Robinson Insulation Company, 12 Street N and River Drive, Great Falls, Montana
Table of Contents || Return to Map || Return to State Listing

EPA
Region		 Location of facility Type of facility Amount
of ore
received
(in tons)		 Did
EPA
visit
the
site?		 Were
samples
taken?		 Results of
evaluation
8 12 Street N and River Drive, Great Falls, Montana Former exfoliation facility 34,013 Yes-November 27, 2001 Yes According to an EPA database compiled from W.R. Grace shipping invoices, 34,013 tons of vermiculite ore from the Libby mine were shipped to this site between April 1967 and November 1988. On February 11, 2000, representatives of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality performed a visual inspection of this site and did not find any evidence of vermiculite. At that time, the site was being used as a lumber yard. Montana DEQ did not collect samples during that visit. On November 27, 2001, EPA officials returned to inspect the site. At the time of EPA's visit, the same wholesale lumber company occupied the site. The property was bounded by a major street and a railroad line. Some residences were a few blocks away. EPA interviewed the owner of the lumber company, who was knowledgeable about Robinson's history, and also a former worker at the Robinson plant. EPA learned that Robinson Insulation began operations at the site in the fall of 1936. At that time, the facility had consisted of an office and a warehouse. Vermiculite from the Libby mine was delivered to the plant in railcars on a rail spur that ended at the insulation plant. The vermiculite was fed into a furnace for expansion and the company used the vermiculite to manufacture Zonolite insulation, Monokote spray-on fireproofing, and gardening products such as Ready-Earth vermiculite mix. Robinson ceased operations around 1987. At the time of EPA's visit, the original warehouse had been torn down and only the office building remained. A new warehouse had been built for the lumber company. The property was almost completely paved except for some landscaped areas around the office building. Since vermiculite operations ceased at the plant, the street on the north side of the property and the rail spur had been completely re-routed and restructured. The only exposed ground that EPA saw was around the office building. Vermiculite was visible around the bottom of the door frame of the office building. EPA collected one sample of this material and found it contained less than 1-percent asbestos. EPA found a vault inside the office building that was lined with vermiculite, which was leaking out of the vault. EPA collected a sample of this material and found it did not contain detectable levels of asbestos. These samples were analyzed using polarized light microscopy (PLM). The owner said he would caulk the openings around the safe that were allowing the vermiculite to escape. EPA did not see any other exposed vermiculite on the property. The owner said there had been a "soft spot" of waste material near the rail spur that had been dug up and disposed of. Further sampling was conducted in April 2002 and a total of 31 surface and subsurface soil samples were collected, specifically, samples were collected along the railroad line, current and former railroad spurs, and areas adjacent to the location of the former processing plant. Nine of the 15 soil samples collected from the railroad line had less than 1-percent asbestos; the remaining 6 samples did not have any detectable levels of asbestos. Three of the 5 soil samples collected from the former rail spur had less than 1-percent asbestos; the remaining 2 samples did not have any detectable levels of asbestos. Five of the remaining 11 soil samples collected at the site contained less than 1-percent asbestos and the other 6 had no detectable levels of asbestos. All 31 samples were analyzed using PLM. On the basis of the sampling results, EPA concluded that the area of exposed asbestos was limited and partially fenced in and that the residences were restricted from exposure by the fencing and therefore no further action was needed. It also noted if new information was found or the facility's usage changed, the site might need to be reevaluated.

GAO-09-6R