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 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 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 Holguín,
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: