^EDSr%
* o \
I g U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
% / OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
%l c
-------
£
<
33
\
&
O
PROl^-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
09-N-0146
April 28, 2009
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Background
In March 2006, the Office of
Inspector General (OIG)
opened a preliminary
investigation of U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) asbestos
cleanup efforts in Libby,
Montana, based on allegations
that EPA failed to fully
address scientific standards for
cleanup and of possible
contractor misconduct. The
Special Agent conducting the
investigation determined that,
in his judgment, no criminal
activity occurred. The Special
Agent submitted an
investigation summary to his
superior on April 27, 2006,
detailing the findings of his
investigation and
recommended that another
component of the OIG
evaluate EPA cleanup actions
in Libby. This memorandum
came to be known as the
"Rumple Report."
Public Release of "Rumple Report" on
Preliminary Investigation of EPA Cleanup of
Amphibole Asbestos in Libby, Montana
On April 21, 2009, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
filed a lawsuit against the Office of Inspector General (OIG) seeking the release of
the "Rumple Report." The OIG has the authority to process Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests for OIG information and make its own
determinations on what information should be withheld, independent of EPA" s
FOIA Office.
The OIG has decided to release this memorandum in view of the new FOIA
guidelines issued by the President and the Attorney General. Given the wider
interest in this memorandum, the Acting Inspector General determined that it
should also be released to the public, along with a recent internal memorandum
that clarifies the circumstances surrounding the "Rumple Report."
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional, Public Affairs,
and Management at
(202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2009/
20090428-09-N-0146.pdf
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
April 28, 2009
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: OIG Clarification of the Circumstances of the "Rumple Report" on the
Asbestos Contamination in Libby, Montana
FROM: Cory Rumple
Special Agent
Office of Investigations
TO: Bill A. Roderick
Acting Inspector General
During the last few years, there has been a continuing interest from Congressional officials and
the media about a memo I wrote summarizing the results of a preliminary criminal investigation
I conducted of the situation in 2006 in Libby, Montana. I want to clarify the circumstances of
the memo in order to put any lingering questions to rest.
I. Origins of the "Rumple Report"
The memo I drafted was internal to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and was intended to
provide the impetus for a possible OIG evaluation of EPA's conduct of a "clean up" of amphibole
asbestos in Libby, Montana. Some people from Libby were aware of this memo and early on
began referring to it as a "report" or the "Rumple Report." Subsequently, the media began
referring to my memo as the "Rumple Report." However, my memo was never a report in the
sense of a normal OIG report that was planned for issuance. After preparing the memo in 2006,1
left the EPA OIG for other employment but returned in 2007. In August 2006, the OIG Office of
Congressional and Public Liaison reviewed my memo and began an audit effort that ultimately
verified the information I provided and issued a quick reaction report: "EPA Needs to Plan and
Complete a Toxicity Assessment for the Libby Asbestos Cleanup," Report No. 2007-P-00002,
December 5, 2006. Also, OIG Office of Investigations reviewed my report and in October 2006
began a 21-month-long criminal investigation of the situation at Libby. This investigation
concluded with a declination of the criminal case by the Public Integrity Section, Criminal
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, responsible for prosecuting public corruption. The
* o \
USSJ
% PRO^°
1
-------
investigation also resulted in OIG testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee on September 25, 2008, by the Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Below is a more detailed account of the circumstances surrounding my investigation into the
EPA cleanup of Libby and my subsequent memo. The original memo is included as an
attachment.
II. Detailed Account of Libby Investigation
I opened the investigation based upon the allegation of EPA contractors improperly cleaning
residential homes in Libby by means of using an encapsulate liquid or water on carpets in order
to deem a home "clean" of Libby-amphibole asbestos. Individuals had claimed that the
encapsulate, which was acceptable to use inside of walls and attic spaces, was being used
improperly on carpets, and when asbestos fibers were monitored at the conclusion of a cleaning,
safe levels of asbestos would be detected. This in turn would allow the contractors to move on to
the next house, and allow them to be paid for a house deemed "clean" of asbestos fibers.
However, the people who had made the allegations stated that when encapsulate or water dried,
or someone caused friction to the liquids, such as walking or crawling on the carpet, the fibers
that were originally suppressed could become airborne and dangerous.
When I went to Libby, MT, to speak with individuals about this situation, they wanted to talk
about the documents that EPA had disseminated during the cleanup and the lack of a risk
assessment associated with the cleanup. I researched the history of the mine and the information
surrounding the toxicity of asbestos, along with EPA's history of involvement after the problem
was detected. The use of the encapsulate liquid appeared to be a very isolated situation, and
included confusion on the part of the residents who had their homes cleaned. But the
information surrounding the lack of a risk assessment seemed to be more urgent and warranting
investigation. Witnesses who were familiar with the science, or lack thereof, surrounding Libby-
amphibole asbestos were telling me that EPA was trying to rush through a Record of Decision
without conducting the proper scientific studies needed to justify that decision. People pointed
to the language in materials given to them by EPA, which caused confusion about the safety
surrounding exposure to the asbestos. The two main documents cited included the "Living with
Vermiculite" document and the "comfort letters," which were given to residents after their
homes were cleaned of asbestos. Both of those documents appeared to contain language that,
according to Mr. Gerry Henningsen and Dr. Brad Black, could not be supported by science. It
appeared EPA was using scientific standards associated with a "removal" process to justify a
"remedial" phase of cleanup, which violated EPA's own rules on such cleanups. So I took those
materials and put them in front of the scientists and other Remedial Project Managers to get their
thoughts on the cleanup process. All of the EPA employees I spoke to, excluding those from the
Syracuse Resource Corporation, said the language was incorrect, could not be supported by
science and were potentially dangerous. There was a real disconnect between the scientists and
the Agency.
I interviewed as many people as I could before I concluded there was nothing criminal in nature.
I also felt that the citizens of Libby needed an advocate or voice because they were very
frustrated with EPA and what they considered a lack of cooperation for the cleanup.
2
-------
III. Conclusion
Instead of simply closing the case, I wrote a memo to memorialize what I had learned. The
purpose in writing it was so that another OIG authority, which I thought would be the Office of
Program Evaluation, could pick up where I left off and possibly report the situation to the
Agency quickly. I believed time was of the essence, as the Agency appeared to be heading down
the same road it did with the 9/11 fallout. I felt the memo would start a non-criminal review
which might slow down what I perceived to be a rush to a Record of Decision and possible
future illnesses and deaths in Libby. I wanted to make sure the information I gathered would not
simply languish and EPA's cleanup would not contribute to possible future problems. In short
order, the OIG did launch both a special review and a criminal investigation, as noted above.
Attachment
cc: Mark Bialek, Associate Deputy Inspector General and Counsel
Stephen Nesbitt, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations
Eileen McMahon, Assistant Inspector General for Congressional, Public Affairs and
Management
3
-------
UNI ITO s r \11*'S j-\\ 1RONMFN I Ai PROll-CTlON A( FFNCY
OFF tCF OF INSPFi ' i», m UFM.-iRA t -t OF INVhSTKiA"! ION
wW IS' STR.KE-T- SI i l l 30n
DFNYF.R. CO Sti202-246(->
( mit | Of ASpS
Memorandum
Subject: ("riminai Investigation ol Fibby. MT asbestos cleanup.
Diane Margot. Special A gen! in Charge
From:
Cory Rumple. Special Agent
On March LK :ih>C the bin ironmental Protection Agency, Office of the Inspector
General. Office of Investigations, opened an insestimation of the ! f \ s a>bestos cleanup in
Libby. MT based on allegations the I-PA failed to full) address scientific standards for cleanup
and possible contractor misconduct The purpose of tins memo is to apprize you on the findings
of* that investigation am! to recommend additional analysis be conducted by the OlCi-Ofitce of"
Program Faaluation.
The residciHt.il cleanup of 1 ibhy. MT began a tier the I P-\'s Fmergencv Re>pouse learn
arrived in late Nlu). Cnder the Sampling and Quality Assurance Project Plan I.SQA1TS. dated
January 4. 2>'H,Hf the HP A attempted so identify a sampling methodology to investigate lewis of
possible asbestos within Fibby. MT. On March 21. 2(H)1. the FP V^- Oitke of Inspector Ceneral
completed a review id' { P \ s pass mvohcmctit with Lthby. MT in the early imsnb and the
complications surrounding the FP.Vs past response to its finding.-" of asbestos contamination. In
2002, the HP A began a *\wc:mc investigation and emergency response cleanup" of residential
properties tn l.ihby. MT. In order to determine the amount ol cleanup needed for mdnukml
properties. the F P \ v rented the Contannnant Screening Snub." (CSS), win eh established a criteria
tor properties to clean. On December 15. 2U<»3, the FPA. along with the Syracuse Research
Corporation (SRCI. generated ihe Action Lex el and Clearance Cntci. • Kvhnieal Meinorandurn.
which set forth the HPA's standards for am pinhole u>hcstos contamination for the "protecti\enc>s
of human health." 1 hat memorandum is the benchmark unh/cd today for the determination of
safe and acceptable levels of asbestos contamination within residential properties, Fhc LP \ and fmai determination of sale and acceptable levels
of exposure and contamination
On March I, 2006. Uem Henning^en, former Senior Toxicologic ten ihe FPA and
current Technical Advisor to the technical -Vis, isorv Group 1 ; . for l.ihby. MT. pro\ ided
information regarding shorkomings surrounding she c«>be-tos cleanup ui 1 ibhv. \tT.
Bestntngscn. who is apparently ucll respected by foimer colleagues within the EPA. indicated the
-------
Remedial Project Managers fRPM) front the £P-\ overseeing the cleanup were ignoring scientific
protocols tor such a cleanup and implementing cleanup standaids without the support of
scientific data. Henningscn alleged that she risks associated with f ibbv-amphibolc asbestos are
being established by an "engineering" means. which jeopardises the health mid safety oi future
Libby. V1T citizens, Henningscn also *poke of cleanup practices which compromised health and
safety, including the manipulation of air sampling within she interiors of homes. I lennrngsen
explained that interior carpets were spraved with water or an encapsulate liquid by cleanup
conn actors m order to suppress ashesto< fibers dunng a cleanup, which in turn would produce an
air sample that met She clearance criteria for safe levels of contamination.
Subsequent interviews with Libby. MT citAeiw revealed bods first and second hand
accounts of contractors using the practice of wettmg down carpets m order to obtain clearance
samples. Those interviews also produced information concerning problems with exterior
residential cleanups. Oiu/cns and former cnntractoi employees were concerned about visible,
shiny vermieuiito that is left behind b\ contractors after a residential ya;d has been e\ea\ated and
cleaned of \ermicuhte, The reasons given as to w hy those areas were not cleaned included soil
samples shut registered safe level« of asbestos or "non-detect". along with tho«e areas being
determined as "low-use" areas Others voiced concerns that interim wall> were being
encapsulated instead of cleaned and cleanup crews were nor following proper sat'ets measures
when contacting materials containing asbestos.
Members of the '{"AG. including Dr Brat I Black of the Center for Asbestos Related
Disease if ARDh expressed concetti over a lack of communication between dw i W and the
LP A regarding the scientific research and data uulnied by die F: PA for the cleanup. In a recent
letter to Montana Senatot Max Bauciis. Dr. Black wrote. "I have >ei to *wc adequate
understanding of the relative hazard of the Libby amphihoie." Dr, Black went on to state. '1
believe that it is important fur vou to be aware of the lack of communication in this, regard and
the potentially undesirable outcomes: that could result Irom not working closely together." Dr.
Black also expressed consternation with the lack of a Risk Assessment document from the LP A,
which Vsould incorporate scientific infotmation to reduce the variables .surrounding asbestos
exposure pathways and help eliminate the uncertainty of the current cleanup standards.
During the removal phase of cleanup, the Eh A huts distributed documents to the public
which explain the agency's current stance on levels of expo.-urc and contamination. One such
document, titled "I Atng with Vcrmiculite"'. dated October of fnrA. state", die following:
"-h'ihoagii j.u nshov't.w .w hnewrt/oo ¦ < .w otmommf fo ,*.00,0 p< • ov/'o*. arcs
paw [kc! ire. liven ihnu^ii o •iih:c::;iQ nr \><>rkui^ ihar ar^laifc, or o.'/.vr :t\bcs!os-i om.jiirtip
Uhiici'iiii.s Liiit rt'msc /i'hew ham »A aw, :J imA? <..»./wo.'trm i"v :uha onion" nr /or sht >7
lii/riiHuiis, ;ih'\ '•.HI i:>>l /i'7.vA sinm-ic am'/v i»!L>\i
-------
".hhth w.v nt ttimph's trom //*?/a pro/var skomrf tiuii Lihhv ,;mrhih>/V twAes/os mis tun
iLin ti il, or 'lids tis'h'Vli'ii it! /cViVjf i:J'A < » ttrrt >» lc\ < /o? «.»>/.•< iV/j, /ftr p>'apiT{\ »/uvf.s //if
A7',fA current iktHthwJ* ;>»' .'mmvvf «>/ human fu\thh k»' f.:hh< <»/;//Wc .tshfaic.s
t'ltiitumiihinon \'f! jorii: in A7A k .'kA/#: A, iv/weA AAaooovo t n>rn\< A ei-nwa! Mftiun^nitiun)
f'AvtwK r / ¦< A; /.'>/• / «.vVvfm «mv fv/Hic'n m v>//, imhntr Just,
fuht ics. iif*httis-h-n, ami ...fr/vw i 'wc,u I nsk 4<,NVf.s>.«jc«/v .v.a^eo.w ilua ihcw * tn-uniMttmvs-
iio fh,<: pOSi :i St^tUjh tW.' hi'tl'sh H,\L
Christiansen then iioos on to write:
".!/ /AA ' /'I rs l 'runup ni Jus /mwvr.p nee/A ft / J AA' j.e'n .>•<«¦> ("A A «•, A :,7««(/ Ac tuhn^lej
ifi Aa* luitti'i" tis m-,r tnfwnutrion aiui thau 'hv«»/mcs uno.htfrh' ! " i /m,% «<<<• • i / ,m'( A»wA i h-nnup
ii'w A /or Ae hhhy , A/v>7<>\ Si: i, A/A,\ uA7 tnK.nr nAv,>/ .A/'.! /aaAA,/i,,s <: AhA Rcunii (>/
lhi,'!si(>n // s h^nlis in 1/ fhrd for iiiUhtHMil \\i.-r,pii))i! «>r .-A•«»»/," u/ f/n.v propo-iy, tin
prop<:r{\ tnv/h'r w ;'///>» rni;;u< t\'J, !iw A'A'A /*f ><... /' . unnhvU
in ilralunu the Ri*k Assessment !or (Sic 1 jhhv AsbcMus Sik- i\«unii "exceptionalK dceeninii". aJJinu thai nAc iuid encnuntercd thisUMiuxi v, ith ihc
in iiici«rpi»raie .HMmomil ^eien'.nk- studies d.urine (Ac cleunap process isi order u< vir«itt an
accurate Risk Assessment. < 'hris \Vci>. Seiiior 1A^xk'*)!^^is» (or iiu 1 I* \ s National Aaifuiveinent
!n\esiigaiit«n,s Center (\AA(A it! Desnei. I oSnrado staled :he "I i\';nu 51 h \ ernnetihic" U.nytiauc
contained untmihv speeiiiealh the conclusion sumuinding Nliort-ierm e\pnMires Wcis stated
the language within i has doeun\cnt com an ted "double speak", a.d.Odn.e in lu*. opinion it wus
"unconsetoruible" to write a document with such ianeuagc. \ts»>ther I*.PA I »>\ieoioj>iM and
eurrein meni'vi olAhc I \IA who described the RPM's us "ir!«fgm.jli/iiiy" the risks asMieuueu
with the l.ibby. MI' asbestos, stated the laitutiuye in C'hnstnm>.en's letter n» iluanson was
''prenwiurc" and lacked, scienfuic -.upp»>n ri>r such concH;si,»r,s, I his sanie MA\ Tuxieologisi
described the "I iuuii with Vei"uieuhie" iloenmera as u iinsrepresentatioit oAtlie current scieittiilc
kiiuwlediie sLiiToUsKimu die Libb\-umphibi»ie asbesio^. Scictttivs assoetated h ith die t ihh\
pioicet feet sucli con.elusioiis eatt not be nsade pi tor to iiaviiip a Risk Ssvcssmcn!. A)!'. Auhre>
Mtller lor die ! Af calk\ ' I'nstmn^en's klier "toa.Ad> doaauent'.o.us'A addmi: the standards
ref'creneeil :n the letter as those of hum;us health "protectt\eness" art standards used tor a
"renunai actum" askl m»t star.dards u-r a Aornedia; uctionA' Aecurdin.u (•» Dr Miller, the tact ilia!
the T-M • was not e\en coinsuhed before disscnsotation of die Aater illustrates the «liscotineet
between the Ri'Nfs and the I'M A1 Miiiet .uu! vt been ikn'te since the rcint a a! action beuan. die
samples the 11A\ euirenth possesses ;roiri die renae'.au evtu>r. aaax be msufleicttt to -Hipixai an
accurate Rwk \Hscssment. f'he 1 \l done wnh mcmbcr> olAh.e TACi, bcitcve addiiunia!
sampling at lobby, \i I should ha\e been conducted after die wuduooii o: the ret fa al phase \^»rk v- >dn
-------
T-W concerns regarding recent eonciuMoas made b\ ;*.ic RPM*« snnounding ri.sk>*
associated with the Libby-anaplnbok a>besvs expose the posv tor making statement.- on
behuifof the h'PA about the Health n.vks of a>besto> u-1 lowing the destruction of me World I rude
Center-. in New Yoik Citv alter ^ ! 1, i he <, our!. which acinaah cited i ibb). \1 1, found that
Whitman's conclusions, such as "Sfatn-L rm, /«<»•-/.•; 0/ exj^wv ot ;/*<* nyn* thai i-utyw tunc hrcn
/J/W/A <\i h\ ,'kc ..<"»//(,yw, 0/ ,/.a Mb; ,'V/ C'm/o ( tVf'.V •>' mCda /'. '/> i;,70.e
heuhlt I'thx m" and " /7u m-\\ k o /<» ,» /une c«*// .ha «
»,•' «'e\vA e,;use no av *>«;, weie made \\ niknn suftvscnt scenti!k >upfo:1 and vanned
individuals to be potential])' exposed to haimful asbestos, The t,\mrt suied. "AirikHtcii tests
fmou.Y,/ >ir.jh iVi.a t/f uVvvnm ,¦!» Ahnn m/v ~ h/oaf / CJ, on'oaa/' V-t hah. ChY o/.ah/nA
aihnvcii !hci>iia's of peopte /<> return >o ;/.v/r /.on,ana/ a o; hhu m ,n /b > h r Mar-'hiH;tn •Uhi
>?, naba enpa ,na',*vr a.'i mm; m hmm ,e> a a ^ //a* hh J a ah J: hmai.a ;e\i'eti a maa-hr o/
/vv.sa rcicttsi-s u /nW/ rufsoly >\/»v.m «;«.' .wuwij i «./¦ \fuwuuUu* wv u/A: /«»
ht\itd:c, tuhi !!:a< i/ur.' ;:<¦ si^rati, a;:' >h\:!;h .a', Y..n?/; ¦ >'i» /aa_'vL
aue'.'/N",'
llentun^en indicates that he i-x atiempting to n«.,rk v,a:h she tP \. >'Wiileal!} the RI'M s
and the T \l, through the T \G to ensure that the rules raid? '.ctrahae :at/atdeais nvateri.il eleamip>
aie fV.tloived, Mennsngaen beh^e\e^ the euiTcru appneieh beine, taker h\ '.he I " k .uiid \iulate il>
own miev. But he ai^o belieaes the agesuy has ,-at oppvMatsrin\ m ivniettN 'lie •imiatHm. through
ohuiinii!^ I ihhv-site \[Kvitie data en etariuaui\ e exp^ine p nh\> !o\ie;:\ pofer.e)1' data «a
animal modeh, hto-muiutorinL: data o!' I ibby residents and uorkeis. :rad eeohsgteaf ^ereeinnp>.
Aeeordiiig to Hemntisi'-en and other member of t!-,e FAti. tr the f F-\ auenipts to 'Mate a Rs%k
.\sxcssment and a Record of Decnion ha of die eie.inup til be v.omproirased a>:d the heaiih and nitety oi can en; ai;d
future Lihiiv. V1T oili/en-. ciadd he jeopauii/vd.
Max Hudsvia, \s:>tv>ani kv-uional \Jnnnisir.aUM" for 1:!h\ Region n. and Pe'peration g'oen \o their! fir-n- LPA Headqiuners, Whiii a iiraned budget 1i«*
cleanup and .seieutiJk in\e^ugattoa,. uhaig r\uh ambme-u^ dc,idhne-i ,i Risk b>-^e>sment aiui a
Record ofDeei^ion, their jobs :t^ Rink M.aiage!^ to cru -rdmav ^ach a eUasnup Inn'e been difficult
Cher S11 u t million ha> alreadv been ^pem a wards die iafhh\ Site .ir-d Kuh D.icfcon ana! Chut chill
ha\ e been (a>ked with, eoornnnitnig bodi tSac* scientific and thcal reNponsiinhties associated ^ith
thus cleanup, Tne\ uUo indicated the maobernena »;f the T M* uas hmdeied loi ;m eateeded
period due to a u>\?coK !itl I corn then
standpoint- Risk Management technique-* nuohmg U.e unceilaunu-. hiiti .nuding
1 ibbs-autplubole a.sbesios !\a-e redneck d'-e prss.bpitie^ of eapusia-c r>. eiaavntlv Kia.'/.n
scientific degrees, 1 hex also behexe the technical nipai iron; curreat Fi'A scsennsi, 111\k-lned
nifli die Jeanup In.fs been laaknna. ana has conn muted ta* t:ie .1n;^ot>reei beio cen 'he RPX'f s and
-------
ihc C\C, Dodson and Ciuuchdl spoke of tlx- difficulties ¦aimumdinu ihc amount of \ ai tables-
associated svith pathuav sampling utid that trying ut ,satKi> an uiulcietmitnihlc amount ot"
acceptable sampler lor the lemeduition pnKess may he un impossibility. Because of the
uniqueness el Lihhy-arr.phiboie asbestos and ongoing studies v*i ns tovicnv within specific
pathway, the RPM's have attempted m t tear, residential properties by meoiporating ¦",•!:a? they
do know about ihc contaminant, hi regards to the language w ithm correspondence with I tbby.
M I" homeownets, both agtecd dial die loiter should he reevaluated
However, Bonha S.aveile, an id1 \ RPM tor jppi ovmtaleiy So years. says the 1 tbby Site
Project beam is not functioning properly and ts ignoring the independent bodies gt\ nw
tnput. it appeals only one body is being heaui; the RPM's. I a\ cite auded that the current pincev-
itu ol\ ed with the I.ihby. Vi (' cleanup is ''completely di ffctem" fmm bPA's common piactice o(
hazardous matci tah cleanups and -.he recently abaiutor:ed die project because M'lies mounting
frustration.
Jtin Christiansen 1 P \ RPM Tor tb.e I dtby Site, recently left the I PA and tno\ est bask to
Honda He explained dial there was a division between die RPM's and the CM - and that the
members ot die CM Uh! not undo stand the aspect ot deer-ion snaking, ('hristian jnd !or appioximatcly two or litree
nionilis, die CM Snn eor.noded the cleanup c\akunaai andi stalled piugre-. •
fhe kleadlmes placed upntt the 1 P to eumpiete .i Risk A.^essmcrtt and a Keconi ot
Decision regarding die cleanup of f sbb\. M 1 appear to he tremendous Ba a.nd it--
harmfid potential appears to require additional scientific icseareh Ihc s>suus ot communication
gaps and proeeduial ideoloae difference- entona members oCa,e PPA > I tbb\. Ml pioieei >eam.
tiltmg with the scieniific data used fur a Risk As.-esMneiit and subsequent Record ot'Deeisioii, do
not appeal to contain crnmnal aeitvu^ fh^relouc aaditt^nai wrnninai uv, esugatior
unwammted Ilowexor. u appeals atkhtional ivmma ofihose issues si:rr«>uitding die « ibin. Ml
cleanup cocliS be appi'i tpri,!tei_, assessed hy :5k t ifficc ot I'lMgr.mi Fvuli: uuoi.
-------
Appendix A
Distribution
Acting Inspector General
Associate Deputy Inspector General and Counsel
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations
Assistant Inspector General for Congressional, Public Affairs and Management
------- |