This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-469 
entitled 'Hazardous Materials: EPA's Cleanup of Asbestos in Libby, 
Montana, and Related Actions to Address Asbestos-Contaminated 
Materials' which was released on May 15, 2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

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. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to the Honorable
Denny Rehberg, House of Representatives:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

April 2003:

Hazardous Materials:

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

Hazardous Materials:

GAO-03-469:

GAO Highlights:

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

Why GAO Did This Study:

Between 1979 and 1998, the number of deaths in Libby, Montana from asbestosisa lung disease that progressively restricts breathing and can be fatalwas 40 to 80 times higher than the average for the United States. Vermiculite orecontaining high concentrations of asbestoswas mined at Libby between 1923 and 1990, and accounted for most of the worlds 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 Agencys (EPA) involvement in Libby prior to the agencys initiation of cleanup actions in 1999, the status and costs of EPAs cleanup in Libby, and other actions EPA and other federal agencies are taking to address exposure to asbestos-contaminated materials.

What GAO Found:

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.

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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.

[End of figure]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

EPA Was Aware of Potential Health Risks Before 1999, but Other Factors, 
Including Higher Priorities, Prevented Action:

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

EPA and Other Agencies Have Activities Underway to Address Exposure to 
Asbestos-Contaminated Material Cleanup in Libby:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Scope and Methodology:

Appendix I: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

Tables:

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

Figures:

Figure 1: Vermiculite Ore Processing Sites Requiring Cleanup:

Abbreviations:

ATSDR: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry:

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

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 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.

Results in Brief:

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 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.

Background:

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 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.

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.

EPA Was Aware of Potential Health Risks Before 1999, but Other Factors, 
Including Higher Priorities, Prevented Action:

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

In 1978, EPA learned that workers at a chemical fertilizer plant in 
Marysville, Ohio, were exhibiting symptoms of asbestos-related 
diseases.[Footnote 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 asbestos-contaminated vermiculite, and the products 
containing asbestos-contaminated vermiculite.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 3]

* In August 1982, EPA concluded that there were significant adverse 
health effects associated with past occupational exposure to asbestos-
contaminated vermiculite, probably through airborne fibers, at the 
Marysville plant.[Footnote 4],[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 8] In March 1987, EPA concluded 
that vermiculite was one of five materials that had a high possibility 
of containing asbestos.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 10]

In 1991 EPA determined that the weight of evidence for asbestos-
contaminated vermiculite was sufficient to show a causal relationship 
for increased lung cancer in miners and millers.[Footnote 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 Air Act Amendments, which required it to 
examine almost 200 air pollutants.

State Investigated Citizen Complaints in 1992 and 1994 Concerning 
Asbestos-Contaminated Vermiculite:

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.

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

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. These participants were referred to their physicians for 
further diagnosis and treatment.[Footnote 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 asbestos-
contaminated 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 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.[Footnote 13] Early estimates indicate that there are about 
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 
asbestos-contaminated 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 Other Agencies Have Activities Underway to Address Exposure to 
Asbestos-Contaminated Material Cleanup in Libby:

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 Is Taking Actions on Multiple Fronts:

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.[Footnote 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.

Figure 1: Vermiculite Ore Processing Sites Requiring Cleanup:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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.

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

Location: Denver, Colorado; Tons of Libby vermiculite ore processed: 
100,415; [Empty]; Current use of existing facilities: Corn syrup 
production plant; Range of asbestos concentrations at site: Up to 12 
percent; Estimated cleanup costs: $150,000.

Location: Wilder, Kentucky; Tons of Libby vermiculite ore processed: 
222,110; [Empty]; Current use of existing facilities: Repair and 
maintenance shop; Range of asbestos concentrations at site: Up to 5 
percent; Estimated cleanup costs: 1,400,000.

Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota; Tons of Libby vermiculite ore 
processed: 118,465; [Empty]; Current use of existing facilities: Prison 
furniture and security equipment factory; and 260 residential homes in 
the area[A]; Range of asbestos concentrations at site: Up to 20 
percent; Estimated cleanup costs: 4,201,607.

Location: Minot, North Dakota[B]; Tons of Libby vermiculite ore 
processed: 14,000; [Empty]; Current use of existing facilities: City 
and community group storage facility; Range of asbestos concentrations 
at site: Up to 12 percent; Estimated cleanup costs: 1,180,000.

Location: New Castle, Pennsylvania; Tons of Libby vermiculite ore 
processed: 172,140; [Empty]; Current use of existing facilities: Vacant 
property; Range of asbestos concentrations at site: Up to 3 percent; 
Estimated cleanup costs: 500,000.

Location: Total; Tons of Libby vermiculite ore processed: [Empty]; 
[Empty]; Current use of existing facilities: [Empty]; Range of asbestos 
concentrations at site: [Empty]; Estimated cleanup costs: $7,431,607.

Source: EPA (data) and GAO (analysis).

[A] EPA completed cleanup of factory site in 2001.

[B] EPA completed cleanup in 2002.

[End of table]

* 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 interagency asbestos group,[Footnote 
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.[Footnote 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 asbestos exposure; and different 
methods used to analyze asbestos. EPA expects to issue a final report 
with recommendations by April 2003.

Other Federal Agencies Also Taking Actions:

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 take-
home 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.[Footnote 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 report their findings to ATSDR within 3 
years.[Footnote 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 
asbestos-contaminated 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. 
[Footnote 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 with asbestos.
:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

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.

Scope and Methodology:

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 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:

[Signed by John B. Stephenson:

[End of section]

Appendix I: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

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

Acknowledgments:

In addition to those named above, Bernice H. Dawson; Arturo Holgun, 
Jr.; Robert E. Kigerl; and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman made key 
contributions to this report.

FOOTNOTES

[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.

[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.

[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.)

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the 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.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

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 full-text 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.

Order by Mail or Phone:

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:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

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: