City, EPA views differ on cleanup
Libby City Council presented a professional design of its future plans for the old export plant during Monday’s meeting, a week after the Environmental Protection Agency released its proposed cleanup plan for the site.
The city doesn’t believe that its plans to expand Riverfront Park into the site’s undeveloped area correspond with the EPA’s four cleanup proposals. The EPA prefers a combination of two alternatives, which would involve cleaning deep utility corridors and other planned excavations, covering some areas with pavement or new soil and sod, and removing up to 12 inches of contaminated surface soil in other areas.
“That is an unacceptable alternative,” Mayor Doug Roll said. “That is the position that the city is taking at this point. I didn’t see anything there (in the proposed plan) that even comes close to what we need to have done.”
Roll added, “It doesn’t provide the needed protection for the health of the community.”
The city held a few strategy meetings with its attorney, Allan Payne, on the matter, Roll said. The comment period for the proposed plan began last Wednesday and will end Oct. 16, unless it is extended by formal request. EPA officials had planned to speak at Monday’s city council meeting but missed the deadline to be on the agenda, Roll said.
Rebecca Thomas, project manager for the EPA, said that the goal in the proposed plan was to allow a remedy that will fit with the future use of the site. The EPA can use a pavement cover where the city wants future parking, for example, and excavate up to five feet deep where the city wants utilities.
“We’re trying to be as flexible as possible in working with the city,” Thomas said. “They’ve expressed interest in re-developing it … so we’re trying to be accommodating and do something in the remedy that allows maximum flexibility.”
The EPA is only looking at a general plan to break the exposure path in this phase, said Victor Ketellapper, Libby team leader for the EPA. After a record of decision is reached, the EPA said it would work closely with the city to come up with a more detailed cleanup design that matches the site’s future use.
Councilmember Peggy Williams acknowledges that with any method of cleanup, institutional controls will have to be established, but believes that asbestos should be removed past 12 inches.
“There will probably always be restrictions on deep digs. We’ll always have to be careful about that,” Williams said. “But my opinion is that we should not be worried about putting a canopy up for a concert and worry that it will break through that cap.”
The city has worked with the EPA for months to determine how the property should be cleaned to best reflect the future development plans for the site.
“Their preferred alternative is basically just a cap, which is exactly what they told us the beginning of the year,” Roll said, “and we told Rebecca (Thomas) then that it is unacceptable.”
Ketellapper and Thomas both pointed out that they hope all concerns from the community come up during the public comment period so that the EPA can produce a remedy that works.
“If the city has concerns about the general proposals, there’s an opportunity for them to provide an official comment,” Ketellapper said. “That’s what the public comment period is all about.”
All four of the proposed alternatives will involve institutional controls to ensure the exposure path isn’t broken. After a record of decision is reached, five-year site reviews will determine whether or not a remedy continues to be protective of human health.
The EPA also released this week the proposed cleanup plan for the former screening plant. Both proposals will be discussed at a public meeting on Monday, Sept. 28, from 7-9 p.m. at the Little Theatre.
In other city news:
• Sgt. Jim Smith has agreed to continue as acting police chief through the spring to give the city time to find a permanent replacement.
• The police officer that the city hired two weeks ago to fill one of two open positions received a call Friday that he has been recalled to serve in the Army. As a result, there are still two open full-time patrol officer positions.
The EPA’s proposed cleanup plan for the former export plant site
The cleanup includes:
• The city-owned land between Kootenai River to the north, Highway 37 to the east and the railroad tracks to the south. Part of the property makes up Riverfront Park.
• The embankments of City Service Road and Highway 37 adjacent to the city property.
EPA’s proposed alternatives:
Alternative 3a
• In-place containment of asbestos-contaminated soil. Depending on the city’s future plans for the site, areas may be covered with concrete or clean cover soil and sod.
Alternative 3b
• Removal of asbestos-contaminated soil in utility corridors (up to five feet) and other planned excavations (for example, building footings) under a designated future land use plan.
• In-place containment of asbestos-contaminated surface soil for the rest of the site.
Alternative 4a
• Removal of 12 inches of contaminated surface soil that would be backfilled with clean soil.
Alternative 4b
• Removal of asbestos-contaminated soil in utility corridors (up to five feet) and other planned excavations (i.e. building footings) under a designated future land use plan.
• Removal of up to 12 inches of contaminated surface soil for the rest of the site that would be backfilled with clean soil.
EPA’s prefers a combination of 3b and 4a – utility corridors and other planned excavations, in-place containment in some areas and removal of 12 inches of contaminated surface soil in other areas.