EPA uses new procedure for cleanup at park

The Environmental Protection Agency has implemented a procedural change to clean up Riverfront Park and the former export plant in what the agency identifies as Operable Unit 1.

With asbestos exposure spurring the EPA to use emergency response and removal policies, members of the Community Advisory Group put up red flags when a remedial action is taken on an area that may not pose an immediate health risk.

“The trigger at OU1 was not the low-level exposures that we measured on site, rather our understanding that because it was a processing area, there are high concentrations of vermiculite product buried under the ground there,” said Chris Weis, EPA toxicologist.

Weis made the recommendation for the qualitative assessment because the EPA would have had to unearth material which “created a health risk.”

“We know the material is bad, let’s take a common sense approach and let’s do something about it,” Weis said.

Most proposed that the EPA cleanup actions include quantitative data, or raw numbers from sampling, to determine the risk assessment.

The qualitative Record of Decision, or ROD, was the only choice at Riverfront Park, according to Kathy Hernandez, EPA operable units regional project manager. She said the cleanup is not time critical and the area is seven acres of non-residential, city-owned property which can feasibly be capped. 

Hernandez said the ROD is beneficial to the community because it allows comments to be on record, is more protective and if there is another remedy, the project can be reopened.

Public review of the plan, the entire administrative record, and public comment for the remedial action at Riverfront Park and the export plant, are scheduled for this coming February. The comment period lasts 30 days with the option for extension. Cleanup is currently slated for July to October of next year.

Gordon Sullivan, former technical advisor for Libby, said the procedural change from removal to remedial was sprung upon the community. He expressed concern that the community is not informed.

“We don’t want the material to come to the surface; it is our understanding that the city will be building a recreational area out there,” Weis said. “Any further invasive action out there will be done in such a way that the cap the EPA puts on is preserved and any material unearthed is dealt with appropriately.”

Sullivan said the EPA is “responding to the need of the city to use this property, that is the justification. I understand the safety element of capping this property … why we can’t continue to function under the same emergency response, meet the city’s needs and avoid a lesser qualitative risk assessment.

“If (EPA) just wants to ram a ROD down someone’s throat, this is the best way to do it,” Sullivan added. “I think the EPA has sprung the idea of a ROD on this community because we are vulnerable, we are not prepared for it, and you are taking advantage of us.”

Libby project manager Mike Cirian said ROD is not a new process – reflecting on conversations he believes occurred during public meetings in November 2005.

Hernandez said the “process on OU1 is a positive experience for this community, because you are dealing with a qualitative risk assessment so it is not going to set a precedent on other OUs. You can see how the process works so you are more prepared for RODs in the future that do have qualitative risk assessments.”

CAG member D.C. Orr said on the contrary, “this action is precedent setting.” He speculates that if this ROD has success, it will become the “flawed” procedure for future EPA action and hold “legal ramifications by eliminating the ability to litigate.” 

Fellow CAG member Dr. Brad Black asked why the EPA would use a qualitative study when ultimately they will need to do a quantitative.

“There is a real issue within the community of not understanding the process, it is another point of confusion,” Black said.

“We know the material contains asbestos, rather than spend a lot of money making those measurements, we did a qualitative assessment to say we want to trigger an action here,” Weis said.