Questions arise about EPA activities, plans

Environmental Protection Agency officials were in Libby this week to attend a public forum to discuss the institutional controls included in the agency’s proposed plan for the Libby Superfund site. Although less than a dozen private citizens attended the forum, the conversation was animated at times as tempers flared about not only the proposed plan, but also the agency’s actions in Libby during the past 15 years.

Before the meeting could begin in earnest, a small group of residents questioned the timing of the discussion. One resident asked why the community was beginning to discuss institutional controls when the active cleanup of the site wasn’t near completion.

Lincoln County Asbestos Resource Program manager Nick Raines said the community really doesn’t have a choice in tackling the issue of institutional controls now, since the proposal is out there and the comment period has opened.

“The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed the institutional controls, so we need to get feedback,” Raines said. “Whether or not they should have made the proposal isn’t the issue. It’s out there, so we have to deal with it.”

Another participant said the entire Superfund cleanup was a government conspiracy, citing his knowledge of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, through it’s various incarnations and names.

Libby resident and candidate for City Council, D.C. Orr, questioned the commitment of the agencies to a transparent process, saying that not enough notice was given for the meetings. He pressed Raines for the exact dates of notices posted in local news outlets.

Raines said the forum was advertised by the E.P.A. and that residents were invited to attend by the Asbestos Resource Program during interviews and at other group meetings. The meeting was advertised in the June 26 and June 30 editions of The Western News.

After other attendees expressed their desire for Raines to continue his presentation and handle questions and comments afterward, Raines began to present the data gained from nearly 50 interviews of local residents.

Asbestos Resource Program staff conducted 20 one-on-one interviews and spoke with an additional 28 people in various group settings. As Raines began to present the interview results, Orr again questioned him, asking for the names of the people interviewed. Raines, citing promises of confidentiality, said he would not release the names of the people interviewed.

Orr pushed Raines, asking why the public should trust what he was reporting, as agency officials have lied to the people of Libby in the past. He said former project manager Ted Leinert had told several lies to the people of Libby during his time on the project.

“We promised confidentiality,” Raines said. “We’re not going to release names. You can’t verify it, you’ll just have to choose whether or not to believe it.”

Following the interruption, Raines presented the results of the interviews.

He said the general comments most often received by interviewers related to funding and details. Project Manager Rebecca Thomas said the proposal was intentionally vague in order to allow the agency greater flexibility to make changes during the operation and maintenance phase of the project. The specific details of the controls are less important, she said, than the goals and results.

Raines said the proposal was more of a framework.

“It’s meant to present a general framework of the idea for institutional controls,” Raines said. “And what they might look like.”

Raines quoted one of the anonymous survey respondents, who said the lack of details made it hard to offer comment on the proposal.

“It’s hard to provide meaningful feedback on something so vague,” the respondent said.

Raines said there were five proposed control ideas with broad support from the respondents.

First, the maintenance of a local asbestos support program, such as the Lincoln County Asbestos Program, was thought to be necessary. The program would provide information and support referrals for people dealing with asbestos and asbestos-related issues following the agency’s departure from Libby.

“This is an essential program that should stay with the county or local control. This is very important,” an interviewee said.

The second publicly supported control was an educational program focused on the identification of vermiculite and the dangers of asbestos contamination. While details were vague, Raines said this is something currently being done by the Lincoln County Asbestos Resource Program and something that would likely remain a part of whatever support program was finally implemented as part of the long-term site management strategy.

The respondents also supported continuation of notifications for asbestos under the U-Dig program. Contractors or property owners can contact U-Dig for information about buried utilities on their properties prior to any excavation or construction activities. Those calls are currently referred to the Asbestos Resource Program and staff responds with any available information about asbestos on the property.

Also part of the current regimen of controls, and supported for long-term purposes, is the requirement that anyone working on property with a Montana Department of Transportation right of way be required to obtain a permit.

Raines said the people interviewed also supported, in general terms, updating city and county ordinances and regulations, especially with relation to building and construction. Updated ordinances, they said, should reflect the dangers of disturbing Libby amphibole asbestos.

Three other proposed controls were flatly rejected by those interviewed.

Respondents expressed opposition to notices being attached to the official property records.

“Notices should be separate, not on the permanent record” one respondent said. “Because you cannot change it if the status changes.”

Those interviewed said widespread public advisories should be educational only, not cautionary.

The idea of an open space recreation initiative also raised the concern of those questioned. Residents were concerned that any control over open spaces could be used as an excuse to deny access to the forest and recreation areas in the future.

Raines said the survey respondents supported two other ideas, in general terms, but both required more detail and design work. The two proposals involve the creation of a property status database, allowing members of the public to check on the investigation and clean-up status of properties. They also supported some form of contractor certification for topics of asbestos identification and remediation.

Raines ended the meeting with offers for any interested residents to contact his office to schedule an interview and provide their own feedback on the issues of institutional controls.

The public comment period on the agency’s proposed plan is scheduled to close Aug. 7.