EPA releases proposed plan

Another milestone has been reached in the ongoing saga of the Libby Superfund cleanup. The Environmental Protection agency released a proposed plan for the cleanup Tuesday, more than 15 years after the agency began active operations in the area.

“The Libby Asbestos Site is unusual in that so much removal work has already been completed to minimize exposure and risk. The most significant Libby Amphibole sources were removed while the remedial investigation, feasibility study and risk assessment were being conducted,” read a press release issued with the proposed plan.

The proposed plan deals with five of the eight operable units included within the Libby Superfund site, noting cleanup has been completed at two other areas, “Operable Unit 1 (the former Export Plant, now Riverfront Park in Libby) and Operable Unit 2 (former Screening Plant).” The third area, Operable Unit 3, is the former vermiculite mine owned and operated by W.R. Grace and Company and the forested areas immediately surrounding it. The cleanup plan for the mine site will be developed separately between the agency and representatives of W.R. Grace and Company and is not included in the plan for the rest of the site.

The agency’s selected alternative for soil contaminated with asbestos mirrors the activities in which they’ve been engaged for the past decade and a half. 

Contaminated soil is to be partially excavated, to a depth of between six and 36 inches depending upon constraints and concentrations of asbestos. The contaminated soil will then be disposed of at the former vermiculite mine site. The soil will be replaced with clean fill obtained from a source out of the area.

Rebecca Thomas, the agency’s project manager for Libby, said previous cleanup activities have been effective, as evidenced by the human health risk assessment released in December 2014.

“The risk assessment shows that the remedy was protective,” Thomas said.

Questions about the effectiveness of past cleanup efforts linger, however.

The agency changed its testing criteria in 2006, moving from a five-point composite sample to a 30-point sample. Thomas said the change in criteria has resulted in a reevaluation of approximately 100 properties within the site, properties previously listed as not requiring cleanup.

The agency’s on-site manager, Mike Cirian, said to date 12 of those properties have been re-inspected, with a quarter of them showing asbestos contamination levels high enough to trigger a more detailed inspection. Given those numbers, Thomas said she expects between 25 and 30 previously inspected properties will require more detailed investigations and likely require cleanup.

Beyond the issues of active cleanup are the ongoing questions about contaminated material being left behind once the agency pulls the plug on the Libby site.

The human health risk assessment clearly indicates even minimal exposure to Libby Amphibole Asbestos can have disastrous health consequences, yet the agency’s stance has shifted over the years from promises of complete removal of contamination to minimizing exposure and finally to managing exposure scenarios.

Christie Whitman, then director of the Environmental Protection Agency, visited Libby in September 2001 and promised the community the agency would remove asbestos-contaminated vermiculite from homes, businesses and property in the area.

“As far as I’m concerned, we’re in this together and we’re in it for the long haul,” Whitman said at a town forum in Libby on September 7, 2001.

The proposed plan released Tuesday acknowledges, in writing, statements made during the past decade: there will be contaminated materials left behind in Libby, materials that cannot be indefinitely contained.

“Institutional controls are an important part of the remedy and are required with all alternatives to manage future releases of Libby Amphibole Asbestos or waste ‘left in place,’” the proposal reads. “LA will remain at the Site and could become a new source of exposure after the construction portion of the remedy described above is implemented. It is not practical to remove all LA that is sealed behind indoor walls or to excavate all LA that is in soil. Contaminated soil may be left beneath the surface after contaminated soil is removed. LA may also remain in wall cavities and other interior locations that are inaccessible.”

The long-term success, or failure, of the cleanup is dependent upon the 12 proposed institutional controls. The plan, however, provides very little detail about those controls.

The first eight controls listed in the proposal have already been implemented, either fully or partially, at the site.

The first is participation in the UDIG program, which is already fully implemented under the auspices of the Lincoln County Asbestos Resource Program. The program provides property owners and contractors with information about underground lines and other hazards, such as asbsestos, on the property prior to any excavation work.

The second control is also fully implemented, a requirement for a Montana Department of Transportation permit for any construction or maintenance on highway rights-of-way.

The third and fourth controls are focused on public education and information, both current programs under the Asbestos Resource Program. The exact nature of the education and support campaigns is not specified in the proposed plan.

The agency is also proposing a property status database, which is currently accessible to the agency, the county health department and the asbestos resource program. The proposal would make the database publicly searchable, enabling anyone to review properties and see whether or not they were inspected or cleaned.

Three more of the proposed controls hint at vague city or county ordinances designed to manage potential exposure. These proposals include updating codes and ordinances associated with building and subdivision development, an open space recreation initiative and a public nuisance ordinance intended to “prohibit activities that could result in excessive exposure to LA.”

The final four proposals, none of which have been implemented in any fashion at the site, call for a permit for any soil disturbance activities, a certification for contractors on how to manage contamination and a series of property notices and advisories about the risk associated with asbestos exposure.

The proposal was intentionally vague, Thomas said, in order to allow for changes over time.

“The detail will be worked out in the design, which is very purposeful,” she said. “The design can be modified over time.”

Asbestos Resource Program manager Nick Raines acknowledged the vague nature of the proposal, but said he understands why it is vague and supports it.

“At first I was somewhat frustrated with the lack of detail,” he said. “After putting more thought into it, I’m happy with the idea that they are going to take public input into account.”

Former Libby resident Michelle Hartly said she is concerned with the institutional controls.

 “According to experts, and at taxpayers’ expense, the Environmental Protection Agency has used junk science to present an unimplementable plan with onerous controls,” she said.

Thomas acknowledged the success of the cleanup is dependent upon participation, especially with regard to the institutional controls left in place upon active completion.

“Most of our Superfund sites ultimately result in some material being left behind, necessitating institutional controls that depend upon participation,” she said.

Participation is already an issue with regard to the ongoing project, as a significant number of property owners have refused to allow the agency to inspect their properties or have just not responded to requests for permission to inspect. By law, the agency cannot inspect properties without permission of the owner.

“There are some already who have chosen not to participate,” Thomas said. “Even though we’ve shown the protectiveness of the remedy.”

Biologist Terry Trent disagrees with Thomas’ assessment. In an email of April 23, Trent questioned the effectiveness of cleanup efforts.

“First, it is wise to remember that there has never been a successful clean up of environmental asbestos in human history, anywhere on our planet,” he wrote. “There have been permanent evacuations and there have been failures with attempting to cover the fibers, but no protection has lasted for more than a few years.

“Second, the current approach to the ‘management in place’ of the asbestos fibers adopted by EPA in Libby will shift the future costs of ongoing cleanup from EPA and what little W.R. Grace may contribute, to the State of Montana, the municipalities of both Troy and Libby and directly on top of the citizens who were victimized in the first place.”

The conclusion of the proposal indicates Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality has signed off on the plan, but based upon comments sent to EPA from the state agency, some disagreements with the plan still exist, calling into question the federal agencies commitment to adapt to outside feedback.

In a letter dated April 2, 2015, Montana Department of Environmental Quality division administrator Jenny Chambers expressed the state’s concerns.

“DEQ generally agrees with the preferred alternative as described in the proposed plan, with the concerns and reservations outlined and summarized below. DEQ agrees with the proposed remedial action levels for residential and commercial soils; parks and schools soils; and interiors. DEQ also supports the clearance criteria for all soils. Together, the remedial action levels and the clearance criteria are the ‘remediation goals,’ as required under the National Contingency Plan. DEQ appreciates that EPA is planning to have an extended ‘last-call’ program, so as to ensure that all of the properties are cleaned up and all of the institutional controls are in place and effective; DEQ contintues to ask that this ‘last-call’ program last 10 years.”

The state attached to the letter a number of concerns with the proposed plan.

The first concern on the list is with the federal agency’s approach to soil sampling at levels of 0-3 inches below the surface. The state has requested data from EPA to support the idea that a non-detect at 0-3 inches is representative of samples taken at 3-24 inches in depth.

The state also asked for a more comprehensive definition of the term “accessible” in relation to building materials, including surfaces beneath carpets, attics, walls and other locations. No further definition was provided in the proposed plan.

Another point of concern was EPA’s assertion that the first two operational units are completely cleaned, based upon the remedial action plan. The state has previously disagreed with the claim, and reiterated that disagreement in their comments.

“As DEQ has previously commented, please note that DEQ does not agree that remedial action has been completed at OU1 and OU2 until EPA has reevaluated the remedy following the site-wide risk assessment, as required by the OU1 and OU2 Records of Decision,” Chambers wrote.

The proposed plan incorporated some of the language changes requested by Chambers, substituting language such as “unacceptable risk” in place of “above EPA’s level of concern,” in the document. The state’s comments, however, were not included in the proposed plan beyond the initial general acceptance of the plan.

The proposed plan is now open for public comment until July 8 and will be in south Lincoln County to garner public response. Thomas said agency staff will meet with the Libby City Council May 18, with the Technical Advisory Group May 19, and then hold public meetings in Troy and Libby May 20 and May 21, respectively. Both public meetings are scheduled from 7 p.m. until 9 p.m., with the Troy meeting in the Kootenai Senior Center and Libby meeting in the city’s Ponderosa Room.