![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
In November 1999, the media ran a series of newspaper articles which reported that miners and their families in the area of Libby, Montana died or became ill from exposure to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore, which has been mined near Libby since the 1920s. Subsequently, the media reported that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials knew about the exposure to asbestos and the dangers it posed, but did not take any action. Following these articles, EPA officials requested that we conduct this review. Specifically, we sought to determine:
- What actions EPA took to address the asbestos exposure to citizens in Libby.
- Barriers EPA faced, and may continue to face, in addressing the issue.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
Although EPA made attempts to address contaminant asbestos exposure like that in Libby, those attempts did not result in regulations or other controls that might have protected the citizens of Libby. EPA has only recently taken specific action to address the asbestos exposure at Libby. Currently, EPA is focusing on an aggressive Superfund cleanup at Libby and other sites that received vermiculite from Libby. EPA is not currently addressing prevention of exposures at other asbestos or asbestos-contaminated ore, rock, and mineral processing sources and related facilities, such as beneficiation, exfoliation, textile, and manufacturing plants, that use and process asbestos or contaminant asbestos.
While EPA is making decisions to address serious public health issues, such as asbestos-contaminated vermiculite, EPA continues to face barriers. These barriers prevented EPA from sufficiently addressing asbestos-contaminated vermiculite at Libby. EPA's efforts were hampered by fragmented authority and jurisdiction within EPA and between it and other agencies. Also, EPA was hindered internally by ineffective communication. EPA's ability to determine the degree of human health risk associated with asbestos-contaminated vermiculite was also impeded by limitations of science, technology, and health effects data. Furthermore, EPA did not place emphasis on dealing with asbestos-contaminated vermiculite due to funding constraints and competing priorities. For example, a 1983 letter sent by an EPA official stated "... asbestos-contaminated vermiculite is considered a lower priority at this time than problems posed by friable asbestos-containing materials in school buildings and commercial and industrial uses of asbestos."
EPA did not issue regulations under air and toxic substances statutes that could have protected Libby citizens from exposure to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite. According to EPA, other issues, such as asbestos in schools and commercial asbestos products, were given higher priority.
If barriers, such as fragmented authority and jurisdiction coupled with ineffective communications, had not existed, EPA might have done more to address asbestos-contaminated vermiculite in the Libby area and other similar situations. However, these barriers hindered EPA's actions, and many of the barriers may still exist and affect EPA's actions today.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to the continuing response actions related to Libby, we recommend that EPA, in partnership with other Federal organizations and states, assess asbestos or asbestos-contaminated ore, rock, and mineral processing sources and facilities (and immediate surrounding areas) that may be similar although unrelated to Libby. Should the Libby-related work and/or these assessments find concerns regarding human health and the environment, we recommend that EPA determine short and long-term actions necessary to protect human health and the environment. In particular, we recommend that EPA consider the need for:
- Removal or remedial action under the Superfund program;
- Regulation of contaminant asbestos under the Clean Air Act;
- Regulation of asbestos in ambient air under the Clean Air Act;
- Regulation of products contaminated with asbestos under the Toxic Substances Control Act; and/or
- Statutory changes to address asbestos and asbestos-contaminated materials.
We also recommend that EPA document the decisions reached and supporting rationale for the options above and any other decisions or options considered.
AGENCY RESPONSE
On March 27, 2001, the Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response provided a consolidated EPA response with suggested changes to the draft report. Because of the size of the response we did not include it in its entirety in this report, but can provide it to you upon request. We have, however, excerpted pertinent parts in Appendix 4 with our comments.
