Concerns arise about vague institutional controls proposal

At two public meetings this week residents of Libby and Troy expressed their concerns about the vague nature of the institutional controls included in the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed plan for the clean-up of the Libby Superfund Site.

The institutional controls are the tools left to manage exposure to Libby Amphibole Asbestos left in place once the active clean-up is completed, the tools can run the gamut from basic risk education to deed and property restrictions.

The controls proposed by the agency for the Libby site are contained in 12 bullet points, devoid of any specific detail, listed on a single page of the proposed plan.

“The proposed institutional controls are very vague at this point,” said agency project manager Rebecca Thomas. “The remedy will likely have even less detail than the proposed plan, and that’s very purposeful. Putting in those details really boxes us in.”

The lack of detail, however, is what is causing concern to residents of the area who will have to bear the brunt of whatever rules and regulations are imposed.

“The proposed plan is so vague at this point it’s really hard to be able to comment,” area resident Karen Horton said at a meeting in Troy May 20.

Area residents aren’t the only ones expressing concern about the lack of detail. 

In the official response to the proposed plan dated April 2, 2015, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality requested additional clarification of the institutional controls.

“DEQ expects that EPA will implement binding, enforceable institutional controls to require cleanup when land use changes or inaccessible asbestos becomes accessible. DEQ is concerned that the discussion of institutional controls does not clearly explain the restrictions or requirements that may be placed upon the public to protect the public and the remedy. For example, in the future, the public may have to engage in special work practices and/or get a permit to remove a tree, remove pavement/cement, remove a building, dig a basement, replace a ceiling/wall or disturb a ceiling/wall.”

Thomas said the details will be determined during the design phase, after the final record of decision on the project is entered. Designing the controls after selecting the remedy, she said, affords the agency greater flexibility in responding to the specific needs of the community and any unforeseen events.

“This allows us to make it look like what it needs to be for the community,” she told the county commissioners at their Wednesday meeting. “It’s got to work for the community in order to be successful.”

Members of the community expressed their concern that agreeing to the proposal without more detail leaves the community at the mercy of the agency during the design phase, which does not require public input and participation.

“You know the institutional controls are going to come out of the homeowners’ pockets,” said Libby resident D.C. Orr. “We were promised EPA would clean this up. We were promised we wouldn’t have to deal with these issues.”

Steve Ackerlund, a consultant for the Technical Advisory Group, expressed his concern at the Tuesday evening meeting.

“We don’t think the EPA should be making this decision until the institutional controls are developed to the same level as the soil and building material remedies,” he said.

Thomas promised public comment and participation would be welcome in the design process, after the remedy is selected and a record of decision entered.

“The answer is a resounding yes,” she said when asked if comments would be welcome after the record of decision is finalized.

Questions exist, however, about the weight the agency will give to the public comments. 

The Technical Advisory Group and Citizens Advisory Group met Tuesday evening and decided to ask the agency for an extension of the public comment period until such a time as the proposed controls are more fully fleshed out.

Nick Raines, Lincoln County’s Asbestos Resource Program manager, presented the unofficial request to Thomas during Wednesday’s meeting with the county commissioners. Thomas rejected the idea out of hand.

“We’re certainly happy to grant an extension, but uncomfortable with it being indefinite,” Thomas replied. 

She countered with the idea of a 30-day extension and the commissioners agreed to write an official request to that effect.

Several comments and requests from Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality were ignored in the released version of the proposed plan. The proposed plan ignored requests for additional detail about the public burden of institutional controls as well as the state’s role in the management of remaining contamination.

Those questions remain unanswered in the proposed plan. 

Former Technical Advisory Group member and Libby resident Gordon Sullivan said those questions need to be answered before the plan is finalized.

“Somehow we’ve got to get the people of this community to understand that now is the time,” he said. “We haven’t been happy with any of the plans they’ve put into place yet. The structure is there, the ideas are there, but the details are lacking. To me, it’s unfinished business.”