Parts of Libby Superfund site might be delisted within 18 months

If all goes well, in 12 to 18 months one to three portions of the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site might be removed from the National Priorities List in a process known as a partial deletion.

“I think it’s a milestone we’re all looking forward to,” said Jennifer Harrison of the Environmental Protection Agency, which is in the early stages of this process to delist operating units 1 (the former export plant), 2 (the former screening plant) and 5 (the former Stimson Lumber location).

The agency’s partial deletion rule, in effect since Nov. 1, 1995, allows the agency to delete parts of a site listed on the National Priorities List so long as certain criteria are met. The agency’s previous policy was to wait until an entire site was cleaned before delisting it.

“Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and may be available for productive use,” the agency states on its website.

The agency notes that a portion being considered for deletion can be defined by geography or by “a specific medium at the site,” such as surface soil.

Dania Zinner, the EPA’s remedial project manager for the three operating units, describes partial deletion as a federal rulemaking process. EPA documents outline it as requiring “a modification to the Code of Federal Regulations,” which itself requires procedures that “include creating a docket, publishing notices in the federal register, and holding a formal public comment period.”

“(The) EPA initiates the partial deletion process and asks the State of Montana for concurrence,” Zinner said via email. “We have heard from local officials that they are interested in as many partial deletions as possible though.”

Those officials included Lincoln County Port Authority Chairman Jim Mayo. The Port Authority has been trying to more fully develop operating unit 5.

“As you know, community and economic development of the Libby area has been stymied over the last decade by the Superfund status and process,” Mayo wrote in a letter to EPA Region 8 Administrator Shaun McGrath in a letter dated April 27, 2015. “The 400 acres of the Lincoln County Port Authority is a scarce resource, and development is key to improving economic prospects for the local communities. Please let us know how we can support your agency to expedite the Record of Decision process and delisting of OU5.”

EPA documents note that “any person, including individuals, business entities, states, local governments, and other federal agencies, may submit a petition requesting a partial deletion.”

Because “it’s a priority for the Port Authority ... we’ve put OU5 on fast track for deletion,” Zinner wrote, noting the EPA still requires an both an environmental covenant — a document filed with a property deed that lists its possible future land uses and any restrictions due to any asbestos contamination left encapsulated on the property — and an operation and maintenance plan in place with the Port Authority to begin the partial deletion process of the property.

The Port Authority is working with the EPA and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to move things forward, Zinner said.

The involvement of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality is crucial, Zinner wrote, because the state must concur that a partial deletion is appropriate for the process to continue. After the state’s concurrence, other critical steps include a 30-day public comment period and concurrence from EPA headquarters.

What comes of those steps dictates the timing of a partial deletion. Though Zinner said in a mid-July interview that the process could take 12 to 18 months, she indicated it was difficult to say exactly when it could happen.

It’s also unclear how or whether recommendations made by an EPA task force in July to improve or streamline the Superfund program would affect the partial deletion process. An agency spokesperson said via email that two recommendations dealt with deletions but the “EPA has just begun work on both of the recommendations so the implications for our existing process are not yet known.”