EPA finalizes clean-up plan

The Environmental Protection Agency Monday released the final Record of Decision for the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site. The decision institutionalizes the proposed plan released by the agency May 5, 2015, despite comments received regarding the vague nature of the final remedy and reservations expressed by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality.

“Based on consideration of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act requirements, the detailed analysis of remedial alternatives, state comments and all public comments, EPA has determined that the preferred remedial alternatives for contaminated soil and contaminated building materials presented in the proposed plan for the site-wide cleanup is the appropriate remedy for Operable Units 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the site,” the decision read. “The selected remedy consists of Alternative SO6: partial excavation/disposal, backfill, institutional controls and monitoring, and Alternative BM5: partial removal/disposal, encapsulation, interior cleaning, institutional controls and monitoring, as described in this section.”

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.

The alternative for building materials is very similar, calling for the removal and disposal of accessible asbestos-contaminated materials to an approved facility, but leaving in place currently inaccessible materials. Inaccessible materials are defined as potential sources of contamination contained, at the moment, behind walls, under floors or in otherwise inaccessible areas of residential and commercial buildings.

“The final remedy includes the cleanup work that EPA has been conducting in recent years, with the addition of a long-term plan to manage Libby Amphibole asbestos that might be encountered following cleanup,” wrote agency spokesperson Lisa McClain-Vanderpool in a Monday press release. “The remedy was selected following a 90-day public comment period and careful review of comments received. The former vermiculite mine and forested areas will be addressed under a separate plan. Under this final plan, EPA will continue to replace contaminated soil with clean soil and remove and dispose of accessible contaminated building materials at remaining properties. EPA and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality will also work closely with community members to develop and implement a robust plan for institutional controls to make sure the remedy remains protective.”

The plan reaffirms EPA’s previous decision to leave behind some level of asbestos contamination, changing the nature of the cleanup from removal of asbestos to one of mitigating potential exposure. 

“The selected remedy will provide protection of human health and the environment by eliminating exposure to contaminated building materials,” the record of decision read. “It reduces the long-term risk of exposure to Libby Amphibole asbestos within building materials by eliminating complete exposure pathways. This ensures that human receptors have no, or very limited, opportunities for inhalation of LA fibers, thus reducing cancer risk and non-cancer hazard from LA.”

Tom Livers, director of Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality, issued a “concurrence with reservations,” for the agency’s proposed plan. Livers cited the need for more clearly defined institutional controls and a long-term operations and maintenance program for the site.

“The state is providing concurrence with reservations for EPA’s selected remedy for the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site Operable Units 4 through 8,” Livers wrote in a Feb. 4, 2016, concurrence letter to EPA regional administrator Shawn McGrath. “The state concurs that the selected remedial action will be protective, but only after development and implementation of robust institutional controls to protect the remedy, establishment of a comprehensive operations and maintenance program to maintain remedy integrity and creation of an EPA-lead rapid response program to address newly discovered occurrences of Libby Amphibole asbestos or to address LA where changes in land use require a more stringent cleanup level.”

Livers was not the only one to express concern with the undefined institutional controls.

“Several commenters have indicated that the preferred alternative as included in the proposed plan and other administrative documents is too vague and has too many unknowns related to the future cleanup of remaining Libby Amphibole asbestos,” the agency’s responsiveness summary read. “Commenters also expressed concerns that the planning necessary to implement the selected remedy would require considerable time and had not yet been completed. The comments about future cleanup and vagueness appear to be related to the specifics regarding institutional controls, since there was also mention of future cleanup of remaining LA. EPA provided information about preferred institutional control approaches, but not indicate conclusively which institutional controls would ultimately be implemented. This is because specifics surrounding institutional controls are typically determined during the design phase of the project. EPA anticipates working with community members to design a detailed work plan for the institutional controls.”

The record of decision references two types of institutional controls: informational and legal. Informational controls are essentially public awareness and communications measures designed to provide information to residents and visitors about potential exposure risks and provide education as to ways to mitigate said risks. Legal controls are more restrictive, and can include such things as permit requirements for excavation or construction and remodeling, deed restrictions regarding future property use and other legal mechanisms to protect the physical remedy.

During the course of the nearly 17-year cleanup operation in south Lincoln County, the agency has reportedly cleaned more than 2,200 properties and investigated an additional 7,100 for contamination. The agency estimated roughly 700 properties within the boundaries of the Superfund site still require investigation, which will likely result in “a few hundred” cleanups, according to the Monday press release. EPA expects to complete the final phase of cleanup in the next two to three years.