EPA releases vague institutional controls

Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency provided the first  look at the property restrictions and other regulations to be imposed upon the citizens of Lincoln County once the agency packs up and leaves. However, the vaguely-worded document created more questions than answers about the agency’s long-term plans for Libby.

The restrictions, known as institutional controls are rules and restrictions implemented by the agency in conjunction with state and local governments designed to manage risk related to contaminated materials left behind.

EPA guidance documents define institutional controls as “non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal controls, that help to minimize the potential for exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of a response action.”

The list of possible alternatives was provided to attendees at the meeting of the Technical and Citizens Advisory groups Tuesday evening, but only on the condition that the lists be returned at the conclusion of the meeting and that no copies be made. A request made to Rebecca Thomas, the agency’s project manager for Libby, resulted in the release of a list of the agency’s preferred combination of institutional controls, but a follow-up request for specific information about those controls went unanswered as of press time.

The members of the advisory groups determined the proposals for institutional controls and garnering public comment and feedback about the various options was of paramount concern, and committed their support to the efforts of the Lincoln County Asbestos Resource Program to help disseminate information and help arrange one-on-one interviews with concerned citizens about their preferred alternatives and concerns.

The responsibility for that outreach, according to agency representatives at the meeting, will fall on the shoulders of the Asbestos Resource Program. Program manager Nick Raines said his team is prepared to undertake the outreach and gather the feedback.

The first item on the list of preferred controls is the creation of an asbestos support program, which has already been implemented in the form of the Lincoln County Asbestos Resource Program. The program is under the auspices of the Lincoln County Department of Environmental Health.

The program is currently funded under a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency, but the grant is scheduled to end December 2016. Raines said he is currently negotiating with the agency to extend the grant funding through the end of the active phase of the clean-up operations, which is anticipated to end within the next three to five years. The program budget is roughly $400,000 per year.

“The budget is slightly more than $400,000 per year. Right now it’s fully funded by the Environmental Protection Agency. No county or state money is involved,” Raines said.

The second proposed control is listed as “permit for disturbance of soil or building materials.” No specifics were provided about this alternative.

The agency has publicly stated, on numerous occasions, some material will be left behind. That material, presumably, is contamination left sealed inside walls and buried under soil at depths of more than six inches. This proposed control may be a requirement that any digging projects resulting in the disturbance of buried material or remodeling projects that involve opening previously sealed walls or ceilings require some sort of permit from city or county government.

The third item is contractor certification. This presumably would involve requiring contractors to complete training about detections, removal and disposal of asbestos-contaminated materials.

The State of Montana has an asbestos control program which includes contractor accreditation. In order to become accreditated, contractors must complete an initial EPA- or Montana-approved training course, complete the Montana Accreditation Application and pay the applicable fee.

The preferred alternative list also includes an educational program for managing exposure to asbestos. Lincoln County’s Asbestos Resource Program provides educational materials and information about asbestos exposure, as well as risk mitigation strategies. It is unclear what, if any, expansion of these efforts the agency is proposing.

The agency also listed the UDIG program as a preferred institutional control. The Montana UDIG program is a public information service people can use to pinpoint buried utility lines prior to digging in order to avoid accidental interference with utilities. How asbestos information could be integrated into this service was not clarified in the list provided by Thomas.

Members of the advisory groups, along with County Commissioner Mark Peck and Asbestos Resource Program Manager Nick Raines, also discussed the creation and maintenance of a property status database, which could include the publication of the addresses of properties not inspected and/or not cleaned by the agency during the active clean-up phase.

The document provided also listed “MDT encroachment permit,” “open space recreation initiative,” “public nuisance initiative,” “property notices” and “advisories,” all with no additional clarification.

The groups discussed the potential long-term complications arising from uninspected and uncleaned properties in the future. One of those concerns stemmed from the public health risk created by contamination being blown into one yard from a neighboring property where the owner elected not to participate in the inspection and cleaning process.

“If people don’t do this now, if they don’t clean up, what are the implications,” Dr. Brad Black asked. Black runs the Center for Asbestos Related Diseases in Libby and serves on the Technical Advisory Group.

The potential conflict between public safety and individual property rights was also discussed. The group went back and forth with questions about what kind of individual property restrictions might be justified in the protection of public health, especially in cases in which a documented hazard does not exist because property owners had refused inspections.

None of those questions were addressed in the information provided by the agency this week.

The proposed institutional controls are included in the feasibility study and proposed remedy for the Libby Superfund site, which has been submitted to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for concurrence. Jeni Flatow, the public information officer for the department, said they have reviewed the plan and provided comments to EPA, but could release neither the plan nor the comments.

“There is a confidentiality agreement we have with the Environmental Protection Agency because it is a draft document,” Flatow said in response to a request for additional information.

Raines acknowledged the vague nature of the preferred combination of alternatives and the difficulty is poses in obtaining public input.

“It’s still very nebulous,” he said. “There’s not a lot of information and that makes it hard to get feedback.”

Raines said the agency’s plan is to leave the options vague during the remedy proposal process and to flesh out the details after the record of decision is entered and the clean-up moves into the remedial design phase.

A message left for Thomas to confirm Raines’ statement also went unreturned as of press time.

Thomas said at the meeting the agency will be conducting a series of workshops in the Libby area focused on institutional controls and what those may look like in the final site remedy.

The proposed plan is tentatively scheduled for release May 8, which triggers a 60-day public comment period. Upon reviewing the comments received, the Environmental Protection Agency will issue a record of decision for the official remedy plan. Thomas said she expects the record of decision to come late this year, but no firm date has been established.