Support
Document
for
the
Revised
National
Priorities
List
Final
Rule
­
Libby
Asbestos,
October
2002
State,
Tribal,
and
Site
Identification
Center
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Washington,
DC
20460
ABSTRACT
Pursuant
to
Section
105(
a)
(
8)
(
B)
of
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1980
(
CERCLA)
as
amended
by
the
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
of
1986
(
SARA)
,
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
periodically
adds
hazardous
waste
sites
to
the
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL)
.
Prior
to
actually
listing
a
site,
EPA
proposes
the
site
in
the
Federal
Register
and
solicits
public
comments.

This
document
provides
responses
to
public
comments
received
on
one
site
proposed
on
February
26,
2002
(
67
FR
8836)
.
This
site
is
added
to
the
NPL
based
on
its
selection
by
the
State
of
Montana
as
that
state
 
s
highest
priority
site.
This
site
is
being
added
to
the
NPL
in
a
final
rule
published
in
the
Federal
Register
in
October
2002.

ii
Executive
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Background
of
the
NPL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Development
of
the
NPL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hazard
Ranking
System
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Other
Mechanisms
for
Listing
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Organization
of
this
Document
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Glossary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Region
8
Section
1.1:
Libby
Asbestos
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1.1­
1
iii
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Section
105(
a)
(
8)
(
B)
of
CERCLA,
as
amended
by
SARA,
requires
that
the
EPA
prepare
a
list
of
national
priorities
among
the
known
releases
or
threatened
releases
of
hazardous
substances,
pollutants,
or
contaminants
throughout
the
United
States.
An
original
NPL
was
promulgated
on
September
8,
1983
(
48
FR
40658)
.
CERCLA
also
requires
the
EPA
to
update
the
list
at
least
annually.

This
document
provides
responses
to
public
comments
received
on
one
site
proposed
on
February
26,
2002
67
FR
8836)
.
This
site
is
added
to
the
NPL
based
on
its
selection
by
the
State
of
Montana
as
that
state
 
s
highest
priority
site.
This
site
is
being
added
to
the
NPL
in
a
final
rule
published
in
the
Federal
Register
in
October
2002.

The
site
addressed
in
this
document
is
presented
in
the
following
table.

v
SITES
ADDRESSED
IN
THIS
DOCUMENT
HRS
Score
1
Region
State
Site
Name
City
Proposal
Date
Proposed
Final
MT
Libby
Asbestos
Libby
February
26,
2002
1
The
Libby
Asbestos
site
is
being
added
to
the
NPL
based
on
its
selection
by
the
State
of
Montana
as
that
State
 
s
highest
priority
site
pursuant
to
CERCLA
105(
a)
(
8)
(
B)
.
As
such,
it
was
not
evaluated
with
the
Hazard
Ranking
System
(
HRS)
.

vi
8
INTRODUCTION
This
document
explains
the
rationale
for
adding
one
site
to
the
NPL
of
uncontrolled
hazardous
waste
sites
and
also
provides
the
responses
to
public
comments
received
on
this
site.
The
EPA
proposed
this
site
on
February
26,
2002
(
67
FR
8836)
;
it
is
added
to
the
NPL
based
on
its
selection
by
the
State
of
Montana
as
that
state
 
s
highest
priority
site.
This
site
is
being
added
to
the
NPL
in
a
final
rule
published
in
the
Federal
Register
in
October
2002.

Background
of
the
NPL
In
1980,
Congress
enacted
CERCLA,
42
U.
S.
C.
Sections
9601
et
seq
.
in
response
to
the
dangers
of
uncontrolled
hazardous
waste
sites.
CERCLA
was
amended
on
October
17,
1986,
by
SARA,
Public
Law
No.
99­
499,
stat.
,
1613
et
seq.
To
implement
CERCLA,
EPA
promulgated
the
revised
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan
(
NCP)
,
40
CFR
Part
300,
on
July
16,
1982
(
47
FR
31180)
,
pursuant
to
CERCLA
Section
105
and
Executive
Order
12316
(
46
FR
42237,
August
20,
1981)
.
The
NCP,
further
revised
by
EPA
on
September
16,
1985
(
50
FR
37624)
and
November
20,
1985
(
50
FR
47912)
,
sets
forth
guidelines
and
procedures
needed
to
respond
under
CERCLA
to
releases
and
threatened
releases
of
hazardous
substances,
pollutants,
or
contaminants.
On
March
8,
1990
(
55
FR
8666)
,
EPA
further
revised
the
NCP
in
response
to
SARA.

Section
105(
a)
(
8)
(
A)
of
CERCLA,
as
amended
by
SARA,
requires
that
the
NCP
include
criteria
for
determining
priorities
among
releases
or
threatened
releases
throughout
the
United
States
for
the
purpose
of
taking
remedial
action
and,
to
the
extent
practicable,
take
into
account
the
potential
urgency
of
such
action,
for
the
purpose
of
taking
removal
action.

Removal
action
involves
cleanup
or
other
actions
that
are
taken
in
response
to
emergency
conditions
or
on
a
short­
term
or
temporary
basis
(
CERCLA
Section
101(
23)
)
.
Remedial
action
tends
to
be
long­
term
in
nature
and
involves
response
actions
that
are
consistent
with
a
permanent
remedy
for
a
release
(
CERCLA
Section
101(
24)
)
.
Criteria
for
placing
sites
on
the
NPL,
which
makes
them
eligible
for
remedial
actions
financed
by
the
Trust
Fund
established
under
CERCLA,
were
included
in
the
HRS,
which
EPA
promulgated
as
Appendix
A
of
the
NCP
(
47
FR
31219,
July
16,
1982)
.
On
December
14,
1990
(
56
FR
51532)
,
EPA
promulgated
revisions
to
the
HRS
in
response
to
SARA,
and
established
the
effective
date
for
the
HRS
revisions
as
March
15,
1991.

Section
105(
a)
(
8)
(
B)
of
CERCLA,
as
amended,
requires
that
the
statutory
criteria
provided
by
the
HRS
be
used
to
prepare
a
list
of
national
priorities
among
the
known
releases
or
threatened
releases
of
hazardous
substances,
pollutants,
or
contaminants
throughout
the
United
States.
The
list,
which
is
Appendix
B
of
the
NCP,
is
the
NPL.

vii
An
original
NPL
of
406
sites
was
promulgated
on
September
8,
1983
(
48
FR
40658)
.
At
that
time,
an
HRS
score
of
28.5
was
established
as
the
cutoff
for
listing
because
it
yielded
an
initial
NPL
of
at
least
400
sites,
as
suggested
by
CERCLA.
The
NPL
has
been
expanded
several
times
since
then,
most
recently
on
December
11,
2000
(
65
FR
75179)
.
The
Agency
also
has
published
a
number
of
proposed
rulemakings
to
add
sites
to
the
NPL.
The
most
recent
proposal
was
on
January
11,
2001
(
66
FR
2380)
.

Development
of
the
NPL
The
primary
purpose
of
the
NPL
is
stated
in
the
legislative
history
of
CERCLA
(
Report
of
the
Committee
on
Environment
and
Public
Works,
Senate
Report
No.
96­
848,
96th
Cong.
,
2d
Sess.
60
[
1980
]
)
:

The
priority
list
serves
primarily
informational
purposes,
identifying
for
the
States
and
the
public
those
facilities
and
sites
or
other
releases
which
appear
to
warrant
remedial
actions.
Inclusion
of
a
facility
or
site
on
the
list
does
not
in
itself
reflect
a
judgment
of
the
activities
of
its
owner
or
operator,
it
does
not
require
those
persons
to
undertake
any
action,
nor
does
it
assign
liability
to
any
person.
Subsequent
government
actions
will
be
necessary
in
order
to
do
so,
and
these
actions
will
be
attended
by
all
appropriate
procedural
safeguards.

The
purpose
of
the
NPL,
therefore,
is
primarily
to
serve
as
an
informational
and
management
tool.
The
identification
of
a
site
for
the
NPL
is
intended
primarily
to
guide
EPA
in
determining
which
sites
warrant
further
investigation
to
assess
the
nature
and
extent
of
the
human
health
and
environmental
risks
associated
with
the
site
and
to
determine
what
CERCLA­
financed
remedial
action(
s)
,
if
any,
may
be
appropriate.
The
NPL
also
serves
to
notify
the
public
of
sites
EPA
believes
warrant
further
investigation.
Finally,
listing
a
site
may,
to
the
extent
potentially
responsible
parties
are
identifiable
at
the
time
of
listing,
serve
as
notice
to
such
parties
that
the
Agency
may
initiate
CERCLA­
financed
remedial
action.

CERCLA
Section
105(
a)
(
8)
(
B)
directs
EPA
to
list
priority
sites
among
the
known
releases
or
threatened
release
of
hazardous
substances,
pollutants,
or
contaminants,
and
Section
105(
a)
(
8)
(
A)
directs
EPA
to
consider
certain
enumerated
and
other
appropriate
factors
in
doing
so.
Thus,
as
a
matter
of
policy,
EPA
has
the
discretion
not
to
use
CERCLA
to
respond
to
certain
types
of
releases.
Where
other
authorities
exist,
placing
sites
on
the
NPL
for
possible
remedial
action
under
CERCLA
may
not
be
appropriate.
Therefore,
EPA
has
chosen
not
to
place
certain
types
of
sites
on
the
NPL
even
though
CERCLA
does
not
exclude
such
action.
If,
however,
the
Agency
later
determines
that
sites
not
listed
as
a
matter
of
policy
are
not
being
properly
responded
to,
the
Agency
may
consider
placing
them
on
the
NPL.

viii
Hazard
Ranking
System
The
HRS
is
the
principle
mechanism
EPA
uses
to
place
uncontrolled
waste
sites
on
the
NPL.
It
is
a
numerically
based
screening
system
that
uses
information
from
initial,
limited
investigations
­
­
the
preliminary
assessment
and
site
inspection
­
­
to
assess
the
relative
potential
of
sites
to
pose
a
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
HRS
scores,
however,
do
not
determine
the
sequence
in
which
EPA
funds
remedial
response
actions,
because
the
information
collected
to
develop
HRS
scores
is
not
sufficient
in
itself
to
determine
either
the
extent
of
contamination
or
the
appropriate
response
for
a
particular
site.
Moreover,
the
sites
with
the
highest
scores
do
not
necessarily
come
to
the
Agency'
s
attention
first,
so
that
addressing
sites
strictly
on
the
basis
of
ranking
would
in
some
cases
require
stopping
work
at
sites
where
it
was
already
underway.
Thus,
EPA
relies
on
further,
more
detailed
studies
in
the
remedial
investigation/
feasibility
study
that
typically
follows
listing.

The
HRS
uses
a
structured
value
analysis
approach
to
scoring
sites.
This
approach
assigns
numerical
values
to
factors,
that
relate
to
or
indicate
risk,
based
on
conditions
at
the
site.
The
factors
are
grouped
into
three
categories.
Each
category
has
a
maximum
value.
The
categories
include:

 
likelihood
that
a
site
has
released
or
has
the
potential
to
release
hazardous
substances
into
the
environment;

 
characteristics
of
the
waste
(
toxicity
and
waste
quantity)
;
and
 
people
or
sensitive
environments
(
targets)
affected
by
the
release.

Under
the
HRS,
four
pathways
can
be
scored
for
one
or
more
threats:

 
Ground
Water
Migration
(
Sgw)
­
drinking
water
 
Surface
Water
Migration
(
Ssw)
These
threats
are
evaluated
for
two
separate
migration
components
(
overland/
flood
and
ground
water
to
surface
water)
.
­
drinking
water
­
human
food
chain
­
sensitive
environments
 
Soil
Exposure
(
Ss)
­
resident
population
­
nearby
population
­
sensitive
environments
 
Air
Migration
(
Sa)
­
population
­
sensitive
environments
ix
After
scores
are
calculated
for
one
or
more
pathways
according
to
prescribed
guidelines,
they
are
combined
using
the
following
root­
mean­
square
equation
to
determine
the
overall
site
score
(
S)
,
which
ranges
from
0
to
100:

If
all
pathway
scores
are
low,
the
HRS
score
is
low.
However,
the
HRS
score
can
be
relatively
high
even
if
only
one
pathway
score
is
high.
This
is
an
important
requirement
for
HRS
scoring
because
some
extremely
dangerous
sites
pose
threats
through
only
one
pathway.
For
example,
buried
leaking
drums
of
hazardous
substances
can
contaminate
drinking
water
wells,
but
­
­
if
the
drums
are
buried
deep
enough
and
the
substances
not
very
volatile
­
­
not
surface
water
or
air.

Other
Mechanisms
for
Listing
Aside
from
the
HRS,
there
are
two
other
mechanisms
by
which
sites
can
be
placed
on
the
NPL.
The
first
of
these
mechanisms,
authorized
by
the
NCP
at
40
CFR
300.425(
c)
(
2)
,
allows
each
State
and
Territory
to
designate
one
site
as
its
highest
priority
regardless
of
score.

The
last
mechanism,
authorized
by
the
NCP
at
40
CFR
300.425(
c)
(
3)
,
allows
listing
a
site
if
it
meets
all
three
of
these
requirements:

 
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(
ATSDR)
of
the
U.
S.
Public
Health
Service
has
issued
a
health
advisory
that
recommends
dissociation
of
individuals
from
the
release;

 
EPA
determines
the
site
poses
a
significant
threat
to
public
health;
and
 
EPA
anticipates
it
will
be
more
cost­
effective
to
use
its
remedial
authority
than
to
use
its
emergency
removal
authority
to
respond
to
the
site.

Organization
of
this
Document
The
final
section
of
this
document
addresses
site­
specific
public
comments.
The
site
discussion
begins
with
a
list
of
commenters,
followed
by
a
site
description,
a
summary
of
comments,
and
Agency
responses.
A
concluding
statement
indicates
the
effect
of
the
comments
on
the
HRS
score
for
the
site.

x
Glossary
The
following
acronyms
and
abbreviations
are
used
throughout
the
text:

Agency
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
ATSDR
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1980,
42
U.
S.
C.
Sections
9601
et
seq.
,
also
known
as
Superfund
EPA
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Hazard
Ranking
System,
Appendix
A
of
the
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan,
40
C.
F.
R.
Part
300
HRS
Overall
site
score
calculated
using
the
Hazard
Ranking
System;
ranges
from
0
to
100
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan,
40
C.
F.
R.
Part
300
NPL
National
Priorities
List,
Appendix
B
of
the
NCP
NPL­
#
#
#
Public
comment
index
numbers
as
recorded
in
the
Superfund
Docket
in
EPA
Headquarters
and
in
Regional
offices
PA/
SI
Preliminary
Assessment/
Site
Inspection
PRP
Potentially
Responsible
Party
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
of
1976
(
U.
S.
C.
9601­
6991,
as
amended)

RD/
RA
Remedial
Design/
Remedial
Action
RI/
FS
Remedial
Investigation/
Feasibility
Study
Record
of
Decision,
explaining
the
CERCLA­
funded
cleanup
alternative(
s)
to
be
used
at
an
NPL
site
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
of
1986,
Public
Law
No.
99­
499,
stat.
,
1613
et
seq.

xi
Region
8
1.
1
LIBBY
ASBESTOS,
LIBBY,
MONTANA
1.1.1
List
of
Commenters/
Correspondents
SFUND­
2002­
0003­
0078
SFUND­
2002­
0003­
0084
SFUND­
2002­
0003­
0091
SFUND­
2002­
0003­
0092
SFUND­
2002­
0003­
0093
SFUND­
2002­
0003­
0095
SFUND­
2002­
0003­
0002
1.1.
2
Site
Description
Comment
dated
March
2002,
from
Veronica
Bovee,
Libby,
Montana
Comment
dated
April
29,
2002,
from
Kenneth
W.
Lund
of
Holme
Roberts
&
Owens,
LLP,
representing
W.
R.
Grace
&
Co.

Comment,
not
dated,
from
DC
Orr,
Libby,
Montana
Comment
dated
April
27,
2002,
from
Eugene
Yahvah,
Libby,
Montana
Comment,
not
dated,
from
Eugene
Yahvah,
Libby,
Montana
Comment,
not
dated,
from
James
R.
Rostorfer,
Libby,
Montana
Correspondence
dated
January
14,
2002,
from
Judy
Martz,
Governor
of
Montana
The
Libby
Asbestos
site
includes
an
inactive
vermiculite
mine
located
on
Vermiculite
Mountain
in
northwestern
Montana,
and
portions
of
the
town
of
Libby.
The
mine
is
approximately
seven
miles
east
northeast
of
the
town.
Although
mining
of
Vermiculite
Mountain
dates
back
to
the
1890s,
large­
scale
mining
was
initiated
by
the
Zonolite
Company
in
the
1920s.
W.
R.
Grace
acquired
the
Zonolite
Company
in
1963
and
continued
mining
operations
until
September
1990.
The
vermiculite
mine
has
been
operating
under
Montana
Department
of
State
Lands
Operating
Permit
00010
since
1972,
under
a
State­
approved
reclamation
plan.
Of
approximately
1200
acres
of
patented
mining
claims,
865
are
known
to
be
disturbed
by
mining
activities.

The
ore
body
from
which
the
vermiculite
ore
was
mined
contains
significant
occurrences
of
amphibole
asbestos.
Processing
of
the
vermiculite
ore,
which
contains
amphibole
asbestos,
caused
high
dust
and
airborne
releases
of
fine
asbestos
fibers.
These
fine
asbestiform
fibers
have
been
linked
by
the
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(
ATSDR)
to
certain
kinds
of
lung
disease
and
abnormalities.
Amphibole
asbestos
contamination
associated
with
the
ore
processing
has
been
found
in
processing
plants,
residential
yards,
and
school
yards
in
the
town
of
Libby
and
between
the
mine
and
the
town.

At
residences,
vermiculite
tailings
were
used
in
gardens
and
for
fill
in
other
parts
of
residential
properties.
Some
school
areas,
such
as
running
tracks
and
football
fields
utilized
vermiculite
tailings
as
1.1­
fill.
EPA'
s
Removal
Program
conducted
sampling
in
two
phases
in
December
1999
and
March
and
April
2001
to
determine
the
extent
and
severity
of
contamination
and
conducted
removal
actions
at
the
schools
and
at
some
residences
and
businesses.
Many
residences
and
businesses
may
still
have
substantial
quantities
of
asbestiform
fibers
that
may
pose
a
threat
to
the
inhabitants
or
workers.
EPA
is
conducting
ongoing
emergency
removal
actions
to
address
asbestos
contamination
in
yards,
schools,
and
other
processing
areas
in
town.

In
1971,
W.
R.
Grace
constructed
a
70­
acre
vermiculite
tailings
settling
impoundment
in
the
natural
drainage
of
Rainy
and
Fleetwood
creeks,
which
converge
just
upstream
of
the
impoundment.
The
dam
for
the
impoundment
was
constructed
in
stages
and,
by
1980,
it
was
approximately
135
feet
from
base
to
top.
The
Kootenai
River,
a
tributary
of
the
Columbia
River,
receives
water
from
Rainy
Creek
approximately
2.5
miles
downstream
of
the
tailings
impoundment.
Extensive
wetlands
have
emerged
in
and
around
the
tailings
pond
and
along
Rainy
and
Fleetwood
creeks.
Rainy
Creek
appears
to
flow
perennially
at
its
confluence
with
Fleetwood
Creek.
Rainy
Creek
(
including
the
tailings
pond)
was
historically
a
human
food
chain
fishery
until
the
property
was
closed
due
to
contamination.
In
addition,
there
is
a
known
bald
eagle
nest
in
the
vicinity
of
Rainy
Creek.
Chromium,
copper,
and
nickel
were
detected
in
sediments
from
the
tailings
impoundment.

Montana
has
designated
this
site
as
its
highest
priority
site
pursuant
to
CERCLA
Section
105(
a)
(
8)
(
B)
and
Section
300.425(
c)
(
2)
of
the
NCP.

1.1.
3
Summary
of
Comments/
Correspondence
Governor
Judy
Martz
requested
the
placement
of
Libby
Asbestos
on
the
NPL.
In
a
letter
dated
January
14,
2002,
she
designated
Libby
Asbestos
as
the
State
 
s
highest
priority
site
pursuant
to
CERCLA
Section
105(
a)
(
8)
(
B)
and
Section
300.425(
c)
(
2)
of
the
NCP.

D.
C.
Orr,
Eugene
Yahvah,
and
James
R.
Rostorfer
commented
against
the
placement
of
Libby
Asbestos
on
the
NPL.
Veronica
Bovee
commented
on
the
impact
of
the
site
on
the
town
and
asked
questions
concerning
the
definition
of
asbestos,
removals
at
the
site
and
in
homes,
and
liability
associated
with
the
site.
She
also
commented
that
the
transportation
and
disturbance
of
contaminated
soil
have
caused
high
levels
of
fibers
in
homes
which
were
built
without
asbestos
materials.

Mr.
Yahvah
contended
that
the
area
around
the
mine
has
complied
with
best
forest
management
practices
in
the
state.
According
to
Mr.
Yahvah,
very
little
of
the
3600
acres
around
the
mine
is
not
vegetated
sufficiently.
He
added
that
it
would
be
a
mistake
to
disturb
these
re­
vegetated
areas.
Mr.
Yahvah,
also
commented
that
Grace
spent
many
times
the
amount
required
by
the
state
reclamation
bonds
to
reclaim
the
area
in
reclamation
projects
and
that
the
air
monitoring
showed
no
airborne
asbestos
except
for
some
road
dust.
According
to
Mr.
Yahvah,
land
owners
adjoining
the
area
around
the
mine
have
sent
in
numerous
air
and
soil
samples,
and
all
showed
no
asbestos
contamination.

Mr.
Rostorfer
commented
that
throughout
the
mine
 
s
operation,
there
was
Montana
State
and/
or
Federal
health
and
environmental
oversight.
He
stated
that
the
EPA
oversight
in
the
Libby
area
was
terminated
in
1985
because
of
budgetary
constraints.
According
to
him,
EPA
is
complicit
in
the
entire
contamination
process
through
its
lack
of
involvement
in
the
oversight
of
the
health
studies
in
the
1980'
s.

1.1­
Mr.
Rostorfer
also
commented
that
linking
of
the
mine
site
to
the
community
 
s
residents
and
businesses
will
prolong
the
stigma
associated
with
contamination
in
the
community
because
the
mine
will
take
longer
to
clean
up
than
will
the
community.
Mr.
Rostorfer
expressed
the
view
that
to
avoid
prolonging
the
stigma
associated
with
the
community,
the
community
should
be
listed
separately
from
the
mine.

Mr.
D.
C.
Orr
commented
that
EPA
failed
to
monitor
W.
R.
Grace
in
the
1980'
s
and
aided
in
deceiving
the
public
about
the
risks
associated
with
asbestos
and
smoking.
He
also
commented
that
there
is
abuse
of
political
authority
and
would
like
an
investigation
into
an
alleged
conflict
of
interest.

Kenneth
W.
Lund
of
Holme,
Roberts
&
Owens,
LLP,
writing
on
the
behalf
of
W.
R.
Grace
&
Co
(
Grace)
submitted
comments
against
the
listing
of
the
site
on
the
NPL.
Grace
contended
that
Libby
does
not
meet
the
criteria
for
determining
whether
sites
should
be
placed
on
the
NPL.
According
to
Grace,
Region
8
failed
to
use
sound
scientific
principles
to
evaluate
the
current
conditions
and
potential
exposures.
It
stated
that
the
Phase
I
data
do
not
show
unhealthy
levels
and
do
not
support
the
export
plant
and
screening
plant
removal
actions,
and
its
evaluation
of
Region
8'
s
Phase
II
data
of
homes
and
commercial
businesses
indicates
that
Region
8
is
overstating
the
results
of
sampling.
Grace
concluded
that
there
is
nothing
in
the
docket
or
the
administrative
record
that
points
to
current
exposures
as
a
source
of
asbestos­
related
disease.

Grace
also
commented
that
Region
8'
s
claim
that
dust
in
residential
and
commercial
locations
 
may
serve
as
an
ongoing
source
of
potential
exposure
for
residents
 
conflicts
with
other
EPA
pronouncements.
.
Grace
submitted
17
exhibits
in
support
of
its
comments.

1.1.
3.1
Basis
for
NPL
Listing
Grace
commented
that,
while
the
State
used
its
listing
authority
as
provided
under
40
CFR
300.
425(
c)
(
2)
,
the
HRS,
which
the
state
did
not
use
to
propose
this
site,
provided
relevant
criteria
for
the
type
of
sites
that
warrant
placement
under
the
NPL.
These
criteria
are,
according
to
Grace,
based
on
relative
risk
or
danger
to
public
health
or
welfare
or
the
environment.
Appropriate
considerations
listed
by
Grace
are
the
population
at
risk;
the
hazard
potential
of
the
hazardous
substance
at
such
facilities;
the
potential
for
contamination
of
drinking
water
supplies;
the
potential
for
direct
human
contact;
the
potential
for
destruction
of
sensitive
ecosystems;
the
damage
to
natural
resources
which
may
affect
the
human
food
chain
and
which
is
associated
with
any
release
or
threatened
release;
the
contamination
or
potential
contamination
of
the
ambient
air
which
is
associated
with
the
release
or
threatened
release;
State
preparedness
to
assume
State
costs
and
responsibilities;
and
other
appropriate
factors.

Grace
contended
that
the
documents
in
the
docket
fail
to
support
Region
8'
s
contention
that
the
current
conditions
in
Libby
are
causing
releases
resulting
in
unacceptable
risks
to
the
Libby
population.
It
added
that
EPA
 
s
sampling
data
do
not
indicate
that
unacceptable
exposures
are
occurring
today,
and
Grace
 
s
information
about
Vermiculite
Attic
Insulation
confirms
that
no
health
effects
occur
from
living
with
expanded
vermiculite
as
a
product
in
the
home.
According
to
Grace,
all
adults
are
exposed
to
low
levels
of
asbestos
in
the
ambient
air.
It
commented
that
the
question
posed
by
Libby
is
whether
Region
8'
s
data
and
other
information
indicate
that
current
day
activities
create
exposures
at
an
amount
and
duration
that
cause
asbestos­
related
disease.
It
claimed
that
nothing
in
the
docket
or
the
administrative
record
supports
that
such
exposures
are
occurring.
Thus,
it
concluded,
EPA
 
s
data
and
other
information
do
not
support
placement
of
Libby
on
the
NPL.

1.1­
Grace
added
that
despite
spending
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
in
Libby
and
requiring
Grace
to
spend
substantially
more,
EPA
 
s
information
does
not
point
to
current
exposures
as
a
source
of
disease.
It
claimed
that
crude
vermiculite
ore
mined
near
Libby
contains
small
amounts
of
a
type
of
asbestos
commonly
known
as
tremolite
asbestos.
It
contended
that
press
reports
of
larger
amounts
of
asbestos
in
the
ore
are
not
representative
of
the
ore
actually
mined.

Grace
commented
that
the
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
data,
as
well
as
the
ATSDR
study,
do
not
indicate
that
the
current
day
exposures
may
result
in
asbestos­
related
disease.
Grace
also
contended
that
Region
8'
s
claim
that
dust
in
residential
and
commercial
locations
 
may
serve
as
an
ongoing
source
of
potential
exposure
for
residents
 
conflicts
with
other
EPA
pronouncements,
,
specifically
EPA
 
s
address
to
the
World
Trade
Center.

Mr.
Eugene
Yahvah
commented
that
it
would
be
a
mistake
to
make
the
mine
or
the
town
of
Libby
a
Superfund
site.
He
added
that
the
air
and
water
are
not
contaminated
and
that
the
few
sites
in
town
that
need
to
be
cleaned
up
do
not
require
the
expense
of
being
a
Superfund
site.

Mr.
Yahvah,
also
commented
that
Grace
spent
many
times
the
amount
required
by
the
state
reclamation
bonds
to
reclaim
the
forested
area
around
the
mine
in
reclamation
projects
and
that
the
air
monitoring
showed
no
airborne
asbestos
except
for
some
road
dust.
According
to
Mr.
Yahvah,
land
owners
adjoining
the
mine
have
sent
in
numerous
air
and
soil
samples
and
all
showed
no
asbestos
contamination.

Mr.
Yahvah
commented
that
there
is
a
game
preserve
on
Grace
 
s
property
and
that
the
reclamation
ponds
support
wildlife.
He
claimed
that
water
samples
collected
showed
no
contamination.
He
added
that
the
State
Reclamation
inspectors
told
him
that
this
was
the
best
mine
reclamation
in
the
State.

In
response,
these
comments
do
not
undercut
EPA
 
s
basis
for
listing
the
Libby,
Montana,
asbestos
site
on
the
NPL.
EPA
 
s
sole
basis
for
listing
the
site
is
that
the
State
of
Montana
has
designated
it
as
the
highest
priority
facility
in
the
State.
Section
105(
a)
(
8)
(
B)
of
CERCLA
provides
that
the
NPL
 
to
the
extent
practicable,
shall
include
among
the
one
hundred
highest
priority
facilities
one
such
facility
from
each
State
which
shall
be
the
facility
designated
by
the
State
as
presenting
the
greatest
danger
to
public
health
or
welfare
or
the
environment
among
the
known
facilities
in
such
State
 
(
emphasis
added)
.
CERCLA
does
not
require
that
EPA
provide
a
rationale
based
on
the
factors
set
out
in
Section
105(
a)
(
8)
(
A)
or
the
HRS
when
EPA
lists
a
state
pick.
Further,
the
mandatory
language,
 
shall
include,
 
indicates
that
EPA
does
not
have
discretion
to
reject
a
State
 
s
designation.
The
letter
from
Montana
Governor
Judy
Martz,
which
designates
the
site
as
the
highest
priority
in
the
State,
encloses
certain
EPA
documents
that
the
State
relies
on
to
support
its
designation.
Accordingly,
EPA
placed
the
letter
and
its
attachments
in
the
docket.

The
legislative
history
clarifies
that
the
language,
 
to
the
extent
practicable,
 
does
not
give
EPA
discretion
to
reject
a
State
pick.
The
language
merely
means
that
the
EPA
does
not
have
to
include
a
facility
from
each
State
on
the
NPL
if
 
one
or
more
States
would
not
have
such
a
site
or
might
not
desire
a
Federal
presence
 
(
Committee
on
Environment
and
Public
Works,
97
th
Cong.
,
2d
Session,
A
Legislative
History
of
Superfund
(
Comm.
Print,
1983)
,
Vol.
1
at
723
(
remarks
of
Senator
Humphrey)
)
.
Senator
Cleveland
states:

I
added
the
phrase
 
to
the
extent
practicable
 
at
the
beginning
of
the
amendment.
.
This
was
done
because
Mr.
Florio
indicated
that
he
was
concerned
that
some
States
have
no
1.1­
sites
needing
Federal
assistance
and
that
my
amendment
would
tie
EPA
 
s
hands
and
unduly
restrict
the
program.
This
is
not
my
intent
and
therefore
I
accept
this
improvement
 
with
this
understanding
 
when
a
State
identifies
a
priority
problem
it
will
receive
at
least
one
designation
on
the
national
priority
list.
Id.
,
Vol.
2
at
344.

The
legislative
history
further
clarifies
that
the
provision
was
designed
to
ensure
that
each
State
receive
at
least
one
designation
on
the
NPL
to
 
achieve
some
sort
of
equity
in
the
disposition
of
federal
assistance
 
Id.
,
Vol.
2
at
344.
(
remarks
of
Congressman
Cleveland
during
house
debate)
,
such
that
 
the
benefits
of
this
legislation
will
be
available
to
the
residents
of
every
State
 
Id.
,
Vol.
1
at
723
(
remarks
of
Senator
Humphrey)
.
In
support
of
the
amendment
adding
the
language
of
105(
a)
(
8)
(
A)
,
Congressman
Cleveland
stated,
 
I
do
know
that
in
my
own
small
State
of
New
Hampshire
we
have
specific
problems,
and
they
are
not
large
enough
or
important
enough
perhaps
to
make
that
magic
list.
But
I
think
that
we
ought
to
have
at
least
some
of
them
taken
care
of.
 
Id.
,
Vol.
2
at
343.

EPA
 
s
longstanding
position
has
been
that
a
state
pick
site
need
not
qualify
for
listing
under
the
HRS.
When
EPA
promulgated
the
1985
version
of
the
NCP
state
pick
provision,
in
response
to
a
comment
that
 
any
site
designated
by
the
State
should
satisfy
the
requirements
which
would
otherwise
qualify
a
site
for
the
NPL
in
terms
of
presenting
harm
or
threat
of
harm
to
the
environment,
 
EPA
responded
that
 
CERCLA
section
105(
a)
(
8)
(
B)
specifies
that
.
.
.
the
State
 
s
designated
top
priority
site
must
be
included
among
the
highest
priority
sites
on
the
NPL
to
the
extent
practicable.
.
.
States
need
not
designate
top
priority
sites
using
NCP
criteria.
 
50
FR
47912,
,
47931
(
Nov.
20
1985)
.

1.1.
3.2
Stigma
of
Listing
Mr.
Rostorfer
commented
that
the
community,
residents,
and
businesses,
should
be
listed
separately
from
the
mine
site
because
linking
of
the
mine
site
with
the
community
will
prolong
the
stigma
of
a
contaminated
community.
He
added
that
according
to
the
EPA
Plan,
the
residents
and
businesses
will
be
cleaned
up
within
three
to
four
years,
and
the
mine
site
might
not
be
cleaned
up
for
quite
some
time
after.
He
also
commented
that
the
solutions
for
each
cleanup
problem
are
completely
different.

In
response,
any
temporary
stigma
associated
with
the
town
of
Libby
is
generally
a
result
of
documented
asbestos
contamination,
and
should
not
be
blamed
on
the
process
of
NPL
listing.
Inclusion
of
a
site
or
facility
on
the
NPL
does
not
in
itself
reflect
a
judgment
on
the
activities
of
community,
or
residential
or
business
owners
or
operators.
The
release
being
listed
is
the
release
of
asbestos
due
to
the
activities
at
the
mine
and
the
migration
of
the
asbestos­
contaminated
vermiculite
in
the
vicinity
of
the
mine
and
the
town
of
Libby.

With
respect
to
Mr
Rostorfer
 
s
concern
that
listing
the
mine
and
the
community
together
will
prolong
the
impact
that
listing
will
have
on
the
community
because
the
mine
will
take
longer
to
clean
up
than
the
community,
EPA
can
delete
releases
of
hazardous
substances
from
portions
of
sites
if
those
releases
qualify
for
deletion
(
See
Notice
of
Policy
Change:
Partial
Deletion
of
Sites
Listed
on
the
National
Priorities
List
(
60
FR
55466,
November
1,
1995)
)
.
Pursuant
to
EPA
 
s
Partial
Deletion
Policy,
 
.
.
.
EPA
will
delete
portions
of
sites,
as
appropriate,
and
will
consider
petitions
to
do
so.
Such
petitions
may
be
submitted
by
any
person
including
individuals,
[
and
]
business
entities
.
.
.
.
 
EPA
will
consider
partial
deletion
for
portions
of
sites
where
no
further
response
under
CERCLA
is
appropriate
for
that
portion
of
1.1­
the
site.
Partial
deletion
is
governed
by
40
CFR
300.
325(
e)
,
which
requires,
in
part,
State
concurrence
before
a
site
is
partially
deleted.

1.1.
3.3
Future
Response
Activities
and
Liability
Ms.
Bovee
questioned
how
an
employer
can
be
held
liable
for
a
material
that
is
currently
not
regulated
by
OSHA,
that
has
hazardous
background
levels,
and
that
has
a
history
of
exposure
in
everyday
activities.

Mr.
Rostorfer
commented
that
listing
Libby
as
a
Superfund
site
is
 
a
problem.
 
He
commented
that
the
goals
outlined
by
the
EPA
On­
Scene
Coordinator
might
not
be
possible;
a
health
emergency
will
need
to
be
declared
before
the
commercial
insulation
product
can
be
removed
from
inside
homes
and
businesses;
and
that
EPA
has
been
promising
a
clean
community
inside
and
out,
but
has
 
failed
to
include
a
few
things
in
their
sales
pitch,
like
authority
and
funds,
 
both
of
which
can
delay
the
cleanup
process.
.

Mr.
Rostorfer
also
commented
that
unless
the
 
hazardous
material
or
business
tax
 
[
Superfund
tax
]
is
reinstated,
there
will
not
be
enough
money
to
clean
up
Libby
without
increased
appropriations
from
Congress.
Mr.
Rostorfer
commented
that
Congress
has
only
appropriated
half
of
the
needed
EPA
funding
for
this
year.

Mr.
Yahveh
commented
that
the
few
sites
in
town
that
need
to
be
cleaned
up
do
not
require
the
expense
of
being
a
Superfund
site,
nor
do
revegetated
areas
need
to
be
disturbed.

Ms.
Bovee
also
raised
issues
on
the
potential
effectiveness
of
additional
remedial
activities.
She
wanted
to
know
if
the
hazardous
levels
of
vermiculite
have
been
established
and/
or
published.
She
added
that
if
water
is
the
most
economical
control
measure
to
prevent
vermiculite
from
becoming
airborne,
how
will
they
know
if
it
is
effective?

In
response,
these
comments
relate
to
issues
of
liability
and
the
nature
of
and
funding
for
future
response
work
and
are
not
relevant
to
the
basis
for
listing
a
site
on
the
NPL.
Issues
dealing
with
future
responses
actions
are
considered
in
a
different
stage
of
the
superfund
process.
EPA
has
a
consistent
process
for
investigating
and
making
remediation
decisions
for
sites
on
the
NPL.
EPA
generally
prepares
a
risk
assessment
and
remedial
investigation/
feasibility
study
(
RI/
FS)
to
more
accurately
assess
the
degree
of
threat
posed
by
sites
and
to
develop
a
range
of
response
action
options.
From
these
options,
a
remediation
plan
is
decided
upon
and
published
in
a
Record
of
Decision
(
ROD)
.
As
discussed
in
more
detail
below,
this
process
offers
opportunities
for
public
involvement.

Regarding
issues
of
liability,
whether
an
entity
is
liable
for
response
costs
for
a
release
of
hazardous
substances
depends
on
whether
that
entity
is
liable
under
CERCLA
107(
a)
.
Any
such
liability
exists
regardless
of
whether
the
site
is
listed
on
the
NPL.

1.1.3.4
Additional
Comments
Mr.
D.
C.
Orr
commented
that
EPA
failed
to
monitor
W.
R.
Grace
in
the
1980'
s
and
aided
in
deceiving
the
public
about
the
risks
associated
with
asbestos
and
smoking.
Mr.
Orr
also
commented
on
alleged
abuse
of
political
authority.

1.1­
Mr.
D.
C.
Orr
also
commented
that
the
health
screening
conducted
by
the
ATSDR
was
too
vague
and
superficial
and
that
it
shows
one
trait:
that
the
vast
majority
of
the
persons
exhibiting
symptoms
related
to
asbestos
exposure
have
a
history
of
smoking.
He
also
commented
that
obesity
and
age
are
factors
to
be
considered.
Mr.
Rostorfer
commented
that
EPA
 
s
experience
has
not
involved
tremolite
asbestos
and
that
they
weren
 
t
as
familiar
with
this
situation
as
they
thought.
He
contended
that
the
investigation
should
have
been
more
scientific.

Ms.
Bovee
provided
comments
and
questions
on
the
State
of
Montana
worker
 
s
compensation
law
on
asbestosis.
Ms.
Bovee
commented
that
there
has
been
a
huge
increase
in
worker
 
s
compensation
claims
in
Libby.
She
stated
that
in
the
workers
 
s
compensation
law
of
Montana,
the
State
identifies
lung
disease,
such
as
pneumoconiosis
and
silicosis,
but
does
not
identify
asbestosis
or
other
occupational
lung
disease.
According
to
her,
designating
Libby
Asbestos
as
a
Superfund
site
would
provide
strength
to
frivolous
lawsuits.
She
further
explained
that
 
[
d
]
isease
has
already
been
established
by
ATSDR.
By
the
federal
government
declaring
Libby
as
 
hazardous
 
the
attorneys
have
the
 
injurious
 
part
of
the
law
secured.
 
Ms.
Bovee
stated
that
her
neighbors,
who
had
built
homes
less
than
seven
years
ago
with
no
asbestos
building
materials,
had
extremely
high
levels
of
fibers
detected
in
their
homes.
She
felt
this
was
directly
related
to
the
lack
of
control
the
contractors
used
during
transportation
and
disturbance
of
the
contaminated
soil.
According
to
her,
it
is
currently
taking
about
5
months
to
receive
air
sample
reports,
and
this
is
not
acceptable.

Ms.
Bovee
also
commented
that
a
better
educational
program
should
be
established
for
Libby
Asbestos.
She
commented
that
the
citizens
of
Libby
need
to
know
the
entire
impact
of
Superfund
prior
to
the
final
designation.
She
said
that
currently
the
only
sources
of
information
have
secondary
gains
or
liability
issues,
and
consequently,
the
community
has
not
received
all
the
information
that
is
available
on
vermiculite
and
asbestos
exposure
and
smoking.
Ms.
Bovee
stated
that
all
citizens
need
to
know
about
the
latency
period
and
the
relationship
between
asbestos
exposure
and
smoking
which
seems
to
be
excluded
from
most
information
available.

In
response,
while
the
commenters
have
raised
significant
issues
and
concerns
dealing
with
past
and
future
activities
associated
with
the
site,
none
of
these
comments
undercut
EPA
 
s
basis
for
adding
the
Libby
Asbestos
site
to
the
NPL.
As
noted
above
in
section
1.1.3.1
of
this
document,
this
site
has
been
selected
for
listing
by
the
State
of
Montana
as
its
highest
priority
site
pursuant
to
CERCLA
Section
105(
a)
(
8)
(
B)
and
NCP
Section
300.425(
c)
(
2)
.
The
comments
summarized
above
are
not
specifically
relevant
to
EPA
 
s
listing
decision,
regardless
of
what
listing
mechanism
EPA
uses
to
list
the
site,
as
discussed
above.

Regarding
the
risk
posed
by
the
Libby
site,
listing
the
Libby
site
is
not
based
on
a
comprehensive
site­
specific
EPA
risk
assessment.
Listing
is
an
initial
step
in
the
overall
Superfund
process,
and
its
purpose
is
to
identify
for
the
public
that
EPA
considers
that
the
site
warrants
further
evaluation.
A
more
thorough
assessment
of
the
risks
posed
by
the
Libby
Asbestos
site
and
the
determination
of
appropriate
remedial
measures
is
undertaken
as
a
separate
step
in
the
process.
The
risk
assessment
and
subsequent
risk
management
decisions
are
performed
either
for
the
site
as
a
whole
or
for
discrete
portions
of
the
site
after
further
remedial
investigation
and
feasibility
studies
(
RI/
FS)
are
performed
to
collect
the
site
specific
information
to
do
so.

1.1­
Regarding
the
adequacy
of
EPA
 
s
oversight
and
the
provision
of
appropriate
input
and
education
of
the
public
during
the
Superfund
process,
the
public
will
play
a
major
role
in
selection
and
oversight
of
future
activities,
as
is
required
by
the
NCP.
The
Superfund
program
offers
numerous
opportunities
for
public
participation
at
NPL
sites.
The
EPA
Regional
Office
develops
a
Community
Relations
Plan
(
CRP)
before
remedial
investigation
and
feasibility
study
(
RI/
FS)
field
work
begins.
The
CRP
is
the
"
work
plan"
for
community
relations
activities
that
EPA
will
conduct
during
the
entire
cleanup
process.
In
developing
a
CRP,
Regional
staff
interview
State
and
local
officials
and
interested
citizens
to
learn
about
citizen
concerns,
site
conditions,
and
local
history.
This
information
is
used
to
formulate
a
schedule
of
activities
designed
to
keep
citizens
apprized
and
to
keep
EPA
aware
of
community
concerns.
Typical
community
relations
activities
include:

 
Public
meetings
at
which
EPA
presents
a
summary
of
technical
information
regarding
the
site
and
citizens
can
ask
questions
or
comment.

 
Small,
informal
public
sessions
at
which
EPA
representatives
are
available
to
citizens.

 
Development
and
distribution
of
fact
sheets
to
keep
citizens
up­
to­
date
on
site
activities.

For
each
site,
an
"
information
repository"
is
established,
usually
in
a
library
or
town
hall,
containing
reports,
studies,
fact
sheets,
and
other
documents
containing
information
about
the
site.
The
EPA
Regional
Office
continually
updates
the
repository
and
must
ensure
that
the
facility
housing
the
repository
has
copying
capabilities.
For
the
Libby
Asbestos
site,
this
repository
is
located
at:

U.
S.
EPA
Information
Center
501
Mineral
Avenue
Libby,
MT
59923
The
Information
Center
can
be
reached
by
telephone
at
(
406)
293­
6194,
or
by
telefax
at
(
406)
293­
5668.

After
the
RI/
FS(
s)
and
site
specific
risk
assessment(
s)
are
completed,
EPA
publishes
a
Proposed
outlining
the
cleanup
alternatives
studied
and
explaining
the
process
for
selection
of
the
alternative.
At
this
time,
EPA
opens
a
public
comment
period
during
which
are
encouraged
to
submit
comments
regarding
all
alternatives.
EPA
will
consider
and
respond
to
comments
prior
to
finalizing
the
selected
remedy
in
a
Record
of
Decision
(
ROD)
.
After
selection,
the
public
has
the
opportunity
to
provide
input
on
Five­
Year
Reviews
of
remedy
if
waste
is
left
on
site,
as
well
as
the
decision
to
ultimately
delete
the
site
from
the
NPL
cleanup
work
is
complete.

In
addition,
EPA
makes
every
attempt
to
ensure
that
community
relations
is
a
continuing
designed
to
meet
the
specific
needs
of
the
community.
Anyone
wanting
information
on
a
specific
should
contact
the
Community
Relations
staff
in
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Office.
EPA'
s
Citizen'
s
1.1­
Advisory
Group
meetings
are
held
once
a
month,
and
the
EPA
Information
Center
continues
to
operate
in
Libby.
EPA
publishes
a
question/
answer
section
on
the
Libby
response
and
investigation
in
local
newspapers
weekly.
Thus,
Libby
residents
can
contact
the
community
relations
staff
at
the
EPA
Region
8
office
for
further
information
on
the
Libby
Asbestos
site.

1.1.
4
Conclusion
Libby
Asbestos
was
nominated
to
the
NPL
pursuant
to
CERCLA
(
105(
a)
(
8)
(
B)
)
and
the
NCP
(
300.425
(
c)
(
2)
)
.
Based
on
the
above
response
to
comments,
the
site
 
s
eligibility
to
the
NPL
remains
unchanged.

1.1­
