officials, State officials, Dr. Black, Dr. Spence, Dr. Whitehouse, ourselves, EPA, as well as outside asbestos experts to continue working on the details of the screening effort. We anticipate we will

have a very large turnout, hopefully, from the Libby area for the

medical testing.

As you mentioned, in the letter to you, DHHS noted that the

Health Resources and Services Administration has already committed $80,000. But as you said, you see that as indicative of the department’s commitment to assess the appropriate way to see that.
38

We also want very much to participate in the community process

and working with the community. We are working with local partners to plan a community meeting in Libby in preparation for the

screening. The idea is to create an environment for individuals to

take directly with scientific, environmental and health experts and

about health-related questions and concerns. We hope this public

availability session will be held within the next month and certainly well before the medical testing and screening begins so people have the opportunity to learn more about that and ask any

questions they have.

I would like to reiterate that we share your concerns about the

health impact in the community. I’m confident that all of us will

do our utmost in working together to address both the short-term

and long-term public health needs of the community.

Thank you very much. I’m be happy to answer any questions.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Dr. Falk. And, again, thank you for

traveling all the way from Atlanta; is that right? Appreciate it very

much. Welcome to Montana.

The basic question is, how quickly can you provide sufficient resources and test results and expertise to enable us to put a plan

together and to know how much we’re going to have to spend, what

resources we’re going the need and so forth. I mean, you heard Dr.

Damrow, for example, say We just need help, we’re over our heads.

We’re dependent upon you, both agencies, the ATSDR as well as

EPA, to help find solutions for us. So what can you tell us, hearing

them say We’re over our heads, we need this data, we need to get

this put together.

To be honest, I was a bit struck by the first panel which was almost as much at sea as it was when I talked to them about a

month ago. At least that was my impression. That they’re asking

the same kinds of questions today that they were asking about a

month ago which, to me, indicates that they’re still dependent upon

the State to some degree but to you to a greater degree to get these

answers quickly so that we can then put together a plan. What can

you tell us about how—what you can provide, how quickly you can

provide it and how much it’s going to cost and when we’re going

to know how much it’s going to cost so we can then ask ourselves

where are we going to get the resources to do all this.

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. Dr. Falk, I’ll let you begin and then I’ll follow.

Dr. FALK. Let me begin by saying that I think this problem is

devised into the short-term and the long-term. On the short-term,

I think we are making very rapid progress. We are drawing up

plans for the screening effort. We are, you know, assessing what

the likely needs are to do that screening effort in terms of equipment, such as x-ray equipment and pulmonary function testing

equipment that was mentioned earlier, in terms of, you know, what

it takes to coordinate that effort. And I think we have made a lot

of progress with EPA in terms of how to fund that short-term effort. And I think that is moving along. We are trying to get the

best advice possible on what is the appropriate way to do the

screening and set it up properly. And I think—and I think we are

getting a handle on that.

I think the tougher question, really, is for the longer term. And

I know this has come up before. And there are many questions that
39

will become clearer over the next 3 or 4 or 5 months. But it will

be important to know how high the environmental samples are, different locations. It will be important to know what percentage of

people who were not workers or family members turn up with any

positive findings on the screening effort. And I think then we will

have a better assessment, in terms of what the long-term leads are.

We—if—you know, if there are ongoing environmental exposures,

then one has to think about what are the long-term medical testing

needs. If there are people who turn up with positive findings on

any of the screening tests, then one has to think about what is appropriate follow-up activities. So I think it’s difficult to say that exactly now too. We actually learn this process over the next few

months.

Senator BAUCUS. What do you mean by short-term and what do

you mean by long-term? What kinds of things are addressed in

short-term and what in the long-term, just so I can get a sense—

quantify. About the only way I can think is I have this phrase in

my mind, bedevil my office with it; names, data and dates. I just

need to know deadlines. Quantify as much as possible, you know,

when we’re going to get something done. Avoid the abstract wherever possible.

If you could give me something I can get my hands on, something

specific, so people in the community can get their hands on something here. What are we talking about here? What’s the short-term,

specifically; what’s the long-term, specifically?

Dr. FALK. In the short-term, as Mr. Yellowtail has noted, we

have been aiming for something like the latter part of April to complete the screening process. And I think our efforts between now

and then are devoted towards doing that, as well as organizing

that as best we can.

Senator BAUCUS. In April; is that what you said?

Dr. FALK. Yes.

Senator BAUCUS. By April what will we know?

Dr. FALK. Between now and then, we will be developing the protocol for the screening process. We will be preparing locally with

the physicians, hospital, State groups in terms of designing the

screening process and arranging for how that will be implemented,

meeting with people and making sure they are aware of how that

will proceed. So I think we are in the process of over—between now

and then, of organizing the screening effort, meaning communities

working with the local health department physicians and so on. So

that is between now and April. We then have the screening process, which will actually occur. And during that time we will be, you

know, developing the information and understanding what the results of that process are. And over the next several months, we will

have an understanding of what information we have learned from

the screening process.

We will, simultaneously, on a separate track, also be doing some

of the other things which I mentioned during that time period,

such as trying to review the vital records, review medical information on people who have already been diagnosed. I think people

who have already been sick and have been seeing a physician or

have been diagnosed may not be the ones who come to a screening

program. So we want to get a complete picture of what the impact
40

has been on the community. And that’s our reason for wanting to

do both of those.

But I think by summer, as these processes have gone on, we will

have a much better understanding of what we have identified from

the screening program; we’ll have a better understanding of what

has been coming up on the environmental effort, and then I think

we will be better able to speak, you know, with more detail and

clarity about what the long-term public health needs may be in

terms of numbers of people who have positive findings on screening.

Senator BAUCUS. What tests or your tests or EPA’s tests have yet

to be taken or have been taken and we do not know the results of

yet, are going to be most important for you in developing your protocol or developing your longer-term plan?

Dr. FALK. From our perspective, we most want to make sure that

the people who have been potentially exposed are the ones who

have the opportunity to participate in the screening programs or,

you know, to be able to——

Senator BAUCUS. Speak up, please, Doctor.

Dr. FALK.—to be able to avail themselves of any screening tests.

I think the environmental sampling efforts help in terms of understanding what is the scope of potential contamination; who might

be. We want to make sure hat people who have, you know, been

potentially exposed, are the ones who are included. And to that

end, the environmental sampling informs us as to who has been potentially exposed. So some of this stuff these people we’ll know historically; people who may have worked or have had some relationship to the mine. But some of this also we clearly will learn as——

Senator BAUCUS. The very basic question here is—the community asked it, Senator Burns asked it. We need to know what resources are going to be needed here. And we just need to know

when we’re going to know what resources are going to be needed.

I see Paul creeping up here. He obviously has something to say

about it. And maybe you’re the right person to call, but Senator

Burns wants to know, I want to know, the community wants to

know. What are the resources that are going to be needed? How

much it’s going to cost, when, from what source? And then we need

some indications, some answers along those lines. Either Bill

or——

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. Senator Baucus, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, EPA has committed to fully fund the screening, the health

screening for community members. And as to costs, it’s probably

early to estimate that. But I’m going to turn to Paul who knows

much more about the details of this than I, if you don’t mind.

Senator BAUCUS. Great.

Mr. PERONARD. Just so we first get a sense of the scope, we’ve

actually—government agencies have taken a first step at outlining

the protocol and how the testing will be done. And we’re pretty satisfied that we know what we want to do. Now the next step, then,

is getting it out to the community to see if folks will accept it.

That’s one of the reasons why we’re talking April instead of right

now. And that is to take the idea out.

What’s important to us is that if you set a screening that people

come to and people trust the results they get from it. And that
41

takes the education component. We have to work out how we’re

going to fund it. We can answer some of the questions whether or

not it’s appropriate to use money from W.R. Grace or not. Those

are the types of questions we want to resolve before we implement

the study. We think we can do that by April.

The second thing is we want to shop this study out to some national experts. Next week we’re meeting with some folks from as

far away as Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. Folks at the University of Cincinnati have special expertise in asbestos-related

medical diseases. So to make sure that our protocols—to make sure

how we’re doing so the testing stands up to more rigorous medical

evaluations so the answers are good for the long haul.

We want to screen about 5,000 people in the first efforts, about

a two and a half mile radius around downtown Libby, which is basically the valley proper. We’ve run down a list of all the former

employees from W.R. Grace. So we’re going to make that available

to them——

Senator BAUCUS. Employees that you know.

Mr. PERONARD. Yes, sir, we have that now.

Senator BAUCUS. Including those that are not in the community.

Mr. PERONARD. Yes, sir. Now, we haven’t found them all yet;

that’s a part of the rub. We actually have to go out, find these people, let them know the screening is available, figure out how we’re

going to get them here if they want to come. We’re going to set up

a dual screening where we actually come out and call everybody in

Libby, call these former workers, ask them about 12 to 15 questions, try to set up the appointments for times for them to come

in and do the screening.

In the meantime, I have estimated we’ll have to buy about

$200,000 in equipment. Which right now, the plan is to house it at

the local hospital. They have the ability, the space, the infrastructure. We’ll need to bring in some trailers where we’ll conduct the

interviews and process the information. We have to hire—somebody talked earlier about the number of B readers. That’s actually

part f the study aspect of it. In order to get the protocols right, you

do a comparative study. You have three people look at a single xray. There actually will be some subjective disagreement between

the three. You might get two positives and one negative. That’s the

nature of how you read the x-rays. It’s a quality control set. We

hire these people to bring them on. Again, that should come on in

April. We’re running down folks to do that now.

How we do the screening and the information collection, this is

one of the things we’re working out now, is going to affect—who actually does the work is going to affect the cost. The order of magnitude is going to be around $4 million or so for the overall screening plus the medical testing plus the infrastructure purchases. It’s

money right now that we have in hand—make sure my boss is nodding his head.

Senator BAUCUS. John will give it to you.

Mr. PERONARD. That we need to then funnel out how we divvy

up the specific work. We want to work out do we fund the position

for the local hospital, or do they want to provide that resource so

they have control over that. Those are the details we’re talking

about working out now. Screening 5,000 people, if we get a 60 per-
42

cent turnout rate, we’re planning to do x-rays for 3,000 people. A

similar study was done in Duluth, Minnesota for 1,500 people. It

took them about a month and a half to 2 months to do. So we figure this will take 3 months in implementation, give another month

or two to actually start crunching through the data.

And in the meantime, the way we set up the protocol, any other

obvious medical problems we fall out will be identified, will be notified directly back to the affected individuals directly so they don’t

have to wait to the end of the study to find out what’s going on.

All this flows out to sometime at the end of summer we should

have the information back, we should have the evaluations in place

and we’ll be able to tell you Gosh, it looks to me that 30 percent

population or some number to quantify that. That’s the target for

the end of summer, next fall. A whole bunch of things can happen

between here and there, but that’s how we’re planning to do it.

Senator BAUCUS. Who all—are you staying here, Paul, through

the interim? And my question is, who’s going to be here, to be honest, to keep your enthusiasm and energy and make sure this thing

continues to happen?

Mr. PERONARD. Well, that’s actually an open question right now.

Right now we’re.

Senator BAUCUS. Well, what’s the open answer?

Mr. PERONARD. I don’t know.

Senator BAUCUS. I’m just kidding.

Mr. PERONARD. Decisions are certainly made up above my head.

But the look we are taking—ATSDR will take the lead for doing

the implementation. So they’ll be responsible for the timing and

how that happens. I don’t stay up here full time. It’s my daughter’s

birthday and I actually want to get home for that. But it’s spending

78 percent of my time up here. So I’ll make sure on our end, in

terms of the environmental sampling, including the seasonal sampling, I’m looking to finish this up in sort of 8 months. That’s sort

of my long-term plan.

Senator BAUCUS. I hear you think the screening could cost roughly about $4 million?

Mr. PERONARD. Yes, sir.

Senator BAUCUS. Did I hear you correctly that EPA is going to

foot that bill?

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. Yes, sir.

Senator BAUCUS. What other costs—health-related costs, will

there be? And when will we know them?

Mr. PERONARD. The crucial piece to that, and I’ll turn it back

over to the doctors in the house, if you will, is how many additional

cases that the study identifies. That’s really the crux of what we’re

trying to get at. Is it a fact that we already have the medical care

f everybody affected, or is there another 200 people out there? If

we then dump 200 more people on the medical system, you actually

could come in, once you have that number, and figure out what

their treatment costs are going to be, what facilities you need to

still treat them. The other question to ask is the people who have

to go to Spokane, what would it take to set up the infrastructure

here in Libby, to set that up. And as far as the dollars per patient

kind of thing, you’ll have to talk to a doctor about that.
43

Senator BAUCUS. I can appreciate that. I’m trying to get a handle

on—some advice as to when we might know the answer to some

of those questions.

Mr. PERONARD. Summertime, in terms of the number of people

we need to actually bring in to medical care.

Senator BAUCUS. Sometime this summer.

Mr. PERONARD. Yes, sir, in the summer.

Senator BAUCUS. Now, how much is the results of the data, the

tests you’re taking, going to affect all of this? As I understand,

there are test results we don’t have the results to yet, that there

may be some other tests taken particularly, you know, if when the

snow melts, we to have break up and it’s a little dry so we can

have a better idea of what the ambient problems might be.

Mr. PERONARD. I think in terms of answering the questions

about the health effect, the crucial pieces of data deal inside people’s homes and in their yards. The mine is a fixed facility and we

know it’s sitting there. And it can be a fairly conventional approach

to how you management that. We’re not moving that mine. We

don’t have to figure out how to take care of it there.

Figuring out what levels of asbestos in somebody’s home, let’s

say in an insulation material or in a garden, is something that we

don’t have any experience with doing. We’re figuring this out as—

let me say that better. We’re developing the science as we go, investigating this project.

Senator BAUCUS. So that’s different from Duluth.

Mr. PERONARD. Well, Duluth was centered more around an occupational situation which differs from a fixed facility you can measure the air that they have. They weren’t worrying about people

using their gardens or insulation or somebody’s house.

What we’re going to try to do is marry up the environmental

data that we collect, the air samples from people’s houses to the

medical information from the medical screening to see if, boy, is

there a correlation. Is everybody who has it in their garden, do we

see an increased incident of disease or is it not related because

they don’t seem to correlate. Or correlate the garden levels to indoor air levels. Do the same thing with the attic insulation. So you

don’t get the final pieces put together until all this short-term work

is completed at the end of the summer. In the meantime, we’ll have

some obvious areas from fallout. For example, the screening plans.

We’re not going to wait until the end of the study. We’ll start that

cleanup now so that extra improvements are being made while we

figure out the next level or next quantum of risk and while we’re

getting a handle on the overall program. That way you parallel

task things.

Senator BAUCUS. Is there anything we can do to help speed this

up in terms of resources or talking to agencies, telephone calls here

and there? We want to help speed this along as quickly as possible.

You’re going to pass that up; okay.

Dr. FALK. Senator, I think a critical question is we have a sense

for the approximately 5,000 people who want to be involved in the

initial screening. Thinking further down the road is the question.

How many of those people ought to be screened on a regular basis

after this summer. How many people may have some signs of asbestos exposure which ought to be watched on a regular basis for
44

any progression. How many people, as had been noted by Dr. Black

and others, have a real illness that requires regular attention. And

I think we can estimate the cost of each one of those parts. Like

what does it take to screen an individual yearly or what does it

take to provide the medical care for an individual who needs an annual checkup or the care for somebody with an illness. What we

can’t provide to you yet are those actual numbers.

And I think what Paul has been saying is by the summer, having

completed the first round of screening, we may be able to take

those individualized costs and have a number attached to each of

those, and then we can estimate what this will take to follow

through in succeeding years. And I think that’s the tougher part

to really know at the moment.

Senator BAUCUS. Well, I might ask, you know, John or Rita or

others, can you wait that long? What’s your reaction to all that?

Because you mentioned, John, earlier how, you know, you’ve got to

get moving in the community.

Mr. KONZEN. I think Bill mentioned something that I’ve been

wondering about, is the responsibility, economically, to take care of

the medical, short-term, long-term, is who? I don’t know. Are you

in it for the long haul to take care of these people and then are

we going back to W.R. Grace later or what’s—that scenario is not

clear to me.

Dr. FALK. Let me start on that and maybe Bill will be able to

comment.

ATSDR does not have authority to provide medical care. We are

not a medical care agency. We do have an ability to work on

screening over a longer-term basis and I think, you know, we

would certainly be willing to do that. We do not currently have the

funding for a long-term screening effort and that’s something we all

have to work together on. And I think the best estimates we could

provide you would be in the summer maybe there’s some way of

providing some initial estimates which could be refined. I wouldn’t

want to answer that myself at the moment but we could perhaps

work on that, at least give you maybe some initial impressions. But

I think the summertime would be when we would have the best estimate for that.

Mr. KONZEN. I guess along with that then, no medical coverage

will come out of either one of these two Federal organizations.

I’ve heard it takes about $250,000 for these folks to actually end

up in—I guess, in death. And so I don’t know if that’s true or not.

But you’re trying to equate some kind of appropriations that would

be long term. I think these victims that have been through this

might be the best source of that information, of what it costs and

where is that money is going to come from. I guess the other thing

I mentioned about appropriations is that we are in above our head

a lot further than the State is and we don’t know where these variables are going to come into. So I think marking something in appropriations would be a wise thing to do for the future of this program, because we don’t know where we’re going to go. And the economic downsizing and downfall from this also has to be considered,

because this thing has actually damaged the community along with

its citizens. So I think appropriations need to be kind of looked at

in those areas.
45

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. Senators, I delivered EPA’s commitment to pay

for the screening process, and I want to qualify that as saying up

front, I think the question here about the long run is very important. And as to individual medical care, I don’t know who has the

answer to that question. But if you don’t mind, I would like to expand—or ask my attorney to expand on who pays in the long run.

The law provides that it should not be the burden of the taxpayers

to pay for this kind of damage.

Senator BAUCUS. That’s right.

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. And if you don’t mind, I’d like to ask Matt

Cohn to give you a perspective on the whole area of cost recovery

here, because I think that’s important to that whole issue.

Mr. COHN. Senators, certain statute under which we’re operating

allows us to recover costs from operators of facilities for two basic

components that were mentioned here tonight. The first of that is

in identifying exposure routes and taking response actions to cut

off those exposure routes. The second is to do the health assessments that ATSDR will be needing and to recover those dollars.

The third component that I haven’t mentioned is the treatment of

individuals who may have been affected by what happened here.

We can broker a deal with W.R. Grace and hope that we can

work out some sort of consensual agreement whereby they will

fund, perhaps in a trust, a mechanism to pay for such costs. I am

not sure, however, that the statute gives us the authority to force

them, at least under CERCLA money, to pay for those costs. And

so to the degree you’re asking what can Congress do in terms of

appropriations, perhaps treatment is the best avenue.

Senator BAUCUS. Could you more precisely delineate the second

course of action where you can compensate? I understand the

cleanup and so forth, but you mentioned something with respect to

ATSDR, and I didn’t quite understand that.

Mr. COHN. The second component which we are allowed to cost

recovery or to actually perform the work for is health assessment.

And that is what ATSDR——

Senator BAUCUS. By ‘‘health assessment,’’ you mean determining

what needs to be done?

Mr. COHN. Determining what needs to be done and referring people who have been affected to appropriate physicians. That is the

screening and testing.

Senator BAUCUS. Screening and testing as opposed to mediation,

as opposed to cure.

Mr. COHN. Correct.

Senator BAUCUS. That’s interesting. Has this been tested at all,

or is there any other example where, under No. 3, you’ve gone back

to a company to pay for the medical care?

Mr. COHN. I don’t know the answer to that at this time. I’ll have

to check into that.

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. Obviously, the courts have a pretty full menu

of cases before them to address individual medical costs.

Senator BAUCUS. So you said four million dollars. Is that general

fund money, or is that four million you expect to go back and get

out of Grace?
46

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. That’s CERCLA money but with the potential

for cost recovery. And, of course, it is always our going-in expectation that we will recover that investment.

Senator BAUCUS. Right.

Dr. FALK. I just wanted to add a little bit o that. The divide, really, I think, is in terms of providing health care. There are—in addition to screening and testing, there are related types of activities

that can be done under CERCLA. For example, if there were signs

where a number of people for whom we wanted to stay in touch

with over a period of many years so that we could establish some

register of all those people, stay in annual contact with them and

be able to, you know, assist or initiate services for them, we can

do that kind of a thing. And that’s like an extension of the testing

or screening. But it stops short of the actual provision of care.

I think the people who actually have moved from Libby is something maybe that hasn’t been touched on today but may be another

thing that we should think about. Because there are many people

here that have relatives or friends or neighbors who may live in

other parts of Montana, or maybe now live outside of Montana,

who in the future ought to be included under some appropriate

type of follow-up activities.

Senator BAUCUS. Right. Forgot about that. Somebody have an

answer to that?

Dr. FALK. That might be included in the cost of a register for

keeping track of everybody. But I think that would be—that is authorized under CERCLA.

Senator BAUCUS. Oh, it is. One question in y mind is, when’s the

next time for us to kind of sit down together and sort of take stock?

This is mid-February. I’m a little nervous about waiting until summer, over August. Lots of things could slip and slide over that long

a period of time. I’m tempted to—my inclination is that we should

sit down again and talk about all this, see where we are and maybe

take stock in a month or two, rather than wait until all the way

until August.

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. Senator Baucus and Senator Burns, I appreciate your attention here and appreciate your support. I, frankly,

think at your convenience. Certainly on an ongoing basis we need

to keep you informed as to progress of our efforts here in Libby.

But to have another hearing like this I think would be useful. Obviously by late summer we will have, if we’re successful with our

commitment to conduct all of the medical screening and so on on

the time table we’ve set out, we will know a lot more by the end

of summer. However, at your convenience, if in the interim at some

point you would like to have another, basically, community-based

check-in like this.

Senator BURNS. Can I interject one thing here? I think it’s important here that it keys on you. It keys on Dr. Falk, on whenever we

got ample enough information together that it becomes meaningful.

And then we have to take—decide to take some steps at that time.

I think it keys on you and how your work progresses for example.

And I’m not saying hurry up and do it. I’m saying it takes a certain

amount of time to do this. This is very painstakingly technical

stuff.
47

And here this guy’s—you need a haircut, by the way. And we’ve got to get on the town of Libby, too; they’ve got to fix their air conditioning here.

[Laughter.]

Senator BURNS. But I think it keys on you and when you think

you’re ready to present some information. Now, we can sort of work

with you on a personal basis in a—not in an environment such as

a formal hearing setting, but we can sure work with you in completion of your information. And then when it becomes meaningful,

then I think the folks of Libby and the State of Montana will—the

commissioners can make some plans, the Department of Health,

environmental health can make some plans. I think the DEQ will

know what to do, and I think our people will know what to do. But

I think that’s the way I look at it. Maybe that’s looking at it backwards. And if it is, then you can tell me so. And thanks for coming

today, I appreciate it. I don’t have any formal questions.

Senator BAUCUS. I said I’d give the local folks a chance to respond, Tony Jorgenson and John and others, Brad, to what you’ve

heard.

Mr. KONZEN. I, too, would like to thank both of you for showing

up today. I think this solidarity is important to resolve this issue.

I’m still not sure about the long-term care. I think you heard that,

and I don’t think these folks are either. If it falls back on W.R.

Grace, I don’t know who brokers that, I don’t know who takes care

of that. And we’re kind of lost out here as far as device and how

we go about doing that.

Senator BAUCUS. It’s a good question, John, and it’s one we have

to keep thinking about and find the answer to in the several next

weeks and months. But I’m definitely going to have another followup hearing, either committee hearing or some similar type of hearing. But I think it’s very important for us to keep our eye on the

ball and keep things going here.

I’d like, now, to give people in the audience a chance to speak.

Yes. And why don’t you just—there’s a microphone back there or

whatever, just grab one anywhere. If you could give your name,

please.

STATEMENT OF LLOYD WILLIAMSON, LIBBY, MONTANA

Mr. WILLIAMSON. My name is Lloyd Douglas Williamson, 643

Sheldon Flat Road, Libby, Montana, 59923. My phone number is

406–293–7079. My lineage goes back to 1895 in Lincoln County.

I just have two questions, and I probably have the solutions myself. The last point you made out here, is it easier for Senator

Burns and Senator Baucus to sit down, or is it easier for you people

to sit down for a progression, as far as a graph progression report,

to the people of Libby, Montana?

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. Mr. Williams——

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Williamson, sir.

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. Sorry. We have our storefront office here. And

on an ongoing basis our community involvement person, Wendy

Thomi, here, makes it her business to provide information to members of the community on an individual basis and on a—you know,

through the media and through the public medias and so forth. So

that’s an ongoing operation——
48

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I understand that.

Mr. YELLOWTAIL.—on a daily basis you’re going to have access to.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I understand that, sir.

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. We use the community advisory group as a

means of providing information to the community.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I understand that, sir.

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. And then I think as an appropriate milestone,

I think we ought to accept the good offices of our Congressional delegation to hold this level f report back to the community. Now, to

tell you the truth, I don’t know, today, at what point it’s appropriate to have another one of these.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I wouldn’t expect that.

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. But I think we ought to be able to publish for

you very soon some at least rough time-table kind of a calendar as

to what’s going to happen here. And I think Paul probably does

that already. We’re going to have our agreement between EPA and

ATSDR which—within a couple weeks, which should give us more

information about that.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I understand that.

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. Is that helpful?

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I’d like to sit at that table and you look across

at my Senators and you answer to them. That’s what I’d like to

see. If it goes between you said late summer, I’d like to see you—

I know how Mr. Baucus—I’ve seen his voting record, and also Senator Burns’. I’d like to see you talk to them. I understand publication and I really understand the news media. Now, if you can get

with Mr. Baucus and Mr. Burns and sit down like you did today

when you get 25 percent into this, I can figure out—I know math.

I can figure out 25 percent, boom, we sit down again.

But I do believe it’s when you two can get together, you two committees can get together and sit down and say we got a progress

report to the people of Libby.

My second question is, Senator Burns and Senator Baucus, I’m

well aware of dollars and cents in the Cat scales. I’m well acquainted with taxpayers’ money being handed out and being held

accountable for. If the trillions of dollars that went out to other

countries, no interest, no pay back, is Libby, Montana worthy of

that same kind of donation? Thank you.

Senator BAUCUS. Yes, Mr. Williamson, all I can tell you is I can

speak for Conrad, I’m sure, we’re devoting a tremendous amount

of time to solving this problem here. We’ve come to Libby several

times. We’ve had this follow-up meeting which is kind of a first, in

my experience, in the State. And we’re going to have another one.

And Mr. Yellowtail and Dr. Falk and Marc Racicot and Rick Hill

and I, we’ll be talking about what we can do to make sure that the

dollars are there as quickly as possible. Believe me, we’re going to

solve this problem.

When I sat in the living room of people here in Libby, people who

are dying. They knew they were dying, I knew they were dying. I’m

hard pressed for a more gut-wrenching, heart-wrenching experience

I’ve ever encountered. Radicalized me. I’m going to do all I can to

solve this problem. You have my pledge; I promise you that.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Senator Baucus, I’ve been in the bedrooms of

widows. I’ve stood by the death beds. I stand before you now and
49

I know whether I have asbestosis and I know that it’s around here.

I also know Libby doesn’t—in years past didn’t have sand boxes for

kids to play in. We had zonolite boxes we played in. Thank you

very much for your time and your expertise.

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, sir.

We’re going to have to leave in about 15, 20 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JIM ROSCOE, LIBBY, MONTANA

Mr. ROSCOE. I understand there’s three aspects to this. One is

the environmental cleanup, the other one is health and economics.

Senator BAUCUS. We need your name for the reporter.

Mr. ROSCOE. Jim Roscoe, common spelling, 6766 Pipe Creek

Road, Libby.

There’s three aspects that we’re addressing is health, environmental cleanup and then economic. Anyone that’s got zonolite in

their homes is scared to death they won’t be able to sell them. Anyone that’s got zonolite in their lungs is scared to death they’re not

going to be able to live in their homes very long.

I think we should set up a database in Libby, whether it’s

through the EPA or some other agency, where all he questions and

concerns of the residents can come into. When a person comes in,

they’re worried about health. You can access the database, see

what’s been done in that area. If it’s environmental, what the time

table is. And economics, people here are scared to death about their

property values, what’s going to happen on that. And right now we

have, as you’ve heard here, 15 different people all have the piece

of the puzzle, and I as an individual don’t know who to turn to the

get the answer. But if we had a central point with a database I

think would help. Thank you.

Senator BAUCUS. Yes, Tony.

Mayor Berget. I’d just like to address a little bit, that city home

page, EPA is linked to that. So there is an ability, through the

Internet, to ask some questions. And then the EPA’s location downtown, I know they have that. And EPA has a web page up.

Senator BAUCUS. Is there a Libby web page?

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. It’s a Libby web page.

Senator BAUCUS. EPA has a Libby web page.

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. Went on line yesterday. So pester Paul to find

out the address.

Mayor Berget. It’s linked to the city’s home page.

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. It’s linked to the city’s home page,

libbymontana.com, all one word, no spacing.

Senator Baucus, I hear Jim. I just wanted to relate, I sat in our

storefront office about 30 minutes this morning doing some lastminute editing of my presentation for you. And during that very

short space of time, I saw two property owners from Libby come

in with questions. And they wanted to know what—one guy

brought in a sample of material that he pulled from, I guess somewhere on his property. Says I want this stuff tested so I know what

I’ve got. And, furthermore, he said, Sometime down the line, I

might want to sell this property. I need to know, and my prospective purchaser deserves to know, what I’m going to get. Well, I

watched Paul Peronard take the names and commit to a date spe-
50

cific when he’s going to go out and conduct the necessary testing

on their property to give them that assurance. In the big picture and in the long run, I think we’re going to

have to figure out a mechanism to give a clean bill of health, some

certificate or letter of assurance, to a property owner in Libby that

they’ve got—they don’t have a problem that they need to worry

about.

[Applause.]

Senator BAUCUS. Yes.

STATEMENT OF TERRY BEASLEY, LIBBY, MONTANA

Ms. BEASLEY. My name is Terry Beasley, and I am chairperson

of the Board of Directors at the hospital. I just need some further

clarification, from probably Dr. Falk or Mr. Yellowtail, on the initial screening phase versus the long-term screening and ongoing

treatment funding aspect of this situation. And you spoke a little

bit up to it. And I—you know, Paul can say he can have his lab

tests back by March 15 for this community. But we, as a hospital

board in this community, need to have some sense of a time line

and avenue of funding to address this situation.

Mr. YELLOWTAIL. Who can speak specifically to this?

Mr. PERONARD. The only thing that I know that we have funding

for and we’re committed to deliver is the initial screening process.

To do the study, the 5,000 folks, and make that available here, purchase equipment, and that obviously would stay with the hospital.

I can figure that out just in the next priority list of things to do.

And, frankly, working out the long-term issue is sort of second

to your question. We have to get this up and running. So we

haven’t worked out the details on how we’re going to bring through

the infrastructure permits or how we’re going to provide long-term

care which is questions that probably we would do that anyway.

It’s on the list of things that I—obviously we don’t know how—we

really don’t have the answers now.

Ms. BEASLEY. Well, if your intent is to begin screening by the

end of the summer and then leave this community and this hospital to meet the health care needs of those who are affected, we

need to know where that funding source is coming from.

Mr. PERONARD. The intent, then, is to figure that out as we’re

doing the screening. I just don’t have the answer today. So that as

we’re doing the screening, we’ll be able to better estimate what the

long-term needs are going to be, start getting that funding lined

up.

Senator BAUCUS. One other question. Where is that $80,000

going to go?

Dr. FALK. I think that may be helpful in terms of the staffing

that’s needed for the screening process. But if I might speak to

your question, one of the things that is very important to us as we

are involved in the site is developing what we call a public health

response plan. And I think what you’re emphasizing is how critical

that is. Because we can undertake activities that we see right in

front of us now, but we really have to have a plan that will encompass these things that need to be done as we go forward. I think

we have said that we’re committed to working on such a plan. We

work together with EPA, State, local community, and I think that’s
51

where we need to elaborate what the needs are, and we need to

give cost figures that Senators have asked for but also the elements

f what need to be done, which I think is what you’re particularly

concerned about.

Ms. BEASLEY. Well, we already know that we need research if

we’re going to allow any hope in this disease process. So I don’t

think you need any more statistical studies.

Senator BAUCUS. I’m wondering if there is any way we—Dr. Falk

and Bill and the right people at the end of this hearing, can just

sit down in the corner of the room over there and try to work some

of this out. In the meantime, you know, talk to us. We’re going to

be—we work for you, take your telephone calls, and we’ll be talking

back to Dr. Falk and Bill Yellowtail and others. And we’ll put a list

together. And that’s the reason for—I put a little pressure on all

of us to come up with this by having another sort of taking stock

where we get together sooner, rather than later. Because that’s

going to make it easier for all of us. Maybe not easier, but we’re

going to get to the answers more questions.

STATEMENT OF ALAN STRINGER, W.R. GRACE

Mr. STRINGER. My name is Alan Stringer. I’m the Grace representative here in Libby. I have a written statement I’ve already

provided to your assistants. I don’t want to take the time right here

to read that. I do want it to be made part of the record.

What I do want to address here, right now, is this conversation

that’s been going on here in the last few minutes with respect to

the ongoing health care of this community. Mr. Cohn came up and

made reference to it. And I think what everybody fails or seems to

forget is Grace has made a commitment to take care of the medical

needs for anybody in this community or anybody that’s been associated with this organization or this town to cover their medical

needs if they’ve been diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

We said that, we’re still committed to that, irrespective of what

comes about out of the asbestos—out of the EPA’s findings. We

stand behind that. It will go on, irrespective.

The questions have been asked. The hospital has asked that

question. Mr. Cohn addressed it. We made that announcement.

And there’s no top limit on the funding. There’s no top limit on the

people. It’s the disease that these people have, if they’re diagnosed

with it, Grace is going to cover those costs, including medication.

[Applause.]

Senator BAUCUS. We’ve got to do this in an orderly basis.

Mr. STRINGER. It’s a fair question. Right now we’ve been talking

with the hospital, and you heard Mr. Cohn make the comment.

They don’t know whether they should even take other money.

There has to be a sensible, rational layout of how this a going to

get done. This is very complicated.

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. Stringer, may I ask a question? I’m a little

confused. I read earlier in the press that Grace is making available

$250,000, I think it’s a month.

Mr. STRINGER. A year. But ask the question.

Senator BAUCUS. Bad question; $250,000 a month for as long as

it takes.

Mr. STRINGER. A year.
52

Senator BAUCUS. It was a $250,000 a year?

Mr. STRINGER. To initially make it $250,000. Let me back up.

When we originally—when this started, we wanted to get screening

for the people in this community done as quickly as possible.

You’ve heard that from a lot of people here today, Let’s get this

moving. Let’s get this done as quickly as we can. Let’s find out

what the issues were. We felt that we could come in here and provide the hospital with the necessary resources to get a screening

program set up. We were willing to provide the hospital initial

$250,000 to get going, as well as any capital costs might be associated with getting that done.

Furthermore, we were willing to provide that hospital as an ongoing means to provide ongoing screening nd other issues, $250,000

a year for the foreseeable future. That isn’t 19—excuse me, that

isn’t 2010, that isn’t 2020. It was open-ended for the foreseeable future. We made that commitment. We still stand by that commitment. It’s $250,000 a year. But that’s—I mean, we have to determine what those costs are with respect to the health care. There’s

no number on that. It’s what it is. But it’s going to take a few

months to get that set up and to get identified as to how the mechanism will be done.

The last thing I want is anybody in this town who has a problem

with an asbestos disease to get caught up in some bureaucratic circle as to who’s paying their bill. Is it Medicare, is it Medicaid, is

it private care, is it Grace? It’s Grace. And I want to assure the

people here that it’s Grace. But we’ve got to get that mechanism

set up such that it gets done and it’s facilitated so that the people

of this community don’t get caught in that circle of bureaucracy.

Senator BAUCUS. That’s very interesting to hear, and I think people appreciate that. Has that statement been in writing? Has Grace

committed in writing the amount that it’s going to commit?

Mr. STRINGER. Absolutely. I made the announcement.

Senator BAUCUS. Is there a document signed by the Grace people?

Mr. STRINGER. There has been a press release that has been——

Senator BAUCUS. Not a press release. I’m talking about a document signed by the president of Grace.

Mr. STRINGER. No, there is not. I come here. I’m living in this

community. I’m the representative here. I say that’s what it’s going

to be, that’s what it’s going to be. I’m carrying that message from

our community.

Senator BAUCUS. I hear you. I just tell you that from me, as a

person, I’ll have a lot more confidence, no disrespect from you but,

a lot more confidence in that statement and in what Grace will or

will not do when I see a document signed by the president of the

company.

Mr. STRINGER. And I’ll carry that message. Who should he give

it to? Excuse me, Senator, who should that document be given to?

Senator BAUCUS. Me. I want to see it.

Mr. STRINGER. All right; thank you.

[Applause.]

Senator BAUCUS. One more and then we’re going to have to wrap

it up.
53

STATEMENT OF PAUL RUMELHART, LIBBY, MONTANA

Mr. RUMELHART. Just one last question then. Paul Rumelhart,

Libby. How does the Fairness and Asbestos Compensation Bill affect the funding of the problem here, Senator?

Senator BURNS. How does what now?

Mr. RUMELHART. How does that Fairness and Asbestos Bill—how

does that fit into the needs of the local residents and the needs of

this community?

Senator BURNS. That’s a separate issue altogether.

Senator BAUCUS. Yes. The answer to that question is it is related

but it’s not directly a subject of this hearing. I’ve decided not to address those issues at this hearing because that would add—get us

too far afield from what I regard as the No. 1 focus today in February, and that is how to quickly as possible address the health

problems people face and also the exposure problem that may or

may not exist here in Libby. The liability issues will settle themselves out, and each of us is going to have a different view on how

that should be resolved, but that’s not today. We’ll do that in a future date.

Thank you very much, everybody. It was very, very helpful.

[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the chair.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF RITA WINDOM, JOHN KONZEN, AND MARIANNE B. ROOSE, LINCOLN

COUNTY, MONTANA, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Dear committee members: We want to thank you for taking time out of your busy

schedules to hold a formal hearing on the asbestos problem we are faced with. This

is a very important issue to all of us; especially those that have had their health

adversely affected by this problem.

Credit also needs to be given to the EPA and ATSDR for their quick response to

the concerns that have been raised. They have acted in a very professional and open

manner. They have done an excellent job in earning the trust of our local citizens

by being openly accessible to address concerns and answer all questions as well as

keeping everyone fully informed on the progress of their testing. The on-scene coordinator, Paul Peronard, deserves to be personally thanked for managing his team

in such a proficient method.

There are several issues that concern all of us. An immediate concern, of course,

is the level of contamination within the Libby area, especially any risk in people’s

homes. Current testing by the EPA shows that two (2) homes out of the 32 tested

have asbestos detected. One of the homes has termolite asbestos, the kind associated with the vermiculite mine. The other home shows chrysotile asbestos, used for

years in insulation products as well as ceiling and floor tiles. In the other 30 (30)

homes tested, the EPA did not detect asbestos fibers of the size immediately known

to be a health risk.

The EPA testing has also discovered asbestos at the two former vermiculite processing locations. One is the old railroad loading area up the Kootenai River at the

base of the Rainy Creek Road. The property is currently being used as a plant nursery. The other is in Libby at the old export site near the ballfields. Currently this

property is owned by the City of Libby who has leased a portion of the property to

a local business. We are sure that both of these businesses are concerned whether

they will be able to remain in business during any cleanup efforts.

Many other areas of concern have been tested including soil sampling in garden

areas, driveways, roads, and outside air quality in Libby and near the mine site.

The test results from these locations should be available around the middle of

March. With that information, a plan can be determined on how much and where

further testing needs to be done.

Another major concern is the health of our residents, especially former workers

and their families. It is important to follow through with developing a screening and

treatment center here in Libby to reduce the fears of those who have not had an

opportunity to be screened; but more importantly to lessen the financial and trau-
54

matic impact on those that have contracted asbestosis or related diseases. Those affected may not be financially nor physically able to travel long distances to seek

treatment. In addition, local screening and treatment provides the emotional support of family and friends.

The local hospital has submitted a plan that they feel will meet those needs locally. We strongly support the effort of St. John’s Lutheran Hospital to accomplish

this. There are still many unknowns on how many people will need to be screened

and treated. Asbestosis may take years to develop to a point where it is detectable.

The need to offer screening and treatment locally will continue for years to come.

We are also concerned about the effects this has already had and will continue

to have on our local economy. The Libby area, as well as the rest of our county,

was already faced with economic challenges due to the major downturn in timber

sales and other natural resource based industries the past several years. To survive

this additional road block will require all of us working together to address and

identify the Problem collectively, get it cleaned up, and identify ways to recover

from the negative and sometimes exaggerated publicity this has drawn.

Our taxpayers are also worried. They understand that Lincoln County has been

affected by major losses of revenue the past few years. Many county services have

been reduced or eliminated because of the loss in tax valuation due to the closure

of several major industries. We are aware that there will undoubtedly be a demand

on many of our county departments for continuation of some services associated

with this problem. Due to the long latency period associated with asbestos disease

onset, the lengthy duration of the illness, and the likelihood of additional asbestos

source discoveries, citizens will need to rebuild their confidence that the environment in which they live is currently safe, and continues to be, through extended

sampling programs. We foresee additional funding requirements for our District

Court, the Department of Environmental Health, our County Nurse’s office, the

Road Department, mental health services, and other areas of support needed by our

constituents. As part of the partnership working to solve this problem, it would be

beneficial for the Federal Government to help us defray the cost of these additional

requirements rather than attempt to shoulder this additional burden by those most

affected.

Again, we all wish to thank this committee for taking the time to visit Libby to

address this problem and the uncertainties that are on the minds of all our residents. We appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today.

MARIANNE B. ROOSE, Chair

RITA R. WINDOM, Member

JOHN C. KONZEN, Member

STATEMENT OF BRAD BLACK, LIBBY, MONTANA

My name is Brad Black. I hold the position of Lincoln Co. Health officer and have

lived and practiced medicine in Libby for over 22 years. As cases of asbestosis surfaced in the area that involved people with non-occupational exposure, our health

department began the process of determining where they might have occurred. Communication with Dr. Alan Whitehouse gave indication of at least 23 cases of ‘‘nonoccupationally’’ acquired asbestos-related lung disease. These cases included youth

recreational exposure, service workers to the mine site, individuals that expanded

the ore on their kitchen stoves, loggers who worked timber contracts around the

mine site, and a report of one case who had lived in the central area of Libby with

no other apparent exposure.

The EPA, led by their coordinator Paul Peronard, arrived and efficiently assessed

the concerns. EPA toxicologist Chris Weis and Aubrey Miller, MD were professional

in their approach to the situation. Their assessments supported the concerns of

widespread asbestos exposure.

We discussed the immediate need to determine if there is current risk of significant asbestos exposure (environmental screen), if there was significant past exposure (medical screen) and the future need to develop the medical infrastructure to

provide ongoing follow-up and care of persons with evidence of significant asbestos

exposure.

In discussions with our medical providers. there was a consensus that we should

take a lead role in providing medical evaluation and follow-up care for those affected

with asbestos exposure. The Lincoln Co. Health Board was supportive of St. John’s

Hospital and medical staff taking an active role in developing the necessary infrastructure. Dr. Whitehouse was consulted and was supportive of us proceeding with

this plan.
55

At this stage, our role appeared to be in assisting the EPA in the medical screen- ing process and to proceed with securing the elements necessary to provide medical

care and follow-up.

The ATSDR was engaged and with the direction of Jeff Lybarger, MD, we have continued to proceed with development of infrastructure. There was initially concern

locally that the EPA and ATSDR might have some problems in developing a consensus on leadership in this project, however, both groups have demonstrated a level

of professionalism that has allowed things to move along in a positive direction.

They have come to fulfill their role, but have been listening and responding to State

and local input quite well.

Development of the community advisory group is seen as an essential element. I would strongly recommend, in the initial phase of development of this interactive

process, that the EPA take a more formal role in facilitation. This could help break

down community tensions and help create an environment that participants see as

comfortable and respectful of individual rights when discussing differing opinions.

Then the group function can mature to a level that allows it to sustain an independent character.

As environmental screening and medical screening are in progress, we feel that it is essential to be developing a system to receive, evaluate, continue monitoring,

and provide all aspects of care for those people with significant asbestos exposure.

This would be accomplished with the assistance of expertise offered by Dr. Alan

Whitehouse, a pulmonary specialist who is experienced in the clinical course of this

tremolite exposure. In addition, it is our interest along with Dr. Whitehouse to investigate the possibility of finding a therapy for the fibrotic process caused by asbestos fibers. The ATSDR represented by Dr. Lybarger has indicated support for a research component.

As we receive the aid of the EPA in environmental screening and the ATSDR in developing a local program that would begin by being involved with the medical

screening and continue the process and be ready to receive the identified population,

I am concerned we are not going to be prepared. St. John Hospital is in serious need

of operational capital in order to take an active role in hiring a local program coordinator, clerks, interviewers and pursuing education for health providers and respiratory therapists to mention a few immediate needs. As a health care community,

we are ready and waiting to move ahead. With adequate capital and expertise from

consultants, I’m certain we can construct a quality infrastructure. Previously, Senator Baucus had indicated he would seek some monetary aid for helping our medical system prepare. I am hopeful that he will be successful in this

venture.

Also, our role is to continue negotiation with W.R. Grace to address the long term

health care needs of persons affected by asbestos-related disease. This would involve

regular monitoring and care with appropriate interventions for those who have been

impacted by asbestos exposure.

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH,

Lincoln, County, February 16, 2000

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC 20510–6175

DEAR COMMITTEE MEMBERS: I wish to express my appreciation for your consideration

and efforts in evaluating the impacts on, and concerns of, the Libby community as

we deal with the asbestos issue.

I echo the acknowledgments of others in regard to the Federal and State assistance rendered to date in evaluating conditions and assessing the problem. These efforts will result in public health risk assessments, health screening for asbestos disease presence, and cleanup of known asbestos sources. This process will go a long

way toward alleviating the immediate health concerns and anxieties harbored by

the community.

However, asbestos (and it’s impacts) presents a long term issue. Asbestos does not

readily deteriorate in the environment, and exposure to its fibers can take many

years to develop into a debilitating or deadly affliction. It is inconceivable to assume

the efforts currently being expended in response to the asbestos conditions in Libby

will result in a 100 percent cleanup of all asbestos risks. Long term planning is proceeding for personal health issues associated with asbestos presence in our community. These include: screening, long term care, and research efforts.

In order to rebuild, and maintain, citizen and visitor confidence in the Libby environment it will be necessary to maintain an ongoing environmental asbestos mon-
56

itoring program. This program must address ambient and indoor air quality, drinking water, and source sampling (dirt, insulation). As people remodel houses, dig up

yards and gardens, and transfer real estate, new asbestos sources and concerns are

going to be uncovered. People will need to have a local agency to assist them. The

Lincoln County Environmental Health Department has experienced staff personnel

that deal with air and water monitoring programs regularly. Asbestos training and

appropriate monitoring equipment will allow our department to expand its role and

provide this service. it is also logical that we’d assume the role as the educational

outlet for asbestos related topics, when the EPA Libby ‘‘storefront’’ information center is phased out.

The scope of these long range community needs falls beyond the current EPA and State efforts. These needs will require extended funding, and that leads me to the

basis of my request. The citizens of the Libby community need your assistance in

providing a means for sustained and assured long term funding to provide these essential environmental programs. Assurance, and reassurance, that the local environment does not pose a public health risk is critical to the healing and rebuilding process facing the citizens of the Libby community. I am appreciative of your efforts and concerns and again express my thanks to

you.

Sincerely,

RONALD L. ANDERSON, Director,

Lincoln County Environmental Health.

STATEMENT OF TONY BERGET, MAYOR, CITY OF LIBBY, MONTANA

We are experiencing one of the most difficult times in Libby’s history. The diag- nosis of hundreds of Libby-area residents with asbestosis is devastating on many

levels. I have lived in this community for almost my entire life. It is where I choose

to raise my family, not because it is the most economically advantageous place for

me to do so, but because this is where my heart is. Libby is beautiful, and it is a

great place for kids, but the reason I choose to live here is because of the people.

It is only recently that I have become aware of just how many families have been

affected by this debilitating and deadly disease. I, like many Libby citizens, knew

of a few court cases, but I had no idea the scope of the problem until recently. The

more I have talked with victims of this disease during the past few weeks and

months, the more I realize how horrifying this diagnosis can be. My heart goes out

to everyone affected. It is imperative now that we determine the extent of the problem and assess the steps necessary to remove any residual danger. It is clear that

health care facilities need to be expanded and staffed so that testing and health care

services can be received in Libby. I am encouraged that W.R. Grace has made a

commitment to help St. John’s Lutheran Hospital provide these services. It is still

unclear how much money will be required to do what is necessary. There may also

be environmental clean-up issues that surface as we continue the investigation. This

community does not have the resources to face these economic challenges. We will

need help.

I am also concerned about the effect the intense media attention will have on the

future of Libby. This media coverage, aside from making us locally more aware of

this situation, has only done damage. Not only to Libby as a community (and yes

to the economic issues we have been striving to turn around), but also and most

severely to the very individuals who have already suffered the most. The national

exposure to this situation means that many more individuals are seeking legal recourse against Grace—including most recently a class action suit. I am concerned

that the lawyers will fare far better than the victims of asbestosis. The publicity

has already led to the delay of one pending court case as the Grace attorneys have

filed for a change in venue. Should this change be granted, plaintiffs may have to

travel to Eastern Montana (at their own expense) to have their day(s) in court.

Meanwhile those individuals with asbestosis who are still able to work or who may

need to sell their homes will be subject to the same economic hardships as the rest

of the community as we continue to be labeled ‘‘the town left to die.’’

I am glad the EPA is here. I have been very impressed by their expertise and

professionalism. They are very approachable. I am cautiously optimistic about the

preliminary findings; I believe there is minimal risk of exposure to the citizens or

visitors to Libby. I believe Libby is still a safe community in which to live. This in

no way should diminish the fact that many people are suffering from past exposure.

We must continue to work together on the local, State, and Federal levels to ensure

the well being of Libby’s future.
57

STATEMENT OF TODD DAMROW, STATE EPIDEMIOLOGIST, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Senator Baucus and members of the committee, for the record, my name is Todd Damrow. I am the State Epidemiologist for the Montana Department of Public

Health and Human Services. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before your committee about our department’s involvement in the various State and Federal activities underway here in Libby. On behalf of the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, I

wish to sincerely thank the Federal Government for the assistance which they have

provided to our department on numerous occasions over the years. As you might suspect, health care resources in this State are rather limited. Public health workers with the highly-specialized training and expertise needed in

Libby are not available in this State. Thus, in these situations it becomes necessary

for our department to appeal for help from Federal health authorities in order for

our residents to be properly served.

Our department has enjoyed a long history of good working relationships in Montana with Federal health experts from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry (ATSDR). Examples include health effect studies of environmental contamination in Livingston, Phillipsburg, Billings, Bozeman and communities along the

Clark-Fork River Operable Unit, our nation’s largest superfund site complex. Most

recently, ATSDR workers provided invaluable assistance to local and State health

workers in response to the train derailment and subsequent chlorine spill near

Alberton.

The responsiveness of ATSDR to public health needs in Montana continues to this

day, as evidenced by the strong showing of Federal health workers on-site in Libby.

We are most appreciative for assistance in providing the residents of Libby with the

care they expect and deserve.

Our department is currently involved in response activities in Libby in several different ways.

First, the State Medical Officer and the State Epidemiologist have been working

closely together with local health officials to assist them in decisionmaking when requested.

Since the public health system in Montana is set up by statute such that local/

county health agencies have primacy over health matters in their jurisdiction, the

Lincoln County Health Department ultimately has the final decisionmaking authority with respect to public health actions in Libby. State and Federal health officials

are careful to respect this right of the counties. Just as Federal health authorities

are here at the request of the State, so State health workers are here at the request

of the county.

It has been our experience that county health departments appreciate DPHHS’s

assistance in decisionmaking, especially when dealing with large Federal agencies

such as EPA and ATSDR. County health departments are quite understandably

nervous about becoming ‘‘out on a limb alone’’ by making decisions in isolation. They

recognize the State’s experience working with these agencies, and they value our

input because of insight obtained from past situations in Montana. We are working

closely with the Lincoln County Health Department to help ensure that the decisions made are logical, scientifically defensible, and cost effective.

Close cooperation between State and county health agencies is the norm in Montana. DPHHS has worked hard over the years to successfully establish good, collegial working relations with all of our county health departments, including Lincoln

County.

Secondly, the Montana Department of Public Health & Human Services is working closely together with health officials from EPA and ATSDR to assist them in

accomplishing their mission in Montana.

Since public health infrastructures and resources vary considerably among States

in the nation, Federal health workers rely upon State health workers to help them

transition to work in the locale. State health department workers are helping to facilitate their work here in every manner possible. We stand firmly united with EPA

and ATSDR in efforts to protect the health of the public in Libby.

Thirdly, DPHHS has engaged all personnel and resources within the agency that

are able to bear on the situation in Libby. Workers in the department’s Bureau of

Vital Statistics have provided death certificate data for analysis by State and Federal epidemiologists. Similarly, workers with the Montana Central Tumor Registry

have supplied cancer incidence data on Libby area residents, and on residents in

other areas of the State for comparison purposes.

In an unprecedented action, departmental administrators accessed medicaid claim

databases for medical utilization review of current and former residents of Libby
58

that have received medicaid benefits. This action was undertaken in effort to help

the Federal health workers in their assessment of the current state of the health

of the public in Libby.

Lastly, DPHHS has created new partnerships and strengthened old partnerships

with other State agencies in response to the incident in Libby.

Health professionals with DPHHS are currently ’on call’ to meet with the DEQ

incident managers as developments unfold. Face-to-face meetings of workers in

DPHHS and DEQ are occurring on a frequent basis to help ensure that State response actions are coordinated and comprehensive.

The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services is also collaborating with the Montana Office of Rural Health in Bozeman to evaluate and redress

unmet needs regarding health care delivery in Libby.

The Montana Office is part of a national network of 50 State offices funded

through the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, under the Health Resources and

Services Administration (HRSA). The office in Bozeman serves as the State single

point of contact for the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy and HRSA.

The Montana Office of Rural Health and DPHHS gratefully acknowledge the efforts of Senator Baucus in getting the ‘‘Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program’’, Section 4201 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (PL 105–33), through the

U.S. Congress.

In Libby, the Montana Office of Rural Health has been working with the County

Health Officer, the Administrator of St. John’s Lutheran Hospital, and with DPHHS

in attempts to secure funding for two very critical unmet needs:

1). a clinical coordinator, locally-hired, to work out of the hospital to assist the

County Health Officer with medical screening and follow-up of patients in Libby

2). telemedicine capabilities for the hospital to allow for teleradiology, pulmonary

function telemetry and consulting on patient evaluations and follow-up care.

In closing, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services is committed to working closely together with local, State and Federal colleagues to ensure

that the public health response to the situation is Libby is the best available anywhere.

Thank you Senator Baucus for the opportunity to present this testimony.

STATEMENT OF MARK SIMONICH, DIRECTOR, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

I appreciate the opportunity to explain to the committee the department’s involvement the various local, State and Federal actions that are presently occurring in

Libby, MT.

To understand the Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) involvement in

the Libby investigation, it is helpful to know a little about the department. DEQ

was created in 1993 by the Montana Legislature based on the recommendations of

a Blue Ribbon Task Force appointed by (governor Marc Racicot.

The DEQ combined nearly all the environmental regulatory programs front the

former Departments of State Lands (DSL) and Health and Environmental Sciences

(DHES), and the energy programs in the Department of Natural Resources. and

Conservation (DRC).

The DSL programs regulated the operation and reclamation of hard rock, coal and

open cut mines throughout the State.

The environmental health programs formerly administered by DHES have a clear

public health focus because of their ties to the Water Quality Act, Air Quality Act

and other similar public health oriented laws,

At the time of reorganization, county health officers from throughout the State expressed concern that moving the environmental health programs out of the health

department into an environmental regulatory alertly would result in the loss of

their public health focus.

The Racicot Administration stressed then, as it does today that public health will

remain a primary focus of the DEQ.

The DEQ’s mission is to protect, sustain, and improve a clean and healthful environment to benefit present and future generations.

Today the DEQ administers more than 25 environmental laws. These laws address all facets of air quality and water quality (including regulating public water

supplies and wastewater systems), as well as various laws relating to the development of natural resources (hard rock, coal, and open cut mining), disposal of solid

and hazardous wastes, and cleaning up old areas of contamination (abandoned

mines, petroleum contamination and Superfund.)
59

1 In the rest of this testimony, tremolite may also be referred to as tremolite-actinolite based

on EPA’s choice of definition for this project.

DEQ has an authorized staff of 400 persons and a biennial budget of approximately $136.8 million. More than half of its budget comes from State special revenue accounts (including fees—59.5 percent), a little over a fourth from the Federal

Government (26.6 percent), and lesser amounts from the State Resource Indemnity

Trust (8.5 percent) and the State general fund (54 percent).

In forming the DEQ, I have tried to instill a new vision. While it is true, by our

very nature we are a regulatory agency, I truly believe we can accomplish more by

working together. My vision is that DEQ will work cooperatively with the public,

including regulated entities, and other government agencies to find solutions to the

environmental challenges we face, such as those challenges in Libby.

The DEQ is involved in the Libby investigations on several levels. The department is directly responsible for a request to release the final bond at the former

mine site under the Montana Metal Mine Reclamation Act (MCA 82–4–101 et. seq)

(MMRA). Additionally, the DEQ is responsible for enforcing federally delegated air

quality, water quality, public water supply, and hazardous waste disposal laws. The

department also is responsible for working cooperatively Aim local and Federal

agencies to ensure the people of Libby have a clean and healthful place to live.

Vermiculite was discovered in 1881 at Vermiculite Mountain, approximately six

miles northeast of Libby, in the Rainy Creek drainage, by miners hoping to discover

gold. Its unique properties were recognized by Edward Alley in 1919, and in the

1920’s the Zonolite Company was formed and began mining vermiculite. In 1963,

W.R. Grace bought the mine. The mine closed in 1990.

At times during the operation, the vermiculite mine produced up to 80 percent

of the world’s supply of vermiculite. It has been used in building insulation and as

a soil conditioner. Unfortunately, the vermiculite ore from the Libby mine contained

an associated waste rock that included a particularly toxic form of naturally occurring asbestos referred to as tremolite. 1

Passed in 1971, the AURA acknowledges that mineral mining in Montana is a

basic and essential activity that makes an important contribution to the State’s

economy, but at the same time, proper reclamation of sniped land and former exploration areas is necessary to prevent undesirable land and surface water conditions

that would be detrimental to the general welfare, health, safety, ecology and property rights of the citizens of the State. At the three the act was passed, almost 320

acres of land at the vermiculite mine were already disturbed mine tailings were

being discharged down the slopes of the mountain into the Rainy Creek drainage.

DEQ has been involved at the mine site since the early 1970’s when the Clean

Air Act of Montana was passed, A series of 10 air quality permits were issued to

W. R. Grace over the years for various pieces of air pollution control equipment and

operations, including milling, concentration, drying, screening, storage, loadout, and

bagging. The permits regulated primarily particulate emission and opacity limitations. Asbestos is a particulate, but was not regulated separately from total particulate probably because there cans, and still is, no Federal or State ambient air quality standard for asbestos. The permits were revoked in 1992 after completion of operations. A file review of air quality inspections of the operation indicated general

compliance in the exception of one minor opacity violation at the dryer stack.

W.R. Grace applied for a permit to discharge wastewater to Rainy Creek in February 1971. In 1973, the company changed from dry beneficiation of the ore to a

wet process win a subsequent increase in the discharge of process water. It received

a permit in March 1971, which was extended in November 1971. The permit expired

in January 1972. At that time the company had completed construction of the

tailings impoundment, which the department considered a rho discharge facility and

no longer required a Montana Pollutant Mischarge Elimination System (discharge)

permit.

The impoundment does have an underdrain, which has been sampled. The level

of pollutants is within water quality standards so a permit is not needed for the

underdrain.

The impoundment has a spillway that discharges asbestiform fibers during high

flows. The discharge over the spillway may require a discharge permit, but State

Water Quality Bulletin–7 (WQB–7) limits for asbestos fibers may or may not apply.

Sampling and health risk assessments in 2000 will evaluate the need for a permit

and whether Rainy Creek needs to be diverted around the impoundment during

high flows to prevent a, discharge of asbestiform fibers.

The following is a. brief summary of the mine’s permitting, bonding and bond release history under the MMRA:
60

W.R. Grace applied for an operating permit from DSL in November 1971. Bond was set at $100/acre on the original 320 acres of disturbance. Operating Permit

00010 was approved in January 1972. In July 1977, December 1978, August 1979, July 1986 and September 1992? the operating permit was amended. The bond eventually increased to $472?000 for 1,004

acres of disturbance in the 1?200-acre permit boundary. As areas were mined out, concurrent reclamation commenced.

After legal notice was published requesting public comment, a partial bond re- lease was approved on 14 acres in August 1988 and the bond was reduced to

$467,242 for 990 acres of disturbance in the 1,200-acre permit boundary, Mining ceased in September 1990, and final reclamation commenced. A final clo- sure plan for the impoundment area was approved in September 1992 after a legal

notice and environmental assessment were published and a public meeting was held

in Libby. After a legal notice was published, a second partial bond release was approved in September 1994. Reclamation of the entire mine site, according to the approved

plan, was completed. The bond was reduced from $467,242 to $66,700 for 740 acres

of disturbance in the 1,025-acre permit boundary. The bond was held for maintenance of the reclaimed areas. The bond was no longer needed on the 160 acres released from Operating Permit 00010 for the tailings impoundment. These acres are

now regulated under a Montana DNRC Dam Safely Section operating permit (Application No. 1470A) which was approved December 1994. In December 1994, the Kootenai Development Corporation (KPC) purchased the

property and assumed the operating permits and bond. KPC has continued to maintain the site since 1994.

After the public notice process was completed, a third bond release was approved

in September 1997 reducing the bonded acreage in the permit area from to 125

acres because vegetation on reclaimed areas continued lo improve. The bond for

maintenance of the reclaimed acreage remained the serve on the 125 acres at

$66,700,

DEQ’s involvement in Libby continued through June 1999 when the current own- ers of the former vermiculite mine, KPC, requested a final bond release for the property. The department agreed to publish the bond release request, and after a public

comment period, decide on whether the bond release was appropriate or whether

more work and monitoring were needed. A resew public notice process was approved

by the legislature in 1999 requiring a legal notice published throughout the area

and a press release for statewide media coverage. As a result, a request for public

hearing from Lincoln County Commissioners was received. DEQ immediately agreed

to conduct the hearing and coordinated all phases of the hearing with the local officials.

The DEQ held a public hearing in Libby to record comments on the proposed bond

release on December 1, 1999. The department announced it would accept written

comments to January 1, 2000.

The DEQ will respond to individuals who have raised concerns by mid-February.

The responses address the entire 1,200-acre mine site, riot just the 125 acres in the

bond release request. The responses also address other possible health related issues resulting from vermiculite ore that left the mine site and was processed in

Libby as well as in other locations throughout the country. A decision on the release

will not be made until a thorough site review is completed by the department later

this year.

While focused on the MMRA, the department’s review will also ensue that the entire mine site, access roads and streams in the Rainy Creek drainage are in compliance with State environmental health laws. This review will be coordinated with

local, State and Federal plans and include;

Air and water quality sampling will be done at the mine.

An air quality monitoring program will document the level of dust and fibers

blowing off the entire site.

A tailings and waste rock sampling program will document the levels of asbestos

in the materials at the mine site. DEQ knows the materials contain at least an average of 5–7 percent tremolite lapsed on a Montana Department of Commerce publication from 1990. Water in the mine area will be sampled to identify the level of

asbestiform fibers. Based on the results of the materials sampling and the results

of the air and water sampling programs, decisions will be made on the amount of

reclamation still needed at the mine.

Data collected in the early 1990’s and again in 1999 indicate Mat asbestos levels

in road materials in parts of the Rainy Creek road were elevated, Although there

is no air quality standard for asbestos fibers along the road, new information indicates that dust on the Rainy Creek road may produce a continuing health hazard.
61

Dust sampling by Lincoln County officials and W.R. Grace in 1991 and 1992 indicated that dust levels along Rainy Creek road did not exceed standards based on

the sampling method used at the time. Rainy Creek road is a county road that

passes through U.S. Forest Service land and sense land now owned by KDC. The

DEQ will reevaluate sampling conducted along Rainy Creek road in the early 1990’s

and review the new data. Only a small portion of the road was within the old mine

permit boundary. If there is a health risk, DEQ will coordinate with local and Federal officials to address the road issue.

The former DHES and W.R Grace set up a water quality monitoring program in the early 1990’s. Concerns were expressed again in 1999 about levels of milling reagents (diesel, fluoride) in the water in the impoundment as well as asbestiform

mineral fibers in the impoundment water. The DEQ re-sampled some sites again

in September 1999. The only exceedance of any water quality standard at any sampling station was asbestiform mineral fibers in the tailing impoundment. The department plans to re-sample Rainy Creek and its tributaries during high runoff in

the spring when the spillway from the impoundment is flowing. If the level of fibers

is above acceptable levels (the ambient water quality standard for darning water is

7 million fibers per liter in WQB–7), the DEQ will work with the DNRC Dam Safety

Program and local and Federal officials to address the issue. The Rainy Creek drainage has been impacted by mine waste products since die 1920’s. Rainy Creek downstream from the location of the drinking water intake for

the mine/mill (lower Rainy Creek) was classified as an impaired (C–1) stream in

1971. Upstream of that point it is classified B–1. The other waters in the Rainy

Creek watershed and He Kootenai River are classified B–1. While B–1 waters ‘‘are

suitable for drinking, culinary and food processing purposes after conventional treatment; . . .’’ (ARM 17.30.623), C–1 waters are not suitable for drinking and should

not be used for that purpose (17.30.626). As a result, no one uses the water ire

Rainy Creek or its tributaries for drinking water. The impoundment was constructed ire 1971 to contain the mine wastes. Rainy Creel; water quality is probably

better today than it has been for more than 50 years. Risks from old tailings in the

drainage below the impoundment will also be evaluated in 2000. W.R. Grace and KDC were given permission to dispose of certain solid wastes on site in a landfill. This is allowed under the MMRA as long as the disposal meets

Montana solid waste regulations. Materials Mat were allowed to be buried on site

included inert wastes such as concrete. W. R. Grace was also allowed to bury steel

and asbestos shingles. Concerns have been expressed about how deep it is to ground

water and if that ground water is contaminated by anything that may have been

dumped illegally, DEQ plans to sample an abandoned well on the site to address

this issue. The depth to water in the well is more than 200 feet deep. More wells

will be installed if the old well is not located in an appropriate monitoring location.

Reclamation of the disposal site will be reevaluated.

Concerns have been expressed about future development of the Nine site. The concern is that new development will introduce more asbestiform mineral fibers in the

air and water. DEQ will coordinate with Lincoln County and Federal officials to

identify controls needed on the old mine site to limit potential problems win future

development proposals.

Concerns have been expressed that because the bond has been released on the

majority of the site and because the land has been sold to KDC, that W.R. Grace

is not responsible if air or water quality problems are identified. W. R. Grace has

been cooperating with local, State and Federal officials to address the issue. Any

necessary cleanup will be conducted under the MMRA, Clean Air Act, Water Quality

Act, (comprehensive Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act (State

Superfund) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Federal Superfund), as needed.

In response to the widespread concerns of possible asbestos contamination in

Libby, the DEQ sampled five public and private wells to check for ground water contamination from asbestos. The samples revealed no contamination. The sites included mobile home courts and a plant nursed operating in a former vermiculite

screening facility.

City personnel had previously sampled Libby’s public water system and found no

asbestos contamination. However, DEQ decided to sample the system again to verify

the initial findings. The city gets its drinking water from Flower Creek, which is

geographically in a different drainage from the vermiculite mine. No asbestos contamination teas been reported in that drainage.

Earlier this month the DEQ announced the sample results revealed Were was no

asbestos in the samples taken from the city’s water supply. One sample was taken

from untreated water entering the treatment plant. A second sample was taken

from the finished (filtered) water leaving the plant. Copies of the results were sent
62

to the Wiry of Libby, the Lincoln County Sanitariums Office, and the EPA Office

in Libby. Time and cooperation are the keys to answering the many environmental and public health questions in the Libby area. Time is an important factor because it took time for the situation in Libby to de- velop and it will the time to identify and address any environmental and public

health problems. Time is also a factor in determining the current investigation’s impact on Libby’s economy, tourism, business community and its citizens. If testing

reveals environmental exposures still exist, it will take time to clean up or stabilize

those sites. The result, however, will be an environment safe for people, in addition

to being attractive for economic development, existing businesses and people visiting

the area.

As for cooperation, when it became apparent that asbestos concerns ranged far beyond those associated with the request to release the bond at the mine, I immediately formed a group of DEQ employees to work on the proposed bond release and

asbestos investigation. The group includes: the person in charge of reviewing the

proposal to release the bond., a project coordinator to work with EPA on the environmental health investigation, the DEQ’s media manager and a project coordinator

from the Director’s Office to work with EPA and local, State, and Federal public

health officials. Additionally, these DEQ persons are drawing on the expertise of a

number of persons throughout the department. The DEQ and EPA investigation of possible asbestos contamination in the Libby area began with sampling in December 1999, The team collected air, soil (yard, garden and driveway samples), dust and vermiculite insulation samples. Samples were

taken at 32 residences, as well as several potential areas of concern due to historic

vermiculite-related activities.

To date, the State and Federal team’s investigation includes:

Approximately 73 air sample results from 32 residences, two businesses’ and two former processing areas there received and reviewed. Transmission electron microscopy analysis was used to count asbestos fibers (10-grid system count looking for

fibers 5 microns or greater). Results from the December air sampling event were released on January 31, 2000. Preliminary results indicate that two potential areas have relatively elevated levels

of asbestos related fibers in the 5–10 micron range. Two homes have elevated levels of asbestos fibers. Chrysotile (serpentine asbes- tos) was detected in one home and tremolite-actinolite fibers were detected in the

other hone. (The chrysotile is not related to the old vermiculite mine). The two former processing areas with elevated levels of tremolite-actinolite asbes- tos fibers present are the lumber facility at the former export plant and the plant

nursery (Parker business and residence) at the former screening facility, Of the remaining homes, 24 have trace levels of tremolite fibers. However, to

make sure nothing was missed, these same samples were sent back to the laboratory to be re-tested with a more stringent analysis (lower detection limit) looking

at fibers from 5–10 microns in length using a 30 grid count system. Results are anticipated by the end of February or early March.

The other samples taken during the December sampling will be available in midMarch. These results, along with the air sampling results, Frill provide a better assessment of the extent of any contamination in residential homes and businesses.

These data, along with Store residential and business sampling will allow the agencies to determine the best possible solutions.

The team also installed ambient air monitors at four locations in Libby to detect

asbestos fibers in outdoor air.

EPA opened a field office (the Storefront, 501 Mineral) in Libby. The office is

being shared with DEQ and other State and Federal agencies. The office is open

from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. every day except Tuesday. Tuesday it is open from 12 noon

to 8 p.m.

The environmental and public health sampling and monitoring will determine if

there are problems, and, if so, how severe. Based on that information’ appropriate

local, State and Federal agencies will, after considering public review and comment,

determine what needs to be done. It is at this point decisions mill have to be Moe

regarding my responsible parties and where the money should come from to pay the

costs of any cleanup or stabilization activities.

The agencies involved with the investigation are still in the sampling and monitoring phase of the investigation.

So, where does the responsibility lie for the asbestos contamination and health

problems in the Libby area? It will take time and patience to answer these questions. Based on the anticipated scientific, technical and medical investigation results, these questions must and will be answered carefully and thoughtfully. In the
63

meantime, the DEQ along with its local, State and Federal partners will do their

best to administer their respective environmental and public health laws.

With respect to DEQ, if there are violations of the law and a responsible party

can be identified, the department will expect the responsible party to take full responsibility for its actions. However, from the DEQ’s perspective, the highest priority is identifying and eliminating sources of asbestos contamination that pose a

health risk to the public.

Based on the sampling results, the health of finials involved will be preparing a

health risk assessment to identify the risk of exposure from varying times and doses

of exposure in the area Cat have created the levels of asbestosis observed in the

Libby area. Areas exceeding the risk thresholds will be cleaned up. Other areas may

simply need to have land use restrictions placed on them to limit risks to acceptable

levels. These decisions must be made based on sound scientific data.

Thank you, Senator Baucus, for the opportunity to present this testimony.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM YELLOWTAIL, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION VIII,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

I would like to thank the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

for inviting me to offer testimony concerning the asbestos situation in Libby, Montana. This is a most serious matter. My staff end I have given it our utmost attention. EPA Region 8 will complete the investigation it is conducting in Libby with

all due speed and thoroughness—as a top priority. After providing a brief background about the Site, I will discuss five topics:

1. The Agency’s recent actions at the Site.

2. What we know of the extent of asbestos related health effects in Libby.

3. What we know of the current state of the environment in Libby.

4. The next step’s to be taken by EPA and other Federal agencies at the Site.

5. Coordination of State, Local, and Federal efforts.

Background

Mr. Edward Alley began initial mining operations on a vermiculite ore body located approximately 7 miles northeast of Libby, Montana in the early 1 920’s. Full

scale operations began later that decade under the name of the Universal Zonolite

Insulation Company (Zonolite). Scientists didn’t know the health ramifications at

the time, but it was known that this ore body contained amphibole asbestos of the

tremolite-actinolite series. Unlike, the commercially exploited chrysotile asbestos,

the tremolite-actinolite material has never been used commercially, and was considered a contaminant. Uses of vermiculite include a variety of insulation products and

construction materials, as a carrier for fertilizer and other agricultural chemicals,

and as a soil conditioner.

Operations at the mine were fairly simple. Miners strip-mined the ore using conventional equipment and then processed (beneficiated) it in an on-site dry mill to

remove waste rock and overburden. After beneficiation, workers trucked the processed ore down Rainey Creek Road to a screening plant, which separated the milled

ore into five size ranges for use in various products. From there, shippers sent the

material across the country, predominantly by rail, for either direct inclusion in

products, or for expansion (also known as exfoliation). Heating the ore in a dry kiln

to approximately 2000 degrees F boiled the water trapped in the crystalline matrix

of the vermiculite and expanded the material by a factor of 10 to 15 fold.

In Libby, operations handling the beneficiated material occurred at four main locations: the Mine and Mill located on Rainey Creek Road; the Screening Plant and

Railroad Loading Station located astride the Kootenai River at the intersection of

Rainey Creek Road and Highway 37; the

Expansion/Export Plant located off Highway 37 where it crosses the Kootenai

River; and an Expansion/Export Plant located at the end of Lincoln Road, near Fifth

Street.

In 1963, the W.R. Grace Company bought the Zonolite Company and continued

operations in a similar fashion. Grace added a wet milling process to the operation

in 1975, which operated in tandem with the dry mill, until the dry mill was taken

offline in 1985. Expansion Plant operations ceased in Libby sometime prior to 1981,

although workers still used this area to bag and export milled ore until mining operations were stopped in 1990.

1. The Agency’s Recent Actions

On Monday, November 22, 1999, I made the decision to send to Libby an On

Scene Coordinator from my Emergency Response Program, along with a team of sci-
64

entists, toxicologists, and a physician from the Public Health Service (PHS) to investigate the situation. They arrived in Libby on November 23, 1999. The initial investigation consisted of the following: a brief inspection of the former mine and processing facilities; interviews with local officials and some members of

impacted families; an interview with a pulmonologist in Spokane, Washington who

specializes in the treatment of asbestos related diseases; and the collection of a

small set of environmental samples.

This investigation confirmed two things. First, there is a large number of current and historic cases of asbestos related diseases centered around Libby, Montana. The

pulmonologist in Spokane was currently treating over 200 cases of asbestos related

diseases among folks who had either lived in Libby or worked at the mine, and had

provided care to dozens more who had already died. Most disturbing of this physician’s cases were 33 incidents of apparently non-occupational exposures. Of these

33, six had no family or other ties to anyone working at the mine. The interviews

conducted by the Team identified additional people who were either sick or had died

from asbestos related diseases. The Team also obtained a number of court documents stemming from the large number of asbestos related lawsuits in Libby which

provided background information about the Site. The second thing our investigation confirmed was the high likelihood that signifi- cant amounts of asbestos contaminated vermiculite still remain in and around

Libby. High concentrations of tremolite-actinolite asbestos remain in the ore body,

tailings pile, and tailings pond at the former mine itself. In addition, visible piles

of unexpanded vermiculite remain at the former screening plant/ railroad loading

station, and the base material of Rainey Creek Road appears to contain tailings and

sands from the mine. Residents stated that piles of expanded and unexpanded vermiculite used to sit at the former Expansion/Export Plant, next to two former youth

baseball fields. They indicated that children regularly played in and around these

piles, including the current Governor of Montana. Local residents commonly used

both expanded and unexpanded vermiculite from waste piles around the mining operations in their yards and gardens as a soil conditioner, and the expanded vermiculite was used as wall and attic insulation in many homes. Descriptions of historic

operations of the mine, mill, and processing centers indicate that large amounts of

dust and other fugitive emissions were released into the environment when these

operations were still running.

These findings led EPA to initiate a larger scale investigation with three overall

goals:

1. Determine the current distribution of asbestos contamination in Libby.

2. More accurately determine (in conjunction with the Agency for Toxic Substance

and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Montana Departments of Environmental Quality

(MDEQ) and Public Health and Human Services, and PHS) the extent of asbestos

related health impacts in Libby.

3. Distinguish the effects from past asbestos exposures from any that might be

on-going currently, or may occur in the future.

In December 1999 EPA collected samples of air and dust from inside 32 homes

and 2 businesses around Libby, and collected samples from yards, gardens, insulation, and driveways at these same locations. In addition, air and soil samples were

collected from the former screening plant and railroad loading station, as well as

at the former expansion/export plant. Samples were also collected from along Rainey

Creek Road. To date, EPA has collected over 600 samples. Seasonal sampling of ambient air around Libby and the former mine Site began in January, and will continue through this Fall.

In December, EPA contacted the ATSDR to begin planning a wide scale Community Medical Testing and Exposure Assessment. This effort will make chest x-rays,

and where indicated, follow-up pulmonary evaluations available to residents and

former residents of the Libby area, as well as to former mine workers and their families. This effort should help determine the full scope of the asbestos-related medical

impacts in Libby and, in conjunction with the on-going environmental sampling,

help distinguish between past and current sources of exposure. The medical testing

is planned for start-up this Spring.

2. What We Know About Asbestos Related Health Effects in Libby

It is very apparent that the asbestos-related health effects associated with the

vermiculite mining and processing operations in Libby have been significant. Although we will likely never be able to confirm the exact number of cases, it is probable that the number of cases and deaths reported in the media are in the right

range. The vast majority, well over 80 percent of cases that EPA and PHS have reviewed, appear to be occupational in nature. The next largest group appears to be

family members of those involved in the mining operations. Beyond the occupational
65

and secondary exposures (em, exposure to workers’ families), it is difficult to identify

the sources for other asbestos-related diseases, and whether they still exist today.

It is probable that people who played in the piles or lived near the former expansion/export plant when it was in operation are at greater risk, but this has not yet

been confirmed by a rigorous investigation. EPA has not yet concluded whether or

to what extent having this vermiculite in a home garden, in a yard, or as wall or

attic insulation correlates to an increased incidence of asbestos related disease. It

is these latter two questions which form the crux of the on-going investigations.

3. What We know About the State of the Environment In Libby Today

It is clear that, relative to the levels of asbestos contamination, conditions in

Libby today are much better than when the mine was in business. The piles of vermiculite around the export/expansion plant are gone, air emissions from the mill

and processing operations no longer exist, and ambient air conditions in Libby have

greatly improved over the last decade. However, conditions that need to be investigated and remedied still exist in Libby. The results from the air samples collected

by EPA in December indicate that unsafe levels of asbestos fibers still exist in some

areas of the former screening plant/railroad loading station and the export/expansion plant.

EPA has already initiated discussions with W.R. Grace about conducting and/or paying for these clean-up actions. One of the 32 homes sampled in Libby also

showed unsafe levels of tremolite-actinolite fibers. EPA is currently trying to determine the source of these fibers. EPA will then take steps to reduce these levels. We

expect to have the results from the remainder of the samples collected in December

by mid-March, and will announce our findings at that time. In summary, while it

appears that conditions are better in Libby today than in the past, there are apparently existing local source areas that need to be eliminated. It is still an open question as to the significance of vermiculite in people’s homes, yards, and gardens.

4. The Next Steps to Be Taken by the Federal Agencies Involved

The next big step to be undertaken in Libby is the implementation of the Commu- nity Medical Testing and Exposure Assessment that EPA and ATSDR will jointly

conduct with assistance from the PHS. The outreach and education effort for this

will begin in March 2000, with the actual medical evaluations scheduled to begin

in April 2000. This is the key piece of the investigation to date, and it is urgent

that the Federal Agencies involved see to its proper implementation. EPA and

ATSDR have both committed to conduct this action under the above mentioned

time-frames. If done successfully, this evaluation should also serve to help develop

the local medical infrastructure in Libby, so that residents can receive proper diagnosis, treatment, and care locally. EPA, along with MDEQ, will continue to conduct its sampling investigations in and around Libby, and will begin clean up actions at the two former processing centers this Spring. As more information is gathered and more data becomes available,

EPA will announce and discuss its findings publicly and take action accordingly. It

is EPA’s intent to identify all areas where unacceptable exposure to tremolite-actinolite asbestos are occurring and remediate them. EPA plans to test an additional

75 to 100 homes starting in late February. Ambient air sampling will continue

through next Fall. Investigations as to the present physical condition of the mine

and area surrounding the mine will be started as soon as the snow melts this

Spring.

5. Coordination of Local, State, and Federal Efforts

Given the critical nature of the situation in Libby today it is imperative that the efforts of all the agencies involved be well coordinated. I can and will take steps

to ensure that the agencies work together in a coordinated manner. EPA and MDEQ have conducted several briefings and interviews with officials from the City of Libby and Lincoln County. In addition, EPA, ATSDR, MDEQ, the

Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, and PHS have met extensively with the County Medical Officer, hospital officials, and local physicians to

exchange information about the investigations. Local medical resources will be used

to a great extent in conducting the Community Medical Screening and Exposure Assessment, and have participated in the development of this project. EPA and the other agencies involved will continue to communicate with local offi- cials and medical personnel as the investigations progress.

EPA and MDEQ have helped to facilitate the formation of a Community Advisor

Group (CAG), a citizen based group designed to better transmit, receive, and evaluate the information collected during these investigations. The group will serve to act

as a forum to discuss and debate publicly many of the controversial issues surrounding the investigations.
66

The MDEQ has been participating jointly with EPA in this investigation since it was begun last November. MDEQ personnel have been involved with the investigation design and implementation, and will participate with EPA when clean up actions begin. The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services has

been integrally involved in the collection of current medical information, and has

participated.in the design of the Community Medical Testing and Exposure Assessment. This relationship will continue as this project evolves.

Coordination among the Federal Agencies involved is also paramount to the success of this project. The PHS has provided EPA a full-time physician to support our

efforts, and has also provided other medical expertise. Because of the overlap in authorities, and to eliminate any duplication of efforts, ATSDR and EPA are jointly

conducting their investigations in Libby when appropriate. To this end the two

Agencies are now in the process of finalizing an Agreement on how the work will

be conducted, and ensuring a sharing of information and resources. As a result, EPA

has agreed to fully fund the Community Medical Testing and Exposure Assessment

while relying on ATSDR’s expertise in its design and implementation. In addition,

the agencies have agreed to coordinate their enforcement and cost recovery actions

concerning W.R. Grace.

This concludes my testimony on the matter today. I want to assure you that I

have personally charged my On Scene Coordinator with the directions discussed

above, and he and I will stand fully accountable for the success of their implementation. Thank you for your time and consideration.

STATEMENT OF HENRY FALK, M.D., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, AGENCY FOR TOXIC

SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Good day. I am Dr. Henry Falk, Assistant Administrator of the Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a public health agency within the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Accompanying me is Dr. Jeffrey Lybarger, Director of the Division of Health Studies at ATSDR, ATSDR appreciates the opportunity to evaluate to the public health issues in the Libby, Montana,

area in response to concerns expressed by key elected officials such as you, community members and former mine workers. ATSDR, with the support of other Federal,

State and local organizations, will carry out the activities to meet the public health

needs of the community in Libby, Montana.

Dr. Lybarger and I, along with ATSDR and DHHS staff, share your concerns

about the health issues being raised in Libby, and share your desire to develop immediate and long-term steps to address those issues. Among the activities ATSDR

will pursue in Libby are providing advice and guidance on environmental sampling;

reviewing medical and vital records for residents already diagnosed with asbestosrelated disease; developing protocols for medical testing which will begin later this

spring; developing and distributing health care provider and community education

materials; and providing relevant training to health care professionals who may

need to provide services to residents and workers in the Libby area.

ATSDR’s mandated activities and expertise enables provision of these public

health activities in the Libby area. ATSDR was created by Congress in 1980 under

the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act as

amended (CERCLA), or what is more commonly known as Superfund legislation.

CERCLA mandates of ATSDR a broad, national program of Superfund site health

assessments, health investigations, surveillance and registries, applied research,

emergency response, health education, and toxicological database development.

Broadly speaking, ATSDR’s responsibilities under Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and other Federal statutes are to assess the

effects of toxic substances on community populations and to recommend interventions to protect public health where they are needed. This may include medical

screening and epidemiologic investigations of health effects of community populations exposed to hazardous substances. We also conduct investigations to measure

human exposure to toxic substances released from waste sites or other sources of

release. Our work is conducted in close collaboration with the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), State health departments, local health agencies, and affected communities.

ATSDR administers public health activities through: State partnerships; public

health assessment and consultation activities; exposure investigations; health studies and registry activities; development of toxicological profiles and attendant research; emergency response; health education and health promotion; and community
67

involvement. In general, ATSDR organizes its site-related activities by developing

Public Health Response Plans. A Public Health Response Plan identifies appropriate

public heath activities, designates who is responsible for the conduct of the activities, and provides an estimated time line for accomplishing those activities in the

community All stakeholders, including officials and the affected community, provide

input throughout the Response Plan process Libby-area asbestos description and background: From 1920—1990 a vermiculite mine and two refining facilities were located in the Libby area. Natural vermiculite

ore and its products can be contaminated with asbestos. The vermiculite ore mined

at Libby has been shown to be contaminated with asbestos, and the degree of contamination is under investigation. Reported health concerns: In the past, asbestos-contaminated dust may have been spread in the course of operations of the facilities through emissions from the refining process, via disposal operations, through product shipping and use’ and on miners’ clothing. Studies published by the National Institute for Occupational Safety

and Health (NIOSH) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in

the mid 1980’s documented asbestos exposure and related health effects, including

respiratory and lung ailments, in workers at the Libby vermiculite facilities. Truck

drivers, railroad workers, forestry service workers, and others who provided services

and support to the mining operations may have been exposed to asbestos-contaminated dust during their daily work activities. ATSDR will consider other ways that

residents in the area night have been exposed to asbestos including children playing

with vermiculite, recreational activities near the mine, insulation in homes, or other

activities and situations reported by the community. ATSDR’s primary objectives for public health activities in Libby, MT, are to: iden- tify the people at health risk from exposures to asbestos, evaluate the association

between exposures to asbestos and health. effects in the community, conduct an epidemiologic investigation to assess the full scope of health effects in the past and

present, and to intervene to eliminate exposures and prevent further adverse health

effects in the community. Health effects associated with asbestos: A significant potential health concern with vermiculite is the degree to which it may be contaminated with asbestos. Vermiculite alone can cause irritation to the respiratory system (nose and throat), but

it does not represent the threat to health that it does when in combination with asbestos.

The amount and duration of exposure to asbestos determine the risk for adverse

health effects. Breathing high levels of asbestos may cause several severe adverse

health effects. Asbestosis is a serious disease that results in a slow build up of scarlike tissue within the lungs. People with asbestosis have shortness of breath, often

along with a cough and sometimes heart enlargement Less severe, but important

in assessing exposure to asbestos are changes in the lining of the lung which are

quite common in workers heavily exposed to asbestos. When exposure to asbestos

causes scarring to the lining of the chest wall surrounding the lungs, these areas

are called pleural plaques. They are often not associated with symptoms, but they

do indicate that asbestos exposure has occurred and that the person can be at risk

of other, more serious, asbestos related conditions.

Exposure to asbestos has been related to two types of cancer. The first is lung

cancer. Studies of workers exposed to asbestos have demonstrated higher rates of

lung cancer; interactions between cigarette smoke and asbestos increase the chances

of getting lung cancer. The second type of cancer, which is highly associated with

asbestos exposure is mesothelioma. This cancer is extremely severe, and is more

common in workers, although it has also been reported in non-workers with apparently limited exposures. Smoking plays no role in risk for mesothelioma. Studies of

workers suggest that breathing asbestos can also increase the chances of getting

cancer in other parts of the body, although less frequently.

ATSDR involvement Since November 1999, ATSDR and DHHS Region VIII staff

in Denver, CO, have consulted with EPA and county health officials on environmental sampling of mining waste and interpretation of the environmental data with

respect to potential health effects.

ATSDR has worked with the Libby community and local, State and other Federal

officials to identify key elements of a Public Health Response Plan to address the

public health needs of the community.

ATSDR initiated site activities with a site visit from January 18 to January 21,

2000, in Libby, MT. The site visit by ATSDR and DHHS regional staff allowed the

review of current public health environmental actions; gathering of environmental

data, health data and community concerns; and meetings with relevant parties to

formulate an action plan. ATSDR staff met with officials of EPA, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (MDPHHS), the Lincoln County
68

Commissioners and Department of Health, St. John’s Lutheran Hospital, and a key

local physician who has seen and diagnosed individuals with asbestos-related illnesses. During this visit, ATSDR and the State and local health officials initiated

discussions to address the public health needs of the community. During a follow-up site visit February 2–9, 2000, DHHS regional and ATSDR staff worked with State and local health officials to outline future public health activities

in a Public Health Response Plan. Key elements of the overall Public Health Response Plan for Libby, MT, are to: 1 ) provide input and advice on environmental

sampling being done by EPA to better understand patterns of exposure; 2) collect and analyze medical and epidemiologic data to better characterize the nature and extent of asbestos-related disease in the community (this would involve

review of medical, pathology, and vital records data for residents of the Libby area

who have already been diagnosed with asbestos-related disease); 3) coordinate medical testing for people in the community who have had past ex- posures to asbestos in order to identify people with asbestos related conditions so

they can be referred for medical care; and 4) provide a public health education program to assist residents and health care providers in obtaining full and up-to-date information on asbestos-related risks and

diseases.

Medical testing and referral: Medical testing to identify the extent of the site-re- lated adverse health effects is a key component of the Libby Public Health Response

Plan. Planning to provide medical testing to persons who lived or worked in Libby

during the time of highest exposure is ongoing. The medical testing will provide

screening services and advice on diagnosis and long-term care needs, where appropriate, for people who were exposed to asbestos; estimate the prevalence of asbestosrelated conditions in people who might have been exposed; and assist the local

health department and local physicians to estimate the magnitude of asbestos-related illnesses that must be addressed by local physicians. Under this plan, people who

lived near the site, worked with vermiculite, lived in a household with a vermiculite

worker, or had some other activity which allowed them to have frequent contact

with the vermiculite in the Libby area, would be identified and included in the medical testing plan. People who meet the designated criteria will be scheduled for a

chest x-ray and will be asked to complete a detailed questionnaire. The x-rays will

be reviewed by expert radiologists and the results will be provided back to the participants. People with abnormalities associated with asbestos will be notified, counseled and offered additional lung function tests and radiographic procedures, along

with referral to their physician. People who do not have a physician will be referred

through a system coordinated by the local health department We currently estimate

that as many as 3,000 people would meet the criteria for testing and desire to be

tested.

A written project plan, as described above, is currently being formulated and will

be submitted for independent review by a panel of physicians and health scientists

with expertise in asbestos-related diseases. We anticipate this review will occur by

the end of February 2000. We hope to begin medical testing within two to 3 months.

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has already committed

$80,000 toward the medical testing program.

Health education communication and community involvement: ATSDR’s health

education and promotion program encompasses the overall goals of educating individuals, communities, and health care providers about the health effects of hazardous substances in the environment; working with affected communities to develop

and promote public health strategies to mitigate the health impact of hazardous

substances; and disseminating environmental health education materials, training,

and information.

To date, local public health professionals (physicians and nurses) have been contacted to enable ATSDR to better understand local health-related concerns; community involvement specialists in the various represented organizations (including

EPA, ATSDR, and the State health department) have begun developing strategies

for clear, effective message delivery; and contact lists are being developed to ensure

that affected and interested parties in the Libby area receive information that is disseminated. Further, ATSDR is working with EPA to discuss mechanisms, such as

a community-based group to obtain regular and consistent community input to the

development and implementation of the Public Health Response Plan.

A key part of ATSDR’s health promotion program is education and training for

health care providers and other health professionals, to facilitate access to environmental medical services, and to establish the connection between environmental

public health practice and long-term health care. An integrated health care provider

education plan is being developed that will target primary care physicians as well

as community health nurses, x-ray technicians, respiratory therapists, and other
69

health-related professionals who interact with people who may have been affected

by Libby-area contamination. ATSDR staff are currently working with local partners to plan a community meet- ing in Libby. The idea is to create an environment for individuals to talk directly

with scientific, environmental and health experts at Information kiosks’’ about their

health-related questions and concerns. The public availability session is expected to

be held within in the next month and before the medical testing activities begin. I would like to reiterate that ATSDR shares your concerns about the situation in Libby—both the environmental contamination and the health concerns. I am confident that the expertise of the ATSDR staff and its partners, working through the

integrated Public Health Response Plan, can address both short- and long-term public health needs of the community ATSDR continues to provide input and advice on environmental sampling; is re- viewing medical and vital records for residents already diagnosed with asbestos-related disease; is developing protocols for medical testing to commence later this

spring; and developing health care provider and community education materials for

use in this response. Each of these activities are in collaboration with other Federal,

State, and local agencies. Our efforts will result in an integrated program to address

the health concerns of prior and current residents of Libby and the surrounding

areas. The community’s concerns about the environment and its impact on their

health can be addressed only if we continue to work in the collaborative manner

that staff of the Federal, State, and local agencies involved in this response have

already begun.

STATEMENT OF ALAN STRINGER, W.R. GRACE

My name is Alan Stringer. From 1981 to 1994 I was site manager of the Grace operations in Libby. I have resumed to this community to live so that Grace can

assure its obligations to the people of this community are met. I have been asked by Paul Norris, CEO of W.R. Grace, to address three matters:

First, I want to include in the record a history of the Libby vermiculite mine from the time Grace purchased the property to the completion of its closure in 1994, a

period of 30 years. That history will show what Grace did and when it did it so that

you may draw whatever conclusions are appropriate with respect to how this company operated in the past. Second, I want to discuss the dilemma in which W.R. Grace and similarly situated companies find themselves with respect to disposition of asbestos-related liability

claims.

Third, I want to discuss what Grace has announced it intends to do for its former

employees and their families and others who might be affected by asbestos-related

illness.

And I want to tell you what we are considering in addition to that which we have

announced.

Before I discuss each of those points, I want to make one thing clear: like everyone else here, we are concerned about the victims of asbestos-related disease. It is

our responsibility and our commitment to provide the medical assistance necessary

for those people who are identified as having an asbestos-related disease associated

directly or indirectly with our corporate operations in the Libby area. We have made

a down payment on that commitment through our announcement to invest a quarter

of a million dollars a year in medical screening with St. John’s Hospital.

W.R. Grace was a corporate citizen of Libby, Montana. While we no longer have

economic operations here, we continue to believe that we have a responsibility to

the community. We will keep that commitment to the people in this community.

ASBESTOS LIABILITY

I want to make very clear that W.R. Grace is not a member of any coalition seeking to pass Federal asbestos-related disease legislation through the Congress of the

United States. We have not even taken a public position on the pending bills. This

does not mean we do not believe legislation is needed. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the AFL–CIO, even some trial lawyers, asbestos companies and victims all agree that the litigious process for settling asbestos claims is inefficient, uneconomic, unfair and simply will not deliver a fair response to victims of asbestosrelated disease in a timely manner.

W.R. Grace believes Federal legislation is needed. We will work with the Montana

Delegation and any other Members of Congress, irrespective of political affiliation,

to try to develop legislation which meets the needs of the victims of asbestos disease, including the residents of Libby. We believe it is essential that settlement of
70

as many claims as possible should be achieved through negotiation rather than litigation. But we understand that in order to remove this issue from the courts alternative compensation mechanisms have to be fair and victims have to believe that

they are receiving equity in whatever settlement process evolves. In no instance

should an alternative settlement mechanism deprive claimants who meet simple

medical criteria of their right to go to court.

W.R. Grace, under its new management, will not support any Federal or State

legislation which fails to provide equitable relief for victims of asbestos-related disease.

W.R. Grace knows that we can provide more money to more victims, more quickly,

if we do not have to pay enormous costs of lawyers and expert witnesses and be

encumbered by the enormous delay that is associated with litigating each of these

cases. W.R. Grace only asks that there be established some basis for determining

if a claimant has an asbestos-related disease far which compensation is sought. If

we can agree that there needs to be a means to establish asbestos-related disease

criteria which are acceptable to the claimants and to the companies, the only remaining impediment is to establish a mechanism of compensation which allows companies which formerly used asbestos in their products business to remain economically viable so that claimants can receive compensation. We believe this last point

is critically important. If Grace is not economically viable there will be no compensation for any one in Lincoln County.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss what we have proposed to do in Libby

in response to the current crisis.

It is important for the record to reflect our commitment to this community.

Grace will provide the funds necessary to develop and establish an independent

screening program for the people of Libby and Lincoln County, which will detect asbestos-related conditions. Initially, we stated that Grace would allocate $250,000 annually for as long as necessary to address the screening needs in that area. However, Grace recognizes that this amount may need to be adjusted to fit the actual

implementation of such a program. Grace officials have already met with Hospital

officials, and we plan further discussions with the Hospital and the Federal agencies. Our goal is to put into operation an effective, independent asbestos screening

program for the people of Libby, as soon as possible. We believe the hospital is

trusted in the community and is the responsible place to do this work.

Grace will also implement a program to cover the medical expenses for any individual in Libby and Lincoln County who suffers from asbestos-related conditions.

Specifically, an eligible resident of Libby or Lincoln County. This will be determined

as a result of the screening program described above.

Once the Grace Medical Program covers the individual, all of his or her medical

bills, including prescription drug bills that are incurred in the treatment of any asbestos-related condition, will be paid. We believe this program represents an effective and streamlined way of helping the people of Libby obtain treatment of asbestos-related conditions.

We have sent a contractor into the community to develop asbestos remediation

plans for the buildings we previously owned and which have been identified by EPA.

We will conduct the necessary remediation of those facilities once we reach agreement with EPA on what is needed, and we understand the basis for EPA’s determination of the risk that exists.

The sampling and risk assessment methodologies EPA is using in Libby are unfamiliar to us. We want to have the opportunity to have our scientific and technical

experts meet with their counterparts in EPA to fully understand these approaches.

There are two reasons we think its important to understand the approaches being

followed by EPA. First, for Grace, bad information could mean investments in remediation which is not warranted or properly focused. For the people of Libby, it could

mean a disastrous loss of property values and devastating impact on future economic development. Sensational and misleading headlines may sell newspapers in

Seattle, but it is the people in this room that have to live with the allegations. These

reporters and self-described experts will quickly move on from Libby to other events.

It is the people of Libby who will have to deal with what’s left behind.

We cannot experiment with the future of this community. The people of Libby are

entitled to a clean, safe environment. They are entitled to our company doing what

is responsible to assure that clean, safe environment. The people of Grace are entitled to a scientific, rational and reliable analysis of what is and what isn’t in need

of remediation; what does and what does not pose a risk.

Given facts based on fully understood EPA procedures, W.R. Grace will respond

quickly and completely. Government agencies—Federal, State and local—have a responsibility to make sure that their response to this threat is measured and ration-
71

al. We hope that EPA, the State and the community agencies will take this approach to this problem and, as they do, Grace will be right there working with them.

Æ