Hazardous Materials: EPA's Cleanup of Asbestos in Libby, Montana,
and Related Actions to Address Asbestos-Contaminated Materials	 
(14-APR-03, GAO-03-469).					 
                                                                 
Between 1979 and 1998, the number of deaths in Libby, Montana	 
from asbestosis--a lung disease that progressively restricts	 
breathing and can be fatal--was 40 to 80 times higher than the	 
average for the United States. Vermiculite ore--containing high  
concentrations of asbestos--was mined at Libby between 1923 and  
1990, and accounted for most of the world's vermiculite. Mining, 
processing, or any disturbance of the contaminated vermiculite	 
releases asbestos fibers into the air, which can lead to	 
respiratory illnesses, including asbestosis. When processed, the 
vermiculite is used in insulation, fireproofing materials, garden
materials, and other products. GAO reviewed the history of the	 
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) involvement in Libby	 
prior to the agency's initiation of cleanup actions in 1999, the 
status and costs of EPA's cleanup in Libby, and other actions EPA
and other federal agencies are taking to address exposure to	 
asbestoss-contaminated materials.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-469 					        
    ACCNO:   A06633						        
  TITLE:     Hazardous Materials: EPA's Cleanup of Asbestos in Libby, 
Montana, and Related Actions to Address Asbestos-Contaminated	 
Materials							 
     DATE:   04/14/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Environmental monitoring				 
	     Fiber inhalation diseases				 
	     Hazardous substances				 
	     Health hazards					 
	     Libby (MT) 					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-469

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Honorable Denny Rehberg, House of Representatives

April 2003 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EPA*s Cleanup of Asbestos in Libby,
Montana, and Related

Actions to Address Asbestos- Contaminated

Materials

GAO- 03- 469

EPA has had a long track record investigating and cleaning up asbestos
contamination at Libby, Montana. As far back as 1982, EPA reported that
Libby vermiculite ore processed to remove impurities remained

contaminated with asbestos. Nonetheless, EPA misjudged the extent of
contamination at Libby and focused instead on higher- priority asbestos
contamination issues at other locations. Although EPA had received citizen
complaints about potential health risks with this vermiculite ore

since 1992, it did not initiate an extensive investigation until after the
media reported about health problems in Libby in 1999.

Cleanup at Libby, begun in 2000, is expected to continue through 2007 and
cost at least $179 million. Through 2002, EPA spent $79 million on
cleaning commercial, residential, and public properties in Libby. Cleanup
included sampling analyses, soil excavation and disposal, property
restoration, and medical testing. EPA plans to spend another $100 million
to complete cleanup activities at these properties and at the Libby mine.
While the Libby cleanup continues, EPA and agencies within the

Departments of Labor and of Health and Human Services have activities
addressing potential exposure to substances contaminated with asbestos.
For example, EPA and responsible parties are conducting cleanup at 14
sites that received Libby vermiculite ore, in addition to Libby, as shown
below.

Vermiculite Ore Processing Sites Requiring Cleanup

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

EPA*s Cleanup of Asbestos in Libby, Montana, and Related Actions to
Address Asbestos- Contaminated Materials

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 469. To view the full report,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 512- 3841 or stephensonj@
gao. gov.

Highlights of GAO- 03- 469, a report to the Honorable Denny Rehberg, House
of Representatives

April 2003

Between 1979 and 1998, the number of deaths in Libby, Montana from
asbestosis* a lung disease that progressively restricts breathing and can
be fatal* was 40 to 80 times higher than the average for the United
States. Vermiculite

ore* containing high concentrations of asbestos* was mined at Libby
between 1923 and 1990, and accounted for most of the world*s vermiculite.
Mining, processing, or any disturbance of the contaminated vermiculite

releases asbestos fibers into the air, which can lead to respiratory
illnesses, including asbestosis. When processed, the vermiculite is used
in insulation, fireproofing materials, garden materials, and other
products. GAO reviewed the history of the Environmental Protection
Agency*s (EPA)

involvement in Libby prior to the agency*s initiation of cleanup actions
in 1999, the status and costs of EPA*s cleanup in Libby, and other actions
EPA and other federal agencies are taking to address exposure to
asbestoscontaminated

materials.

Page i GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials Letter 1 Results in Brief 2
Background 3 EPA Was Aware of Potential Health Risks Before 1999, but
Other Factors, Including Higher Priorities, Prevented Action 5 Ongoing
Cleanup in Libby Expected to Cost $179 Million by 2007,

but Funding Must Compete with Other Projects 9 EPA and Other Agencies Have
Activities Underway to Address Exposure to Asbestos- Contaminated Material
Cleanup in Libby 12 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 19 Scope and
Methodology 19 Appendix I GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 21

Tables

Table 1: Location and Estimated EPA Cleanup Costs of Sites That Received
Libby Ore 15 Figures

Figure 1: Vermiculite Ore Processing Sites Requiring Cleanup 14
Abbreviations

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry EPA Environmental
Protection Agency Contents

This is a work of the U. S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted
materials separately from GAO*s product.

Page 1 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

April 14, 2003 The Honorable Denny Rehberg House of Representatives Dear
Mr. Rehberg: Vermiculite ore mined near Libby, Montana, between 1923 and
1990 accounted for most of the world*s vermiculite. This material was used
in the manufacture of products such as building insulation, fireproofing
materials, and gardening soil. The Libby vermiculite naturally contains
high concentrations of asbestos, which, when released into the air, can
cause serious respiratory illness that can lead to death. The Libby ore
posed health risks at multiple sites: in Libby, when it was mined,
crushed, and partially separated from other materials and then again when
it was shipped and received at facilities around the nation for final
processing. In addition, individuals could be exposed through other
sources, such as workers* clothing. Overall, between 1979 and 1998, the
number of deaths from asbestosis* a lung disease that progressively
restricts breathing and can be fatal* was 40 to 80 times higher than
expected in Libby, Montana, and, as of 2001, almost 18 percent of current
or former Libby residents

who received x- rays were identified as having asbestos- related lung
abnormalities, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is cleaning up the Libby site
and other sites at which individuals may have been exposed to Libby*s
asbestos- contaminated vermiculite. Under the Superfund program, created
by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, EPA is authorized to clean up sites containing hazardous
waste, including those that present an immediate threat to human health
and the environment, such as Libby. EPA may compel the parties responsible
for the contamination at a site to clean it up, or the agency may pay for
the cleanup itself and later try to recover cleanup costs from the
responsible parties. In addition, EPA and other federal agencies regulate
asbestos under the Clean Air Act and other laws. The act allows EPA to
delegate to the states responsibility for investigating hazardous air
pollutants, such as asbestos.

As agreed with your office, we determined (1) the history of EPA*s
involvement in Libby, Montana prior to the agency*s initiation of cleanup
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

actions in 1999; (2) the status and cost of EPA*s cleanup in Libby; and
(3) other actions EPA and other federal agencies are taking to address
exposure to asbestos- contaminated materials.

EPA has had a long track record investigating and cleaning up the
extensive asbestos contamination in Libby, Montana. As far back as 1982,
EPA reported that the Libby vermiculite ore, even after processing it to
remove impurities, remained contaminated with asbestos. This report
resulted from an investigation EPA had launched in 1978, after learning
that workers at a vermiculite- processing plant in Marysville, Ohio* one
of many sites across the country where Libby vermiculite was sent* were
exhibiting symptoms of asbestos- related diseases. Nonetheless, EPA did
not initiate action to address this contamination at the time because it
misjudged the extent of contamination in Libby and focused on what it
considered higher- priority asbestos contamination issues at other
locations such as school buildings nationwide. Years later, in 1992 and
1994, EPA received citizen complaints about potential health risks from
vermiculite at a former processing site in Libby. Under the authority
delegated to it by EPA, the state of Montana investigated these
complaints. According to EPA, the state investigation following the first
complaint identified asbestos insulation inside one of the buildings at
the site. The insulation was subsequently removed during the demolition of
these buildings and EPA fined the owner of the mine for failing, among
other things, to notify EPA, as required, of the presence of the
insulation prior to the demolition. The state investigation following the
second complaint identified asbestos- contaminated vermiculite at the
site, but the state took no action because Clean Air Act regulations do
not cover emissions from

asbestos- contaminated ores such as vermiculite, which are processed for
purposes other than extracting their asbestos content. In 1999, media
reports called attention to health problems in Libby. These reports
triggered a follow- up EPA investigation. Unlike previous investigations,
however, this investigation was more extensive and identified widespread
contamination. With this evidence, EPA launched a cleanup effort under its
Superfund program.

Cleanup in Libby, begun in 2000, is expected to continue through at least
2007 and cost at least $179 million. This cleanup will include commercial,
residential, and public properties within Libby, as well as the mine and
adjacent sites. As of December 2002, EPA had spent approximately $79
million for activities such as sampling and analyses, soil excavation and
disposal, property restoration, administrative costs, litigation costs to
recover cleanup expenditures; and medical testing of current and former
Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

Libby residents. EPA estimates that it will spend an additional $100
million to complete cleanup activities in Libby through 2007.

While the Libby cleanup continues, EPA and agencies within the Departments
of Labor and of Health and Human Services are taking other actions to
address potential exposure to substances contaminated with asbestos
associated with vermiculite mined in Libby. For example, EPA has examined
the extent of contamination at 173 sites nationwide that received Libby
ore, and has planned, initiated, or completed cleanup at 5 sites at an
estimated cost of over $7 million. EPA is also examining potential changes
to existing laws and regulations. For example, EPA is considering whether
to regulate emissions from materials that naturally contain asbestos, such
as vermiculite. If EPA were to take this action, it

could expand the scope of the emissions standards under the Clean Air Act
that regulate asbestos. Currently, these standards apply only to asbestos
used for commercial products and not to materials that naturally contain
asbestos, such as vermiculite. Within the Department of Labor, the Mine
Safety and Health Administration is investigating exposure to asbestos at
different types of mines, including vermiculite mines, in order to decide
on what actions should be taken to protect mine workers from overexposure
to asbestos in mining facilities* an options paper is expected by April
2003. Two agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services are
also examining the potential for exposure to asbestos- contaminated
vermiculite. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
is examining potential exposures to Libby ore in communities identified by
EPA, and expects to report its findings in 2004. The National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health is examining the potential for asbestos
exposure at horticultural nurseries and vermiculite- processing plants
that continue to receive vermiculite ore from mines other than Libby.

Asbestos is a term used to describe a group of naturally occurring
silicate minerals, six of which are regulated: actinolite, amosite,
anthophyllite, chrysotile, crocidolite, and tremolite. Asbestos has
several properties that made it commercially valuable. Its fibrous nature
made it a good thermal

and acoustic insulator and allowed manufacturers to weave it into cloth.
Since asbestos is an inorganic mineral, it does not burn. Some
applications and uses of asbestos are prohibited, such as certain flooring
materials, but asbestos is still widely used in products such as cement
pipes and disc brake pads on vehicles. The U. S. Geological Survey
estimates that over 26 million pounds of asbestos was used in the United
States during 2001. EPA estimated that more than 700,000 commercial and
public buildings Background

Page 4 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

and countless more homes, schools, and factories contain asbestos, most of
which is chrysotile.

By the early 1900s asbestos was recognized as a cause of occupational
disease. Initially, the disease associated with asbestos was asbestosis* a
scarring of the lung tissue whose symptoms include a shortness of breath
and can be fatal in advanced cases. During the 1930s and 1940s, the
connection between asbestos exposure and lung cancer emerged. By 1960, the
connection between mesothelioma and asbestos exposure was established.
Mesothelioma is primarily a cancer of the mesothelial lining of the lungs.
The asbestos- related diseases all have a long latency period between the
initial exposure and the onset of disease. Asbestos- related maladies
rarely occur in less than 10 years after first exposure.

The federal government regulates asbestos- related environmental
contamination under two principal statutes, the Toxic Substances Control
Act and the Clean Air Act. However, neither of these statutes specifically
governs asbestos- contaminated ore, such as the vermiculite in Libby.

Workers are protected from certain workplace asbestos- related hazards
under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Mine Safety Act. EPA
is responsible for administering two of these statutes and the Department
of Labor is responsible for the other two:

 Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA regulates asbestos in
schools and in asbestos abatement activities conducted by state and local
governments, and has banned asbestos from certain products, such as

certain types of flooring materials and paper products, and prohibits all
new uses of asbestos.  Under the authority of the Clean Air Act, EPA
developed the National

Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for asbestos that applies
to, among other things, the manufacturing and milling of commercial
asbestos, the demolition of structures containing asbestos materials, and
puts restrictions on use of certain types of insulation. The standard does
not regulate air emissions from asbestos contaminated ore such as that
from Libby because it is not a commercial product.  Under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Department of Labor*s Occupational
Safety and Health Administration regulates occupational

exposure to airborne asbestos.  Under the Federal Mine Safety and Health
Act, the Department of Labor*s Mine Safety and Health Administration
regulates miners* exposure to

airborne asbestos concentrations.

Page 5 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

In addition, in 1980, the Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which established the Superfund
program, to clean up highly contaminated hazardous waste sites. Under this
program, EPA places hazardous waste sites it considers to be the Nation*s
worst on the National Priorities List. EPA administers the program,
oversees cleanups performed by the parties responsible for contaminating
the sites, and may also contract with other entities to perform the actual
cleanup work. EPA may compel the responsible parties to clean up the
sites, or the agency may pay for the cleanup from the Superfund trust fund
and later try to recover cleanup costs from the responsible parties. EPA
is seeking to recover its cleanup costs in Libby from the mine*s owners
and other potentially responsible

parties. The Superfund program has two basic types of cleanups: (1)
removal actions, which mitigate immediate threats from hazardous waste
sites that may or may not be on the National Priorities List, and (2)
remedial actions, which are long- term cleanup actions. Only sites on the
National Priorities List may receive Superfund financed remedial actions.

As far back as 1982, EPA had reported that Libby vermiculite ore processed
to remove impurities was contaminated with asbestos, but it did not
initiate investigations leading to cleanup actions until 1999. According
to EPA officials, they did not act prior to 1999 because they were unaware
of the extent of contamination in Libby, and instead focused on what they
considered to be higher priority asbestos contamination issues, such as
asbestos contamination in schools and commercial buildings. Furthermore,
although a 1992 state investigation of a former Libby

processing plant found violations of a building demolition standard for
asbestos, a 1994 state investigation concerning asbestos- contaminated
vermiculite at the same site resulted in no enforcement action because
Clean Air Act standards do not apply to asbestos- contaminated ores. In

1999, newspaper reports triggered an EPA investigation and the resulting
cleanup. EPA Was Aware of

Potential Health Risks Before 1999, but Other Factors, Including Higher
Priorities, Prevented Action

Page 6 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

In 1978, EPA learned that workers at a chemical fertilizer plant in
Marysville, Ohio, were exhibiting symptoms of asbestos- related diseases.
1 The plant used vermiculite ore to produce fertilizer products, and the

Libby vermiculite was believed to be the major source of asbestos at this
plant. Relying on the health information provided by the Marysville
company, EPA began to issue a series of reports on the potential risk of
asbestos- contaminated vermiculite. Specifically:  In June 1980, EPA
reported that it needed to develop more information,

such as the identification of all vermiculite mine sites, the processors
for the vermiculite, the potential number of employees exposed to
asbestoscontaminated vermiculite, and the products containing
asbestoscontaminated vermiculite. 2  In February 1981, EPA provided a
menu of options for regulatory actions

for controlling asbestos- contaminated vermiculite, if further
investigation showed that regulatory action was needed. 3  In August
1982, EPA concluded that there were significant adverse health

effects associated with past occupational exposure to asbestoscontaminated
vermiculite, probably through airborne fibers, at the Marysville plant. 4
, 5  In September 1982, EPA reported the results of its laboratory
analysis of

vermiculite samples taken at three major U. S. mines producing
vermiculite, including Libby. 6 Although the September 1982 report did not
comment on the significance

of the health risks, a 1983 EPA letter stated that the laboratory results
1 Letter from O M Scott & Sons to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Toxic Substances, and U. S. Department of Labor, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, December 5, 1978. 2 U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

Priority Review Level 1* Asbestos- Contaminated Vermiculite. Washington,
D. C., June 1980. 3 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Toxic
Substances. Decision Paper for Asbestos- Contaminated Vermiculite.
Washington, D. C., February 1981. 4 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Office of Toxic Substances. Disposition Paper for Asbestos- Contaminated
Vermiculite. Washington, D. C., August 1982. 5 The plant owners
subsequently upgraded the plant*s dust collection equipment to capture
asbestos fibers, and a recent EPA investigation identified no asbestos on
site. 6 Midwest Research Institute, Collection, Analysis and
Characterization of Vermiculite Samples for Fiber Content and Asbestos
Contamination, a report prepared at the request of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington,
D. C., September 27, 1982. EPA Investigated Potential

Risk of Libby Vermiculite, but Focused on More Highly Contaminated
Asbestos Products

Page 7 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

indicated asbestos fibers were less than 1 percent of ore processed to
remove impurities; the memo also stated that EPA considered asbestos
contaminated vermiculite as posing less risk than asbestos- containing
materials in school buildings nationwide, and in commercial and industrial
uses of asbestos. 7 Therefore, EPA shifted its focus to these other
asbestos materials and products. We did not find any other documents
referring to specific events, conversations, or policies that led to this
decision. Moreover, we did not find any evidence that EPA officials were
pressured to shift the agency*s focus.

Despite this shift away from vermiculite, EPA continued to consider the
issue of asbestos in vermiculite. In February 1985, EPA developed
estimates of the level and range of exposure for workers and the general
public who come into contact with asbestos- contaminated vermiculite,
which it stated could be used for regulatory decision- making with further
study. 8 In March 1987, EPA concluded that vermiculite was one of five
materials that had a high possibility of containing asbestos. 9 In the
following three years, EPA pursued steps to support regulation by carrying
out such tasks as requesting information from industry about the health
effects of asbestos found in other materials (* contaminant asbestos*) and

developed estimates of risk to human health. 10 In 1991 EPA determined
that the weight of evidence for asbestoscontaminated vermiculite was
sufficient to show a causal relationship for increased lung cancer in
miners and millers. 11 However, according to EPA, the agency did not
conduct additional work on asbestos- contaminated vermiculite because it
needed its resources to implement the 1990 Clean

7 Letter from Acting Assistant Administrator, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances to the
Honorable James A. Courter, House of Representatives, June 8, 1983.

8 Versar, Inc., Exposure Assessment for Asbestos Contaminated Vermiculite,
a report prepared by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Toxic Substances, Washington, D. C., February 1985.

9 The other materials were asbestos, pyrophyllite, stone, and talc. 10 U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Asbestos in Earth Materials. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, March 1987.

11 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and
Development. Health Assessment Document for Vermiculite. Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, September 1991.

Page 8 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

Air Act Amendments, which required it to examine almost 200 air
pollutants.

In 1992, in response to a citizen*s complaint about potential exposure to
asbestos during the demolition of a Libby vermiculite processing facility,
Montana inspectors conducted an investigation, and took nine samples at
the site. According to EPA, the sample analysis indicated that there was
asbestos insulation inside one of the buildings undergoing demolition. The
Clean Air Act asbestos standard regulates the demolition of structures
containing asbestos material. The state determined that the mine owner had
failed to notify EPA of its plans to demolish a building containing
asbestos, and had not taken necessary precautions such as wetting the
asbestos materials to protect the workers conducting the demolition, as
required by the emissions standards for asbestos. Subsequently, the
buildings were demolished and the mine owner was fined $510,000 for the
violations.

In November 1994, a citizen complained that dust from the same site, as
well as from an adjacent road to haul ore from the mine to the processing
site, was harming Libby residents. EPA also referred this complaint to the
state of Montana for investigation. According to an EPA official involved
in the investigation, the state did not take any action because the
asbestos found in the vermiculite at the site and on the road was not
considered commercial asbestos. The Clean Air Act asbestos standard only
regulates emissions of asbestos from asbestos ore (commercial asbestos),
not emissions from asbestos- contaminated ores such as the vermiculite
from Libby, which are processed for purposes other than extracting their

asbestos content. In an April 1995 letter, EPA informed the citizen that
neither the state nor EPA planned any action based on the inspection.

EPA did not initiate an investigation leading to cleanup through the
Superfund program until November 1999. According to EPA, the agency
initiated the investigation in response to local concerns and news
articles, which reported the deaths or illnesses of almost 600 current or
former Libby residents exposed to asbestos- contaminated vermiculite ore.
The EPA investigation team, along with a Montana health official,
identified several non- occupational cases of asbestos- related diseases
in Libby. Moreover, EPA found actinolite and tremolite asbestos from the
Libby vermiculite in more than 30 percent of over 2000 samples taken at
residential, business, and public properties around Libby. These and other
findings led EPA to conduct further investigations and began cleanup
activities in 2000. State Investigated Citizen

Complaints in 1992 and 1994 Concerning AsbestosContaminated Vermiculite

Page 9 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

By 2007, EPA expects to spend about $179 million to complete the cleanup
of commercial, residential, and public properties within Libby, as well as
the mine and adjacent sites. As of December 2002, EPA had spent
approximately $79 million for activities such as sampling and analyses,
soil excavation and disposal, property restoration, administrative costs,
litigation costs to recover cleanup expenditures; and medical testing of
current and former Libby residents. Furthermore, based on early estimates,
EPA expects to spend an additional $100 million between 2003 and 2007 to
conduct complete cleanup activities in Libby, as well as the vermiculite
mine and adjacent sites. Although EPA has stated it is committed to
carrying out the Libby cleanup through 2007, this project will compete for
funding on an annual basis with other projects.

According to EPA, it initiated cleanup at, based on the initial
investigation, what were considered the two most obvious sources of
contaminant asbestos in Libby: (1) the former screening plant where the
vermiculite ore was separated into different sizes for use in various
products and processing facilities located nationwide and (2) a processing
facility (the expansion plant) where the ore was heated at 2000 degrees
Fahrenheit to remove water and expand the individual granules of ore (like
popcorn). In total, the screening plant handled about 6.5 million tons of
vermiculite ore

between the 1960s and 1990, when the mine closed, according to EPA. At the
time that EPA initiated a removal action at the processing sites in 2000,
the area around the former screening plant was being used as a wholesale

plant nursery, a covered storage facility, and the current owners* primary
residence. The site of the former expansion facility, currently owned by
the city of Libby, was being leased to a retail lumber mill.

Cleanup- related activities included relocating the residents and
businesses from the two sites; demolishing and cleaning up contaminated
buildings and structures at the sites; excavating contaminated soil,
debris, and vermiculite ore; transporting and disposing of these waste
materials at the former mine; and filling the excavated areas with
uncontaminated soil. In addition, through an interagency agreement, EPA
asked ATSDR to conduct medical testing of current and former Libby
residents. EPA sought to identify the asbestos- related health effects of
exposure to asbestos from the Libby vermiculite mine. According to ATSDR,
almost 18 percent of 6,668 current and former Libby residents who received
chest

x- rays in 2000 and 2001 were identified as having lung abnormalities.
Ongoing Cleanup in

Libby Expected to Cost $179 Million by 2007, but Funding Must Compete with
Other Projects

Page 10 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

These participants were referred to their physicians for further diagnosis
and treatment. 12 By December 31, 2001, EPA had spent a total of about $58
million dollars

on Libby:  almost $29 million on cleanup costs;  almost $13 million for
medical testing and health- related activities;  over $13 million on EPA
administrative costs, primarily payroll; and  almost $3 million
enforcement costs associated with cost- recovery

litigation against the mine owners. In July 2001, after additional
sampling, EPA identified six other sites in Libby that contained asbestos
contaminated materials and required immediate cleanup. In addition to
continued cleanup activities at the former processing sites, EPA
determined the need to conduct cleanup activities at the six additional
sites:

 Two residential properties. One site required removing and disposing of
unprocessed vermiculite ore; another required removing
asbestoscontaminated machinery as well as excavating and disposing of
contaminated soil. EPA completed cleanup at the two residential properties
by the end of 2001.  Three schools. EPA had to remove and dispose of ore
from the running

tracks at the Libby Middle and High Schools, as well as ore from a former
ice skating rink at the Plummer Elementary School. In addition to these
cleanup activities, EPA agreed to conduct other restoration activities
such as reconstructing the running tracks with uncontaminated materials at
the schools.  One road. EPA paved a portion of Rainy Creek Road, which
was used to

transport vermiculite ore from the mine to the processing facilities and
12 In addition, ATSDR conducted a mortality study in 2000 to determine the
number of deaths in Libby between 1979 and 1998 that were attributed to
exposure to asbestos. (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Health Consultation:
Mortality From Asbestosis in Libby, Montana; Libby Asbestosis Site Libby,
Lincoln County, Montana. Atlanta, Georgia, Dec. 12, 2000.) In August 2002,
ATSDR concluded that for the period reviewed, deaths in Libby from
asbestosis were 40 to 80 times higher than expected in Libby, Montana, and
deaths from

lung cancer were 20 to 30 percent higher than expected. (U. S. Department
of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. Health Consultation: Mortality in Libby, Montana (1979* 1998);
Libby Asbestos Site, Libby, Lincoln County, Montana. Atlanta, Georgia,
August 8, 2002.)

Page 11 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

continues to water the unpaved portion of the road to keep asbestos fibers
from becoming airborne. In calendar year 2002, EPA spent an additional
$21.4 million to complete

cleanup at the areas around the former processing facilities and the
schools, and began to clean up soil and indoor property at more than 900
other residential, commercial, and public properties. EPA designed and
constructed a landfill to dispose of materials removed from these
properties. Asbestos concentrations found inside the additional properties
sampled are attributed to multiple sources of contamination, including
take- home contamination from workers* clothing, dust from the processing
facilities, vermiculite- containing insulation, contamination from
adjacent properties, dust tracked in on people*s shoes, and vermiculite
material in people*s yards. Indoor cleanup activities will include
decontaminating the interior of homes with special vacuums, and, when
necessary, removing indoor materials such as carpets and drapes. According
to EPA, cleanup of these properties should continue through at least 2005,
at a rate of 250- 300 properties per year.

Beginning in 2002, EPA began the remedial investigative process of
screening properties for potential remedial cleanup actions. These actions
are expected to begin, at the earliest, by 2004 and continue through 2007.
According to the remedial project manager, early budget estimates for cost

of the remedial phase is about $100 million. Before remedial cleanup
activities can begin, EPA must conduct and complete two studies to
determine the extent of additional cleanup and remediation at the
residential, commercial, and public buildings. The first study, a
performance evaluation, is intended to evaluate several techniques to
analyze soil samples containing asbestos, which in turn will be used to
choose the most appropriate analytical methods used to collect data
necessary for the second study* a site- specific risk assessment study.
The risk assessment study will require conducting asbestos dosage response
tests on lab animals. EPA will use the risk assessment, along with other
information, to establish final cleanup standards for Libby. According to
the remedial project manager, EPA expects the risk assessment to show that
soil samples containing concentrations of less than 1 percent actinolite
and tremolite asbestos found in Libby can present excessive risk in
certain situations. 13 Early estimates indicate that there are about

13 The National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollution defines
asbestoscontaining materials as those materials containing more than 1
percent asbestos.

Page 12 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

300 additional properties that could be cleaned up, depending on the
results of these studies, although this number could increase as more
analyses are conducted. According to the remedial project manager, current
estimates suggest that remedial cleanup in Libby can be completed by 2007.

Between 2003 and 2007, the remedial project manager also expects to
conduct cleanup and remediation at the mine and adjacent sites, including
the mine waste water impoundment and ore waste piles sites adjacent to

the mine, as well as the rest of Rainy Creek Road. According to the
manager, between 2003 and 2005, EPA will conduct a feasibility study to
identify the most efficient way of conducting remedial cleanup at these
sites.

EPA officials have stated that cleanup in Libby remains a high priority.
Moreover, because of the imminent health risk posed by the
asbestoscontaminated vermiculite found throughout the community, Libby
should remain a high priority for Superfund funding through 2007. However,
beginning in 2004, funding for Libby cleanup activities will compete for
funding on an annual basis with other projects, including cleanup of other
mining sites posing imminent health risks. Funding for the Superfund

program, in turn, will complete with other EPA programs and administration
budget priorities.

EPA and agencies within the departments of Labor and Health and Human
Services are currently undertaking several activities addressing the
potential exposure to substances contaminated with asbestos. EPA is
inspecting other sites where potential exposure to asbestos contaminated
vermiculite may be occurring, and examining the need to recommend changes
to laws and policies to address contaminant asbestos. Departments of Labor
and Health and Human Services agencies are, among other things, examining
potential current and past exposure to asbestos contaminated vermiculite
at mines, processing facilities, and adjacent communities. EPA and Other

Agencies Have Activities Underway to Address Exposure to
AsbestosContaminated

Material Cleanup in Libby

Page 13 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

In March 2001, the EPA Inspector General recommended that EPA examine the
risks associated with asbestos- contaminated vermiculite in order to
safeguard public health and the environment. 14 In responding to the
report*s recommendations, EPA (1) identified actions underway, in
coordination with other federal agencies, to address potential exposure at
other asbestos- related sites; (2) agreed to develop a plan to determine
the need for a national emissions standard for sources contaminated with
asbestos, such as asbestos- contaminated ores; and (3) and agreed to
establish an independent panel to provide advice and counsel on policy
issues associated with the use and management of different types of
fibers, including asbestos.

To respond to the Inspector General*s first recommendation, EPA is taking
the following actions:

 Site inspections of 173 processing facilities located nationwide that
received Libby vermiculite ore. From initial site inspections conducted by
all 10 EPA regional offices, EPA determined that, in addition to Libby, 19
other sites were contaminated with asbestos- contaminated materials and
required further investigation. In 14 of the 19 cases, either

EPA (5 sites) or the responsible party (9 sites) have planned, initiated,
or completed removal activities. (Fig. 1 shows the location of the 14
sites, in addition to Libby, requiring cleanup by EPA or the responsible
parties.) EPA or the responsible parties are still investigating five
other sites.

14 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Inspector General.
EPA*s Actions Concerning Asbestos- Contaminated Vermiculite in Libby,
Montana. Washington, D. C., March 31, 2001. EPA Is Taking Actions on

Multiple Fronts

Page 14 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

Figure 1: Vermiculite Ore Processing Sites Requiring Cleanup

By the end of 2003, EPA will spend over $7.4 million at the five sites on
cleanup- related activities, including sampling and analyses; and soil
excavation, disposal, and restoration. Table 1 provides information on the
five sites that EPA is planning to clean up by the end of 2003.

Page 15 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

Table 1: Location and Estimated EPA Cleanup Costs of Sites That Received
Libby Ore

Source: EPA (data) and GAO (analysis). a EPA completed cleanup of factory
site in 2001.

b EPA completed cleanup in 2002.  Studying potential exposure to
asbestos- contaminated vermiculite in consumer products. In August 2000,
EPA issued two reports examining potential exposure to asbestos from
consumer products containing vermiculite such as potting soil and
packaging filler, and has drafted a third report on attic insulation
expected to be issued in April 2003. According to an EPA official, these
and other studies show that hazardous exposure to airborne asbestos fibers
can occur when any amount of asbestos- contaminated vermiculite is
disturbed. Therefore, EPA is recommending that consumers handle
vermiculite garden products with care, such as using these products
outdoors or in a well- ventilated area and damping it during use to avoid
creating dust. EPA is also recommending that homeowners should avoid
disturbing the vermiculite insulation in their attics, and that only
certified professionals should test this type of insulation or remove it
from homes.

In response to the Inspector General*s second recommendation for the
possibility of a national emissions standard for contaminant asbestos
(under the authority of the Clean Air Act) found in other materials such
as vermiculite, EPA*s Office of Air and Radiation will conduct multiple
activities. Currently, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants applies to the milling, fabrication, manufacturing,
application, demolition, renovation, and disposal of asbestos and
asbestos- containing commercial products. Initially, the office plans to
participate in coordinating entities, such as EPA*s Asbestos Coordination
Team, and an

Location Tons of Libby vermiculite ore

processed Current use of existing facilities Range of asbestos
concentrations at site Estimated

cleanup costs

Denver, Colorado 100,415 Corn syrup production plant Up to 12 percent
$150,000 Wilder, Kentucky 222,110 Repair and maintenance shop Up to 5
percent 1,400,000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 118,465 Prison furniture and
security

equipment factory; and 260 residential homes in the area a Up to 20
percent 4,201,607 Minot, North Dakota b 14,000 City and community group
storage

facility Up to 12 percent 1,180,000 New Castle, Pennsylvania 172,140
Vacant property Up to 3 percent 500,000

Total $7,431,607

Page 16 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

interagency asbestos group, 15 to avoid duplicating efforts and to take
advantage of expertise found elsewhere. For example, to identify all
available information about the presence of asbestos in vermiculite mining
and processing operations, the office will collect existing information
from local, state, and federal agencies, including regional EPA offices.
While considering the need for a national emissions standard for sources
of contaminant asbestos, the Office of Air and Radiation will build upon
the work conducted by other EPA offices. For example, for the Office of
Air and Radiation to characterize potential risks associated with selected
asbestos emissions sources, it must rely on an update by the Office of

Research and Development of the Integrated Risk Information System file
for asbestos to include more current information about the cancer and
noncancer health effects of asbestos exposure. The official responsible
for updating the file expects to complete work on non- cancer health
effects (asbestosis) by 2005. Work on cancer- related health effects (lung
cancer and mesothelioma), which EPA expects to also complete by 2005,
depends on work now being conducted for the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. This office has taken the role of organizing
conferences and workshops for both cancer and non- cancer related health
effects. 16 Finally, in response to the Inspector General*s recommendation
for

considering regulatory changes, the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substance assembled an independent panel, known as the Asbestos
Focus Group Project, to consider, among other things, regulatory and
legislative options for regulating asbestos. Panel members include
representatives from EPA and other federal regulatory agencies, state
governments, industry, academia, and other interest groups. The panel is
considering such issues as exposure to asbestos in products and materials;
exposure to naturally occurring asbestos, including asbestos found in
concentrations of less than 1 percent; medical and health issues related
to 15 The Asbestos Coordination Team was formed in October 2000 to promote
and coordinate immediate response activities as well as other longer- term
asbestos activities across EPA*s program offices. Since September 2002,
EPA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration,

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, the U. S. Geological Survey, and the National Institute
of Standards and Technology have met approximately every quarter for the
stated purpose of having an informal exchange of policy, procedural, and
technical information regarding asbestos.

16 The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response convened a peer
consultation review by independent scientists of a new risk methodology
for asbestos in February 2003.

Page 17 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

asbestos exposure; and different methods used to analyze asbestos. EPA
expects to issue a final report with recommendations by April 2003.

The Department of Labor has also begun to consider updating its
regulations on asbestos. In light of asbestos related deaths and serious
health problems in Libby, the Mine Safety and Health Administration began
examining its sampling methods and analyzing data from samples taken at
different types of mines to ensure that it is able to detect very small
asbestos fibers, such as those detected by EPA in Libby vermiculite ore.

The agency has taken almost 900 samples at more than 40 operations
employing more than 4,000 miners in an attempt to determine miners*
current exposure levels to asbestos. In addition, the agency published a
proposed change to their rules and asked for comments from the mining
public on lowering the exposure limit to asbestos fiber; using a more
sensitive method to analyze fibers in air samples; and addressing takehome
contamination issues. In conjunction with the proposal, they conducted
seven public hearings throughout the country. The analysis of the sample
results and the comments received in response to the proposal are being
used to assist the agency*s decision- making process in determining what
actions will be taken to respond to the Department*s Inspector General
report about asbestos exposure in Libby. 17 The agency is developing an
options paper to present to the Assistant Secretary for Mine

Safety and Health in April 2003. The options paper will present
alternative methods available to the agency to protect miners from
overexposures to asbestos in mining facilities.

Two agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services are also
taking actions on asbestos- contaminated vermiculite.

 ATSDR. In 2001, the agency began funding states* efforts to identify
communities with excess numbers of asbestos- related diseases that are
located near facilities identified by EPA as having received or processed
Libby vermiculite ore. The agency provided a total of $1.6 million in
grants to nine states in fiscal years 2001 and 2002; these states are to
analyze and

17 U. S. Department of Labor. Office of Inspector General. Evaluation of
MSHA*s Handling of Inspections at the W. R. Grace & Company Mine in Libby,
Montana. Washington, D. C., March 22, 2001. Other Federal Agencies

Also Taking Actions

Page 18 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

report their findings to ATSDR within 3 years. 18 In another study, begun
in 2002, the agency inspected 28 processing facilities that received
vermiculite ore from Libby, which it identified as having the highest
potential for exposure to contaminant asbestos. ATSDR examined processing
facilities that received greater than 100,000 tons of vermiculite ore from
Libby, as well as other processing facilities that EPA identified as
needing further action. According to ATSDR officials, the agency will
begin publishing site- specific public health consultations on their
findings in mid 2003, and, where appropriate, make recommendations for
actions to protect public health. The agency expects to issue a
comprehensive report in 2004. Also, ATSDR provided a grant totaling
$550,000 in 2002 to the Montana State Department of Public Health and
Human Services for continued medical testing of people that were exposed
to high concentrations of asbestos- contaminated vermiculite in Libby.
Additionally, in 2003, ATSDR is developing the Tremolite Asbestos Registry
of persons potentially exposed to asbestos in Libby, primarily to inform
people that may have been exposed to this type of asbestos, as well as to
collect data that can be used in health studies on asbestoscontaminated
vermiculite.  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In response to
a request

by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Centers*
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is examining the
potential for current occupational exposure to contaminant asbestos in
vermiculite at nurseries and processing facilities. The Institute
collected samples at three plant nurseries operated by the Departments of
Agriculture and of Interior, as well as at seven plants that process
domestic and imported vermiculite. The Institute expects to report results
of its analysis in 2003. The Institute is also updating an earlier study,
published in 1987, that documented significant excesses of asbestosis and
lung cancer related to asbestos fiber concentrations in the work
environment at the Libby mining and milling operations. 19 The update,
expected to be completed in 2005, is intended to yield better precision in
quantitatively estimating risk associated with fiber exposure from the
Libby vermiculite. Also, the Institute will publish a fact sheet in 2003
that will provide guidance to workers and employers on the safe handling
of vermiculite or vermiculite- containing products that may be
contaminated 18 The nine states participating in the study are:
California, Colorado, Louisiana,

Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Utah, and Wisconsin. 19
Amandus, H. E., Wheeler, R. (1987): *The Morbidity and Mortality of
Vermiculite Miners and Millers Exposed to Tremolite- Actinolite: Part II.
Mortality.* American Journal of Industrial Medicine 11: 15- 26.

Page 19 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

with asbestos. We provided EPA, the Department of Health and Human
Services, and the Department of Labor with a draft of this report for
review and comment. Both EPA and the Department of Health and Human
Services provided technical comments that we incorporated into the draft
report as appropriate. The Department of Labor did not have any comments
on the draft report.

To determine the history of EPA*s involvement in Libby, Montana, we
obtained administrative records from EPA*s Region 8 Office in Denver,
Colorado. These administrative records contain thousands of documents on
EPA*s actions dealing with asbestos- contaminated vermiculite ore
originating from Libby.

To determine the cost of cleanup in Libby, we obtained cost information
from Region 8 officials and the Department of Justice. EPA and Justice had
assembled these documents for its cost- recovery litigation with the
mine*s owners and other potentially responsible parties.

To determine the status of actions EPA and other federal agencies are
taking to address future exposure to asbestos- contaminated vermiculite,
we collected documentation and interviewed officials from several EPA
offices, including the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, the
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, and the Office of Air and
Radiation. We visited Libby, Montana to interview the EPA official
responsible for oversight of the cleanup at that location. We also
interviewed and collected documentation from officials in EPA*s regional
offices in Chicago, Dallas, and Denver who were responsible for conducting
site inspections at some of the 173 sites that received vermiculite ore
from the Libby mine. We judgmentally selected these regions because,
combined, they accounted for about 50 percent (86) of the 173 sites. To
determine the cost of cleanup at other sites that received Libby
vermiculite ore, we collected documentation and interviewed officials in
EPA*s regional offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, and Philadelphia. We
also interviewed and obtained documentation from officials from other
federal agencies involved in ongoing activities to address potential
exposure to asbestos- contaminated materials at other sites around the
country. These other agencies include the Mine Safety and Health
Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration in the Department of Labor, and the Agency for Toxic Agency
Comments

and Our Evaluation Scope and Methodology

Page 20 GAO- 03- 469 Hazardous Materials

Substances and Disease Registry and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health in the Department of Health and Human
Services.

We conducted our work between June 2002 and February 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this letter. We will send copies of this report to the
Administrator of EPA, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Secretary of the Department of Labor, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties. We will
make copies available to others on request. This report will be available
at no charge on our Web site at http:// www. gao. gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me
at (202) 512- 3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
I.

Sincerely yours, John B. Stephenson Director, Natural Resources and the
Environment

Appendix I: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments Page 21 GAO- 03- 469
Hazardous Materials

John B. Stephenson (202) 512- 3841 Daniel J. Feehan (303) 572- 7352

In addition to those named above, Bernice H. Dawson; Arturo Holguin, Jr.;
Robert E. Kigerl; and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman made key contributions to
this report. Appendix I: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Acknowledgments

(360221)

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select
*Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products* under the
GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to: U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D. C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000

TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202) 512- 6061

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800

U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
C. 20548 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***