GAO-09-6R 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

March 10, 2009 

The Honorable Darrell Issa 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Hazardous Materials: Status of EPA’s Efforts to Assess Sites That May 

Have Received Asbestos-Contaminated Ore from Libby, Montana 

In October 2007, we reported on how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and other federal agencies had assessed and addressed risks at sites that were 

thought to have received asbestos-contaminated ore from a mine located in Libby, 

Montana, and the overall results of these efforts.

1

 As we noted at that time, EPA has 

identified hundreds of sites nationwide that are thought to have received millions of 

tons of the contaminated ore between 1923 and the early 1990s.2

 Figure 1 shows the 

distribution of the 266 sites across the states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 

Rico. In this context, you asked that we provide a database with detailed 

descriptions of EPA’s efforts to assess and address risk at each of the 266 sites that 

have been identified. 

This report provides information that will be helpful in understanding the site 

descriptions in the database, which is provided in a separate report, entitled 

Hazardous Materials: EPA’s Assessment of Sites That May Have Received AsbestosContaminated Ore from Libby, Montana (GAO-09-7SP). For each of the sites that 

EPA had identified, the database provides available information on the site’s location, 

how much ore was shipped to the site, and the type of facility that operated at the 

site, as well as whether EPA visited the site and conducted sampling and what EPA’s 

evaluation showed. The data on the amount of ore received are based on an EPA 

database of W.R. Grace invoices for shipments of vermiculite ore from the Libby mine 

between 1964 and 1990. EPA does not believe it has an invoice for every shipment of 

 

1

GAO, Hazardous Materials: EPA May Need to Reassess Sites Receiving Asbestos-Contaminated Ore from 

Libby, Montana, and Should Improve Its Public Notification Process, GAO-08-71 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 

2007). 

2

GAO’s October 2007 report provided information on 271 sites that EPA had identified for assessment. When 

asked to provide detailed information about each of the sites, EPA determined that 5 of the sites were duplicates. 

Therefore, this report refers to EPA’s assessment of 266 sites. 
Page 2 GAO-09-6R

ore that was made during this time; the database represents only the invoices EPA

was able to collect. For about 28 percent of the sites that are in the database, the 

amount of ore received is unknown. For these reasons, the information on the 

number of sites receiving the contaminated ore and the amount of ore received is

likely to be understated.

Figure 1: Nationwide Distribution of 266 Sites Investigated by EPA for Potential 

Contamination from Asbestos-Contaminated Vermiculite Ore

Verm iculite Sites by State

16 or more

11 to 15

6 to 10

1 to 5

0

3

The cleanups conducted by EPA in Libby, Montana, and the evaluations of the sites that received the

contaminated ore were conducted under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.

As of January 2009, with the assistance of other federal and state agencies, EPA had

evaluated 266 sites thought to have received the asbestos-contaminated ore from the

Libby mine, conducted sampling at 82 sites, and determined that 21 needed to be

The vermiculite ore mined in Libby contained high concentrations of naturally

occurring asbestos. At some of the facilities that received Libby ore, manufacturing 

processes—to produce such products as building insulation, fireproofing material, 

and some gardening products—released the asbestos into the air. Some workers and 

others who inhaled the asbestos fibers developed serious, in some cases fatal, 

asbestos-related respiratory illnesses. As we reported in October 2007, EPA began to 

clean up asbestos contamination in the Libby area in 2000 and to identify and 

evaluate those sites that received the ore to determine if they were contaminated.3

Enclosure I provides an overview of EPA’s process for identifying and assessing sites

thought to have received the asbestos-contaminated ore.

Note: Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are not to scale. 

Sources: EPA (information); Map Resources (map).
Page 3 GAO-09-6R

 

cleaned up (removal actions).4 However, as we reported in October 2007, EPA used 

cleanup standards for the sites that were not health-based, and it had not completed 

an assessment for determining the toxicity of the asbestos in the Libby ore.5

 We also 

found that the sampling and analysis techniques that EPA used at some of the sites 

were limited, and advances in technology have since led to the development of more 

accurate methods.6

 EPA has initiated plans to complete an assessment of the toxicity 

and associated risks of Libby asbestos by the end of fiscal year 2010. 

EPA has also initiated steps to reassess its procedures for collecting data on the 

nature and extent of asbestos contamination at sites, including methods for analyzing 

samples collected. As a part of this effort, in September 2008, EPA issued a 

framework for investigating and characterizing the potential for human exposure 

from asbestos contamination in outdoor soil and indoor dust at CERCLA sites.7

 

Among other things, the framework discusses strategies for performing assessments 

at asbestos sites that are based on the best available science and recommends 

methods for characterizing exposure and risk from asbestos. If and when all of its 

planned actions are completed, EPA should be better able to determine if any of the 

sites that received Libby ore may still pose a risk to public health and need to be 

reevaluated. 

Because of a pending federal criminal case against W.R. Grace (the company that 

owned the Libby vermiculite mine and some of the facilities that processed ore from 

the mine),8

 we designed our methodology to minimize direct contact with EPA staff. 

To obtain information on the status of efforts to assess and address potential risks at 

4

 There are two basic types of cleanup actions: (1) removal actions—generally short-term or emergency cleanups 

to mitigate threats—and (2) remedial actions—generally long-term cleanup activities. 

5

In general, EPA performed a cleanup if sampling results indicated asbestos was present in amounts greater than 1 

percent (based on the percentage area in a microscopic field) in soils or debris or greater than 0.1 asbestos fibers 

per cubic centimeter of air. According to EPA, the “1 percent threshold” for asbestos in soils or debris is not a 

health-based standard, but is rather related to the limit of detection for the analytical methods available during the 

early years of EPA’s asbestos program (early 1970s) and to EPA’s desire to concentrate resources on materials 

containing higher percentages of asbestos. EPA has never determined that materials containing less than 1 

percent asbestos necessarily present an acceptable exposure level, and indeed, scientists have not been able to 

develop a safe level for exposure to airborne asbestos. 

6

EPA used polarized light microscopy (PLM) at most of the sites to visually estimate the percentage of asbestos in 

bulk samples. This type of analysis can distinguish between asbestos and nonasbestos fibers and different types 

of asbestos fibers but cannot reliably detect asbestos in low concentrations. Since EPA began its efforts to assess 

the sites potentially receiving ore from the Libby mine, it has worked with laboratories to refine the PLM 

analytical procedure to achieve detection levels of 0.2 percent. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM), a more 

sensitive analytical method than PLM, was also used at some sites. TEM can distinguish between asbestos and 

nonasbestos fibers and asbestos types. It can be used at higher magnifications, enabling identification of smaller 

asbestos fibers than can be seen by other techniques. However, it is difficult to use this technique to determine 

asbestos concentrations in soil and other bulk material. Also, the TEM analytical procedure typically is more than 

10 times costlier than PLM, a fact that can be a limiting factor in its use. Phase contrast microscopy (PCM), which 

is generally used to measure asbestos fibers in air samples, was used at a few sites. This is the analytical method 

used in many federal programs to evaluate asbestos exposures (e.g., asbestos exposure in mining). PCM has 

limited use because it cannot differentiate between asbestos and nonasbestos fibers. For this reason, it was used 

at some of the sites in combination with TEM. 

7

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), Framework 

for Investigating Asbestos-Contaminated Superfund Sites, OSWER Directive #9200.0-68, (Washington, D.C., 

September 2008). 

8

United States v. W.R. Grace, Crim. No. 05-07, D. Mont., filed Feb. 7, 2005.
If you or your staffs have questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff 

who made major contributions to this report are included in enclosure III.

Page 4 GAO-09-6R

each of the sites identified as potentially receiving the Libby ore, we asked EPA to

review for accuracy and completeness a list of vermiculite sites that we originally 

obtained from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). This

list was largely based on site data that ATSDR had obtained from EPA. For each site, 

the data included the location, type of facility, amount of ore received, and limited 

information on the results of EPA’s evaluation. EPA officials reviewed the list and 

provided comments and clarifications. We also submitted questions in writing to 

EPA to clarify some of the information provided by the agency and EPA provided its

responses in writing.

We conducted this engagement from December 2007 to March 2009 in accordance

with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our 

objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to 

obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objective and to discuss 

any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and 

the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions. 

A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in enclosure

II.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

We provided a draft of this report and the related information on the assessment of

each of the sites to EPA for comment. EPA generally agreed with the information 

presented and provided only technical comments which we incorporated, as

appropriate.

_________________

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report

earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that 

time, we will send copies of this report to interested congressional committees and 

the EPA Administrator, and other interested parties. The report also will be available

at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

Enclosures 

and Environment

John B. Stephenson

Director, Natural Resources
Page 5 GAO-09-6R

Enclosure I

EPA’s Actions to Identify and Evaluate Sites Believed to Have Received 

Asbestos-Contaminated Ore from Libby, Montana

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken a number of actions to 

identify and evaluate sites that may have received asbestos-contaminated vermiculite 

ore from a mine in Libby, Montana, and has carried out removal actions at some of 

the sites. In early 2000, EPA began compiling a list of facilities that might have 

received asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore from the Libby mine. To compile the 

list, it used shipping records and other information obtained from W.R. Grace, as well 

as historical information about vermiculite-processing facilities from the Bureau of 

Mines and the U.S. Geological Survey. 

After coordinating with the U.S. Geological Survey to update and revise the list of 

facilities and eliminate duplicate entries, EPA identified 266 sites that may have 

received the contaminated ore. These sites were located in 40 states, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The most sites were in California (27) and Texas (26). 

EPA has continued to identify sites and, according to EPA, will investigate them as it 

deems necessary. For example, as recently as July 2006, EPA identified 4 additional 

sites (included in the 266) that it needed to assess for asbestos contamination. 

The site data that EPA collected showed that most (95 percent) of the vermiculite ore 

known to have been shipped from Libby between 1964 and 1990 went to facilities that 

converted it into commercial vermiculite through a process called exfoliation 

(expansion). Exfoliation plants heated the vermiculite ore to approximately 2,000 

degrees Fahrenheit, causing the ore to expand, or “pop.” This expanded vermiculite 

was then used in a variety of products, including loose-fill insulation in homes. 

Because significant quantities of asbestos fibers were likely released during the 

exfoliation process, EPA deemed exfoliation plants to be the most likely of the 

facilities that received Libby ore to have caused environmental contamination and 

exposure. 

Because exfoliation facilities were likely to pose the most risk, while conducting site 

investigations, EPA paid particular attention to whether a site had the characteristics 

of an exfoliation plant. For example, vermiculite ore was often delivered to these 

facilities in bulk by railcar. Workers generally used shovels or mechanical equipment 

to unload ore from the railcars and transport it to open stockpiles or enclosed silos 

for storage or to a furnace for exfoliation. After the exfoliation process was 

completed, stoner rock—waste material—remained and might have been placed in a 

dump on the site, offered to workers or the public for gardening and landscaping, or 

disposed of in a landfill off-site. While the vermiculite ore was being handled or 

processed, it could be scattered on the ground in areas where it was unloaded, 

stored, or exfoliated and was recognizable as a shiny, sparkly, mica-like material on 

the ground. Therefore, the presence of railroad spurs, silos, furnaces, waste rock, or 

shiny, sparkly material in the soil was an indication that a site could have been used 

to exfoliate vermiculite ore. 

In their investigation of sites, EPA regions generally tried to determine the facilities’ 

locations using a variety of methods, including title searches; reviews of town 
Page 6 GAO-09-6R

 

records; and interviews with people who might provide useful information, such as 

company representatives or people who formerly worked at the sites. Once they 

identified an accurate address for a site, regional officials performed a preliminary 

assessment to determine current site conditions and gather additional information on 

past operations at the site. These assessments generally included viewing the 

suspected location and its surrounding area and, in some instances, interviewing 

business owners and residents in the immediate vicinity. 

If these initial assessments indicated the need for further examination, the regions 

typically conducted a detailed investigation. This investigation usually consisted of a 

site visit, which included a more thorough inspection of the property and surrounding 

area; additional interviews with people who might be knowledgeable about past 

operations, such as facility representatives; reviews of any relevant and available 

documentation from state and federal agencies; and, if deemed necessary, collection 

of soil and air samples. 

For the sites where the regions decided sampling was warranted, EPA collected 

samples of “bulk” materials (such as raw vermiculite ore, suspected vermiculite 

waste piles, and soils). EPA collected air samples if it was concerned that disturbing 

contaminated materials (in the soil or elsewhere) could send asbestos fibers 

migrating into the air, where it could be inhaled. According to the information EPA 

provided, EPA collected samples of bulk materials and, in some cases air samples, for 

at least 82 (or 31 percent) of the sites.9

 

One of the most important factors that EPA regional offices considered in 

determining whether a site needed to be cleaned up was the amount of asbestos at 

the site. In general, a cleanup would be performed if sampling results indicated that 

asbestos was present in amounts greater than 1 percent (based on the percentage of 

the area of a microscopic field) in soils or debris, or greater than 0.1 asbestos fibers 

per cubic centimeter of air. According to EPA, the “1 percent threshold” for asbestos 

in soils or debris is not a health-based standard, but rather is related to the limit of 

detection for the analytical methods available during the early years of EPA’s 

asbestos program (early 1970s) and to EPA’s desire to concentrate resources on 

materials containing higher percentages of asbestos. EPA has never determined that 

materials containing less than 1 percent asbestos necessarily present an acceptable 

exposure level, and indeed, scientists have not been able to develop a safe level for 

exposure to airborne asbestos.10 Of the sites where EPA confirmed sampling had 

taken place, 25 had levels of asbestos that exceeded the thresholds, 28 had detectable 

9

For 20 sites in Region 4, EPA’s files did not contain sufficient documentation to determine definitively if sampling 

had taken place. 

10After reviewing a draft of this report, EPA suggested that GAO use the term “acceptable risk” when describing 

exposure levels to asbestos. Regulations implementing the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. use the term “acceptable 

exposure level” in describing cleanup goals for addressing risks posed by systemic toxicants or known or 

suspected carcinogens. 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(e) (2). Therefore, where this report describes EPA’s actions related to 

assessments under CERCLA of risks posed by asbestos, we have used the term “acceptable exposure level.” 
Page 7 GAO-09-6R

 

levels of asbestos that were below the thresholds (trace amounts, or less than 1 

percent), and 27 had no detectable levels of asbestos. 11

After reviewing the sampling results and other pertinent information collected about 

the sites, EPA—and in some instances states—identified 21 sites where 

contamination from the asbestos in Libby ore needed to be cleaned up. With the 

exception of 1 site, all of the sites that were cleaned up had levels of asbestos in soils 

that exceeded the 1 percent threshold.12 For the one exception, a site located in Salt 

Lake City, all of the soil samples contained trace amounts of asbestos (less than 1 

percent). However, after raking the ground and using a leaf blower, EPA collected air 

samples that showed elevated levels of asbestos fibers exceeding the threshold of 0.1 

asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of air. As a result, EPA determined this site 

needed to be cleaned up as well. 

11For one site in Region 5, sampling results were unavailable because the site file was lost. For one site in Region 

6, sampling occurred in November 2008 but the results were not available before our work was completed. 

12Five sites had asbestos contamination in excess of the 1 percent threshold but were not cleaned up under 

CERCLA. For one of those sites, located near Center, North Dakota, residual contamination was limited to a 

hopper used to process vermiculite ore. According to company officials, Libby ore was used for a 28-day trial 

period in the early 1980s and has not been used since. The company agreed to have trained asbestos workers 

remove the residual vermiculite from the hopper, and Region 8 officials decided no further action was needed. 

For a site in Brutus, New York, after a review by a regional risk assessor and the EPA official in charge of the 

project, EPA decided that the site was not eligible for cleanup under CERCLA. For a site located in Dallas, Texas, 

although one sample in the furnace room contained 2 percent asbestos, because there were no vermiculite waste 

piles on the site, EPA decided not to perform a cleanup. EPA may reassess this site. For another site located in 

Billerica, Massachusetts, the asbestos found was predominately chrysotile asbestos, a type of asbestos not found 

in Libby ore. EPA decided a cleanup was not needed but may reassess this site again. Lastly, for a site located in 

Edgewater, New Jersey, EPA also found high levels of chrysotile asbestos. Since the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection was taking lead responsibility for cleaning up this site, EPA took no further action.
Page 8 GAO-09-6R

Enclosure II

Scope and Methodology

Because of a pending federal criminal case against W.R. Grace (the company that 

owned the Libby vermiculite mine and some of the facilities that processed ore from 

the mine),13 we designed our methodology to minimize direct contact with EPA staff. 

Accordingly, we obtained most of the information we needed about EPA’s 

assessments of the sites that were believed to have received asbestos-contaminated 

Libby ore by submitting questions to EPA in writing; the agency provided written 

responses. We did not further pursue access to this information because we had 

sufficient data to respond to our objective. 

To describe the process EPA generally followed to identify and evaluate sites, we 

used information from our October 2007 report on contaminated vermiculite.14 To 

describe the status of EPA’s efforts to assess and address potential risks at each of 

the facilities thought to have received asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore from 

the Libby mine, we obtained a table of sites that had potentially received 

contaminated ore from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency 

for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). This table was largely based on 

data that ATSDR had received from EPA about each of the sites. The table included, 

for each site, the location, type of facility, and limited information on the status of 

EPA’s assessments of the sites as of April 2003. The table also included information 

on the amount of ore received as of April 2001. For our previous report on 

contaminated vermiculite, we asked EPA to verify, update, and complete the 

information in the table. The information was last updated in May 2007. To develop 

the database of sites, we asked EPA to review the table of sites and update it as 

needed. We also submitted written questions to clarify the data in the table. Through 

correspondence, we obtained EPA’s comments and clarifications about the site data 

and responses to our written questions.15

We also collected and analyzed relevant documentation about the sites from EPA’s 

Superfund record centers, which are public repositories, and analyzed health 

consultation reports that ATSDR prepared for 28 of the sites. To the extent possible, 

we used the information from the record centers and the health consultations to 

verify and supplement the site information EPA provided. However, we did not 

attempt to independently verify the site information provided by EPA. 

We conducted this engagement from December 2007 to March 2009 in accordance 

with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our 

objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to 

obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objective and to discuss 

 

13United States v. W.R. Grace, Crim. No. 05-07, D. Mont., filed Feb. 7, 2005. 

14GAO-08-71. 

15During our previous work on contaminated vermiculite, we submitted a set of questions to EPA to assess the 

reliability of the site information, focusing mainly on the data about the amount of ore received by each site. On 

the basis of EPA’s responses regarding the accuracy and completeness of the information in the table of sites, we 

determined the data are adequate to provide conservative estimates of the amount of ore received by each site. 
Page 9 GAO-09-6R

any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and 

the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions. 
Page 10 GAO-09-6R

Enclosure III

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Steve Elstein (Assistant Director), Alice 

Feldesman, Richard Johnson, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, and Lisa Turner made key 

contributions to this report.

(360917) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability 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 GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs