EPA comment period ends Aug. 7

The official public comment period for the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed plan for Libby ends Aug. 7. Agency officials said few comments have been received so far, but they anticipate more during the final week of the formal process.

“We have received comments so far from about half a dozen citizens,” said the agency’s community involvement coordinator Jennifer Lane. “We expect the majority of comments to arrive next week. After the comment period closes, EPA will develop a responsiveness summary to respond to all the comments.”

In order to help facilitate more public input on the proposed plan, the Lincoln County Asbestos Resource Program staff has been conducting interviews with a number of area residents. Program staff have interviewed more than 50 people in individual and small-group settings, program manager Nick Raines said.

“We have conducted an additional five interviews since the July 15 meeting, bringing the current total to 25 individuals and 28 people in group meetings,” Raines said. “We have six more interviews scheduled, or tentatively scheduled, yet this week and hope for more. We will be concluding interviews at the end of the day Tuesday to give us some time to prepare the final submittal to EPA before the end of the public comment period on Friday.”

The interviews take between 40 and 90 minutes each, Raines said, depending upon the interviewee. Raines said it is important for as many people as possible to be involved in the process as the decisions being made will have lasting ramifications for the people living within the Superfund boundaries.

“We will be conducting interviews Tuesday and want to hear from anyone and everyone willing to share feedback about the proposed plan,” Raines said. “We may even be able to stretch it into Wednesday. We would like the community to know that their input on the proposed plan is critical. This is especially true for institutional controls as they will likely have long-term impacts on property owners, contractors and potentially everyone who lives, works and plays in south Lincoln County.”

Some area residents, however, question the interview process and the validity of the comments received through it.

“You might inquire with other agencies like the Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the state Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Natural Resources and Conservation or ask Region Eight for a list of other times they have allowed anonymous comments on anything,” said Libby resident and former technical advisor Gordon Sullivan. “You might be surprised. Additionally, when was the last time you attended a meeting to gather formal federal information when those comments weren’t electronically recorded?”

Christie St. Clair, with the agency’s office of public affairs, would not say whether or not anonymous comments are allowed under existing federal guidelines for proposed remedies and would not cite any relevant federal guidance on the subject. However, during the agency’s previous visit to the area for the purpose of soliciting public comment, court reporters were on hand to document the comments received.

Former Libby City Council member and current candidate D.C. Orr said the entire process has been designed to achieve the desired result and to shut the public out of the process.

“The interview process is a study in social marketing, as presented by Ted Linnert,” Orr said. “It is designed to give a pre-determined result. Nick Raines, touted as a county employee but paid by EPA, has interviewed a carefully selected group of people who are amenable to victimizing my neighbors for their next paycheck. When the Center for Asbestos Related Diseases took over the Technical Assistance Group and the Citizens Advisory Group, we lost the ability to have the general public sit at the table in these discussions. EPA will take Mr. Raines’ anonymous comments as evidence that the general public embraces institutional controls that will cause property owners to pay money out of their own pockets to salvage their investment in their property. EPA promised this wouldn’t happen.”

Raines acknowledged the statistical limitations of the interview comments and said the intent was to simply generate as much feedback as possible. The comments, he said, should not be construed as being representative of the community as a whole.

“There can never be too much, or even really enough, community participation on an issue of this significance,” he said. “However, we have been encouraged by the level of engagement we have received from those willing to be interviewed. Our interviews have only captured a small fraction of the community, but we have received some very important feedback to pass along to EPA. We believe this feedback will be significantly more in quantity than EPA would have received had we not conducted interviews. Limitations on this data should be considered. Interviews were conducted on a volunteer basis and therefore do not represent the total population. The comments should not be considered as generalized feedback from the community, but rather feedback from individual members of the community.”

Raines said the most prevalent opinion expressed by the interviewees has been that the proposed plan doesn’t include enough detail regarding the proposed institutional controls. He said interviewees wanted to see more detail prior to the implementation of the controls.

“In general, interviewees have struggled with the lack of detail on institutional controls,” Raines said. “They often had more questions than feedback. They wanted to know more detail about each institutional control, such as who enforces it and most importantly who is going to pay for it, before they were willing to support some of them. Additionally, interviewees wanted to know what support would be in place to deal with contamination that is knowingly being left in place.

“We have been surprised by the level of support, or openness more accurately, to some of the proposed institutional controls that we originally felt would create significant concern. The interviewees seemed very open to exploring ideas and options that serve the overall purpose of protecting the cleanup and ultimately reducing the potential for future exposure. However, they did want to ensure that the proposed institutional controls were necessary, resulted in real benefit and put as little burden on property owners as possible. In addition, interviewees wanted to see the institutional controls very clearly defined before they are implemented, to ensure they are not used inappropriately or not as they were intended to be used.”

Sullivan said he supported the interview process in general, but did not place a great deal of value on the information gleaned from the interviews. He did not participate in the interviews, he said, as he will make his comments directly to the EPA.

 “Any information at this juncture is valuable,” Sullivan said. “There’s nothing wrong with soliciting opinions and that has value, but it has not value as a formal comment prior to a Record of Decision. In a survey, you can get whatever results you want. There’s an art to it, a science. There’s an industry centered around crafting those questions.”

He said it is vital for all interested parties, especially area property owners, to get involved and make their comments directly to EPA.

“Now is such a crucial time for us,” he said. “People have to become articulate, become educated and realize their property is going to be a part of the process. People have to be fully engaged in this process.”

The agency’s project manager for Libby, Rebecca Thomas, said the agency is committed to working with the public to ensure the success of the long-term management program.

“We wish to thank the community members for taking time to comment on the proposed plan. We look forward to working with the community as we develop a long-term program to manage asbestos exposures and protect human health. This program will likely be modified over time to meet the changing needs and the interests of the community. We recognize that long-term management tools are a key part of making sure the remedy remains protective. We also recognize that these tools will be effective only if they work for the people who live, work and play in the area.”