. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	13-P-0221
f	% Office of Inspector General	April 17,2013
™ v\l/^
I V|V "
^ At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
We performed fieldwork to
determine why the EPA did not
meet planned corrective-action
milestones for completing a
comprehensive toxicity
assessment of asbestos
necessary to determine the
cleanup level for the Libby,
Montana, Superfund site. We
also determined whether EPA
informed appropriate officials
about the delays in a timely
manner. In 1999, EPA began
investigating local concerns
about asbestos contamination in
Libby. EPA designated the Libby
site a national priority in the
Superfund program in 2002; and
in December 2006, the EPA OIG
recommended that the EPA
perform a comprehensive toxicity
assessment of amphibole
asbestos to determine the safe
level for human exposure. EPA
submitted its Libby Action Plan in
2007 to address the OIG
recommendations. In June 2009,
the EPA Administrator declared a
public-health emergency in Libby
due to the number of deaths and
illnesses reported in the town.
This report addresses the
following EPA Goal or
Cross-Cutting Strategy:
• Cleaning up communities
and advancing sustainable
development.
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional and
Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2013/
20130417-13-P-0221.pdf
Better Planning, Execution and Communication Could
Have Reduced the Delays in Completing a Toxicity
Assessment of the Libby, Montana, Superfund Site
What We Found
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action officials did not complete
planned corrective actions under its Libby Action Plan in a timely manner. This
occurred because the scope of the work was larger than originally thought;
there was no established charter; and there were contracting delays,
competing priorities, unanticipated work, and poor communication with
stakeholders. Consequently, the Agency has twice revised its estimates for
completing actions in response to our December 2006 report.
The toxicity assessment is one of two components (an exposure assessment
being the other) that makes up the health risk assessment for determining
cleanup levels in Libby. In December 2011, EPA informed us that the health
risk assessment would be substantially delayed. As a result, the Agency's final
determinations that the completed and ongoing cleanup actions are sufficient to
address the health risks from site contamination have been delayed from 2 to 6
years, depending on the studies being performed. This is a significant concern,
considering that the EPA Administrator declared a public-health emergency at
the Libby site in 2009 and the Agency has spent over $400 million on cleanup.
Communications about delays in completing Libby Action Plan items, and the
reasons for those delays, were not always timely or clearly communicated to
stakeholders; and EPA officials failed to update the Agency's follow-up system
or notify the Office of Inspector General (OIG) about known delays until
planned corrective actions under the Libby Action Plan could not be met.
Recommendations
We recommend that EPA: (1) require action officials to disclose risks to
completing corrective-action plans, and update and distribute original and
revised plans to stakeholders; (2) establish a charter to define project roles and
responsibilities for completing remaining corrective actions under the Libby
Action Plan, and determine whether the Science Advisory Board (SAB) or
another organization will review the completed risk assessment; (3) direct the
SAB to determine whether EPA has followed guidance sufficiently to support
the findings in the toxicity assessment, and whether other possible limitations
exist when applying cancer and noncancer values to determine acceptable
levels of exposure to asbestos in Libby; (4) ensure that future contracts issued
through interagency agreements are within the scope of those agreements;
and (5) develop a priority list for pending and ongoing research work.
The Agency agreed with part of one recommendation and disagreed with other
recommendations. The recommendations are unresolved, pending estimated
completion dates or an action plan for the agreed-to recommendation, and
dispute-resolution actions for recommendations with no agreement.

-------