[Senate Hearing 106-950]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
63-377 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
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 MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri HARRY REID, Nevada
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BOB GRAHAM, Florida
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
Dave Conover, Staff Director
Tom Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
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
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.
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
asbestos-related 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 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 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 screening 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?
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
microphone.
Dr. Black. I'll start over. 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 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 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 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.
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
evaluating 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,
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 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 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'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.''
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 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 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 well-
being of Libby's future.
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
community, 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 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?
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 asbestos-related 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 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 gold-plating 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, 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?
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 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
assessment 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 vermiculite 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.
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 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.
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 epidemiologists. 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. 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 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 environmental 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.
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 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 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.
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
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.
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 on-scene 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
Environmental 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 vermiculite 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 levels 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.
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?
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
critical 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.
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.
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 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 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 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 x-ray. 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 percent 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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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 follow-up 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----
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 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 last-minute 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 specific 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
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.
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.
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 traumatic
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 ``non-
occupationally'' 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.
At this stage, our role appeared to be in assisting the EPA in the
medical screening 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 monitoring 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 diagnosis 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.
__________
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 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.)
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
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 release 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 closure 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 owners 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. 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 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 develop 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 asbestos) 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 asbestos 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 mid-March. 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
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 scientists, 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 significant 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 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 Community 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 officials 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.
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 asbestos-related
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
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: identify 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 scar-like 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 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 exposures 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-related 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 asbestos-related 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 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 meeting 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 reviewing 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 asbestos-related 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 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 rational. 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.