By Paul Peters

A version of this story appeared in the Missoula Independent on 08/09/2007.
On Aug. 6, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Stephen L. Johnson paid his second visit to Libby in two years to attend a U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works field hearing hosted by Montana Sen. Max Baucus.

Stephen L. Johnson, head of EPA during final years of the Bush Administration.

His visit comes in the wake of a year in which an EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigation determined that, despite expenditures of $110 million and seven years spent cleaning up asbestos contamination left in the town by W.R. Grace & Co.’s vermiculite mine, the EPA “cannot be sure that the Libby cleanup sufficiently reduces the risk that humans may become ill.” That’s because the EPA has never adequately studied the type of asbestos particular to Libby.

In a brief interview with Johnson before his visit to Libby, the Independent had hoped to clarify important questions surrounding the Libby cleanup and asbestos contamination. Instead we got a series of non-answers and obfuscations reminiscent of recent Senate hearings on attorney firings at the U.S. Justice Department.

For instance, the OIG’s findings bring up an obvious question: If the EPA cannot be sure that Libby is safe, how can it know if any place contaminated with Libby asbestos is safe?

Libby vermiculite was used to insulate as many as 35 million homes in the United States, was used to fireproof the World Trade Center buildings, was processed at hundreds of sites across the country, and has been found on some of the most popular beaches near Chicago.

“Wherever asbestos might be, whether it might potentially be in attic insulation or on old pipes or other kinds of structures, certainly our advice is to avoid disturbing [it] and avoid that exposure…” Johnson said. “With regard to other places, other sources, that continues to be our important message: Asbestos is something that you should not be dealing with, because it is harmful.”

But in Manhattan, a large amount of Libby asbestos was unforeseeably disturbed after two planes flew into the World Trade Center buildings. What we wanted to know is how the EPA could declare Manhattan safe – as the agency has declared – when it doesn’t even know if Libby is safe.

When the Independent asked Johnson how the EPA got to the point that the OIG had to tell the agency that, despite the time and money spent, it had no idea whether or not Libby was clean, Johnson answered:

“The OIG plays an important role of program evaluation across the agency, and program evaluation is something that, as administrator, I’m very supportive of, because all programs can always be evaluated, and my experience is there’s always opportunities to improve the program…”

In other words, the OIG report was just routine program maintenance. But Johnson’s answer doesn’t jibe with the cleanup’s recent history. For years, people like Gordon Sullivan, who served as a liaison between Libby and the EPA, have been asking the agency to do a proper study of Libby asbestos, so that they would have a baseline for determining the cleanup’s efficacy. It took an OIG investigation, a story in the Independent (see “A Dangerous Lie,” July 27, 2006) and requests by Sen. Max Baucus to get the EPA to acknowledge its own lack of science.

In fact, on Dec. 5, after the OIG report on the Libby cleanup was released, Sen. Baucus said in a press release: “It’s an outrage. Heads should roll at EPA. The people in Libby and the American taxpayers deserve better, much better.”

The Independent asked Johnson for a reaction to that quote, and got what seemed an attempt to make peace with Baucus, as well as a defense of the EPA’s work in Libby.

“Sen. Baucus has been a great leader and advocate for the citizens of Libby, and with regard to the work of the EPA, the EPA is the one who has gone in, and over the years focused attention on removing contamination and improving the situation,” Johnson said.

He went on to note that the EPA has overseen the removal of asbestos from 857 Libby properties. This number is, of course, rendered effectively meaningless by the OIG’s finding that the EPA had no way of knowing whether its work had made even one Libby property safe.

Furthermore, it appears Baucus never got the memo about the EPA chief’s appeasement.

The Missoulian quotes Baucus at the Aug. 6 field hearing saying, “Nothing got done at EPA until lots of pressure was put on…Until then, frankly, nothing was being done.”

Baucus also demanded the EPA release documents pursuant to its 2002 decision not to issue a public warning on the dangers of Zonolite Attic Insulation, which is made of asbestos-contaminated vermiculite from Libby, and not to declare Libby a public health emergency, which would have hastened the arrival of cleanup crews and medical care. A 2002 St. Louis Post-Dispatch article by Andrew Schneider states that the White House Office of Budget Management was directly involved in that decision.

Also, the Independent reported in a recent story (see “Libby Meets Manhattan,” Aug. 2, 2007) that W.R. Grace tried to use the EPA’s declaration that Manhattan was safe after the World Trade Center collapse to argue against the Zonolite warning.

Baucus, according to reports in the Missoulian and the Associated Press, said he would force the agency to hand over documents on the Zonolite and public health emergency decisions if the EPA would not do so voluntarily.

Baucus has already promised Libby, during an April field hearing, that he would get his hands on documents created by former OIG investigator Corey Rumple, who initially investigated problems with the Libby cleanup in early 2006. So far, those documents have not been made unavailable.

Those documents could go a long way toward explaining how the Libby cleanup got off track. And the paper trail may be Libby’s best chance at getting answers. Because Johnson doesn’t seem inclined to provide them.

By Paul Peters

A version of this story appeared in the Missoula Independent on 04/12/2007.
It must have seemed like déjà vu for some Libby residents on April 5. That’s when Montana Sen. Max Baucus held a field hearing for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works at a conference room in Libby’s city hall with Susan Parker Bodine, who heads Superfund cleanup for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Baucus’ public show of indignation in front of 100 curious Libby residents was almost exactly the same as a hearing held in 2000, although the specific targets of anger had changed.

The last field hearing was held after it was revealed asbestos-containing ore had poisoned Libby residents while federal and state agencies, along with W.R. Grace, the company that mined the ore, allegedly ignored the problem. At that time, the hearing allowed Baucus and representatives of the EPA to express mutual resentment over what had occurred, and make bold promises to ensure the town would be cleaned. But in retrospect, the EPA cleanup since 2000 makes the first hearing look like a dog and pony show, and leads one to wonder if the latest hearing is more of the same.

The recent meeting comes on the heels of a series of gaffes by the EPA. Earlier this year, after being investigated by the EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the agency admitted it cannot, after seven years and $110 million dollars, say whether or not Libby is clean because it hasn’t done toxicological studies of the town’s asbestos. Before being investigated, the EPA planned to finish the cleanup this year, without doing the study.

Baucus, who was positioned at the head of the conference room opposite Bodine, as if in a debate, focused on the two main questions concerning Libby residents: why did the EPA not do a toxicological study of Libby asbestos years ago, and when will Libby finally be cleaned?

The audience watched in silence as Bodine, who appeared flustered and unprepared for the questions, struggled to deliver any definite answers. She admitted a toxicological study is standard operating procedure during cleanup of a Superfund site, but could not offer an explanation on why it hadn’t been done in Libby.

Baucus then offered his own theory-the EPA avoided the study, despite Libby being the deadliest Superfund site in the world with more than 200 asbestos-related deaths, because of money.

“EPA’s own scientists requested a toxicological study, but the funds were denied [by the EPA],” Baucus said. “Why in the world would the EPA turn that down?”

“I don’t know why that didn’t happen,” Bodine responded.

“I’m a little surprised that you wouldn’t know that,” Baucus replied. “The buck stops with you.”

Later in the hearing, Baucus addressed the question of when the cleanup would be finished.

Bodine said it would take three years and $6.2 million to complete the toxicological study alone. When Baucus pressed for a final cleanup date, she objected to giving a specific timeline, saying it would be impossible to plan until the initial study is complete.

Baucus resigned to asking Bodine to look into ways of speeding up the toxicological study, and submit a monthly progress report on her findings directly to him.

After Baucus finished questioning Bodine, a preselected panel of Libby residents spoke about the cleanup, and then audience members were given a chance to speak and ask questions. Despite skepticism, some took advantage of the forum as a legitimate chance to raise concerns to Baucus and the EPA.

Tom Wood, chief of Libby’s volunteer fire department, pointed out the EPA’s decision to leave asbestos containing vermiculite in attics, crawl spaces and behind walls in Libby’s homes is causing firemen to be exposed when those residences burn down. Wood noted five firemen have died in recent years due to asbestos-related disease. He asked Baucus for more funding to supply the department with proper equipment for avoiding exposure; Baucus said he’s working on the issue.

Other Libby residents wondered aloud whether, once again, Libby was just getting a political show. This group included Gordon Sullivan, who formerly worked as a liaison between the EPA and the town on technical issues surrounding the cleanup. Sullivan quit in 2005 over frustrations the EPA had not done toxicological studies.

Sullivan brought up a report made by former OIG investigator Cory Rumple, which was the catalyst for exposing problems with the Libby cleanup, but has still not been released to the public.

“The fact is, Senator, we’ve never gotten Cory Rumple’s report, have we?” Sullivan asked.

“No,” Baucus answered.

“And we won’t, will we?”

Baucus ensured Sullivan that he would get it, telling the Independent later, “I want to see it.”

Sullivan also brought up what he says was a commitment given by the EPA to do a toxicological study during a 2004 meeting in Denver.

“[In 2004] they promised us that they would have a risk assessment in six months,” he said, confirming with other members of the audience that this promise had been made.

“How many promises does it take?” he asked. “We would like to think there’s a new day coming in Libby, Montana. I’d especially like to see that happen.”

But, he continued, echoing a sentiment felt from Baucus and the rest of the crowd, “I don’t trust you, Ms. Bodine. Sorry to say that, but I don’t trust you.”

By Paul Peters
Editor

Note: a version of this story originally appeared in the Missoula Independent on 02/23/2006.

Short of endorsing a ban on hunting, or suggesting something good about gun control, there is probably no quicker way to destroy a potential or existing political career in Montana than by failing to put 100-percent support behind anything perceived to be beneficial to Libby asbestos victims.

The Montana Democratic Party likely had this reality in mind when it issued a press release last week castigating former Gov. Marc Racicot for his lobbying efforts against a U.S. Senate bill that would provide money to asbestos victims, and Libby victims especially.

The bill was sidelined Feb. 14 when the Senate fell one vote short of the 60 needed to waive a budget objection, claiming the bill violated Congressional spending limits.

One particular portion of the legislation, referred to as the “Libby Fix” by Montana Senators Conrad Burns and Max Baucus, offers special compensation for Libby asbestos victims starting at a minimum of $400,000. Compensation for asbestos victims in other parts of the country would begin at $25,000.

It quickly emerged that Racicot, as president of the American Insurance Association (AIA), had written a letter to Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, outlining the insurance industry’s opposition to the bill, and specifically to the Libby Fix.

AIA’s interest in the bill is financial; part of the proposed $140-billion trust fund to compensate asbestos victims would come from the insurance companies of corporations including W.R. Grace, which have asbestos-related disease legal claims against them.

“They made a lot of money selling insurance to these companies,” says Jim Farrell, director of the Montana Democratic Party. “Now it’s time to pay up, and they don’t want to pay.”

The Montana Democratic Party paints Racicot’s lobbying with broad strokes, asserting in press releases that Racicot flat-out opposes the bill, and that “It was a heartless act of Marc Racicot to torpedo this desperately needed help for the people of Libby.”

Libby, as most everyone in Montana is aware, is Racicot’s hometown.

The AIA responds that it’s opposed only to certain of the bill’s provisions, and remains committed to a bill that would help asbestos victims. A call for comment to Racicot was returned by an AIA spokesperson. But the damage to Racicot in Montana may have already been done.

Nothing makes that probability more obvious than recent statements on the matter by Sen. Burns.

As recently as December, Racicot had come to Burns’ defense, telling the Helena Independent Record’s editorial board that it was “highly unfair” for anyone to associate Burns with former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Last week, in the wake of news about Racicot’s efforts on AIA’s behalf, Burns returned the favor by telling the Associated Press, apropos of Libby, “If I have to do battle with (Racicot), I’ll do battle.”

Speaking with the Independent, Burns spokesman Matt Mackowiak downplayed the senator’s comments. As for doing battle with Racicot, Mackowiak says, “We’re not there yet.”

Makowiak also notes that the asbestos bill is not partisan, echoing an argument made by the AIA: 70 percent of Senate Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and John Kerry, voted against the bill.

While attacks by the Montana Democratic Party never overtly connect the sidelining of the asbestos bill to Republicans, they do attach it to high-profile Republican Racicot.

But why go after a former politcian?

Jim Farrell, director of the Montana Democratic Party, notes the stumping Racicot did for Burns this winter.

“If only on that basis, he’s relevant politically in Montana at the moment,” says Farrell.

And, although Racicot has denied it, Farrell and others suspect the former governor may have been considering a run for Burns’ Senate seat if Burns were to drop out of the race as a result of the Abramoff scandal.

Further explaining the Democrats’ motives, Farrell connects Racicot’s lobbying actions, at least in spirit, to the Abramoff scandal.

“Again and again we see Republican policy dictated by lobbyists. Racicot holds a comparable position to [Abramoff] as chief lobbyist for the insurance industry,” Farrell says. “It’s hard not to mention Racicot and Abramoff in the same breath.”

Which perhaps explains Burns’ comments about doing battle with Racicot. Montana’s junior Senator told a Montana TV station last year that “this Abramoff guy is a bad guy, I hope he goes to jail and we never see him again.”

Helena political strategist David Sirota, who served as press aide to Gov. Brian Schweitzer during his 2000 senate run against Burns, and as senior strategist for Schweitzer in his campaign for governor, says the Democrats’ point is that “Racicot’s behavior is representative of Montana’s Republican Party, and the national party.”

Both nationally and locally, he says, “You regularly see public servants like Racicot cash in to shill for corporate interests.”

Sirota says he’s not at all surprised at Racicot’s actions.

Having worked in Washington, D.C., Sirota says, he “would not underestimate the ability of a politician to be arrogant, to be totally out of touch with reality. I no longer can be amazed.”

Montana Republican Party Executive Director Chuck Denowh says Farrell and Sirota are wrong to think Racicot’s lobbying will tarnish the Republican image.

“The real Montana policymakers are on the same side of this issue,” he says. “[Racicot] is not creating the policy on this issue. He’s no longer governor.”

But Denowh concedes that to be perceived as against a bill that aids Libby asbestos victims carries the whiff of political suicide in Montana.

Whether or not his lobbying damages the Montana Republican Party, it appears that the damage to Racicot’s potential political future in Montana looks to be done.