Asa Wood demolition hits a snag

Libby School District’s plans to raze about two-fifths of the former Asa Wood Elementary School has hit a snag this week as it has received word the walls contaminated with asbestos can be cleaned without their destruction.

Superintendent K.W. Maki received a letter dated March 7, 2012, from Bill Murray, the director of the Superfund Remedial Response Program in Denver, informing him that an engineering evaluation of the building found that “(asbestos) can be safely removed from the (school).”

Murray writes the EPA also evaluated alternatives for addressing the contamination. The options that were evaluated ranged from demolition of the West Wing/Library to targeted removal of contamination from the impacted areas.

“The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) standards, which are applicable to EPA’s cleanup actions in Libby, require that asbestos-containing material is removed from a building before it is demolished,” Murray writes.

“Based on the EPA’s engineering evaluation, the (asbestos) can be safely removed from the Asa Wood School. Therefore, EPA’s response is limited to the removal of the (asbestos) and will not include complete demolition of the portion of the school identified in your letter,” Murray writes.

Maki, whose plans for the school included downsizing it to reduce utility and maintenance costs, admittedly was disappointed.

“It’s a little bump in the road,” Maki said Tuesday morning, about 14 hours after he provided a copy of the letter in Board members’ packets.

“I don’t think it’s something that we can’t smooth out. All we’re looking for is a little help from the EPA,” he said.

However, Mike Cirian, the Onsite Remedial Project Manager for the EPA, was clear about the project and the limitations.

“We’re bound by the NESHAP guidelines. If we can get the asbestos out without demolishing the walls, that’s what we’ll do. We have to answer to taxpayers for every dollar we spend. If we don’t need to take the walls down to remove the asbestos, we won’t.”

Cirian would not discuss costs of the project, as he said revealing that would disclose figures that another company could use in the demolition bidding process, if that’s what the district pursues. However, he did say just removing the asbestos was more cost-effective than demolition.

“I can’t tell you the costs, but I can tell you this: Demolition is about twice the cost of just the removal,” Cirian said.

Pondering the district’s options, Maki said he will further update the board during its April meeting, giving members insight as to the position they want to pursue.

“We still have some options,” Maki said.