County asserts position that residents will not bear burden of future cleanup

A position statement recently prepared by a City-County Board of Health committee regarding the operation and maintenance phase of the Libby Asbestos Superfund site was a milestone.

“We never officially stated that this is our position,” said Lincoln County Commissioner Mark Peck, saying it had been the “gorilla in the room.”

“This is the first time the county position has been put on paper,” he said.

Peck sits on the Institutional Controls, or IC, Steering Committee for which the position statement was prepared. ICs are policies and procedures developed to protect the remedy implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency and to manage potential future releases of Libby Amphibole asbestos.

The IC Steering Committee advises the health board and provides it with recommendations regarding ICs proposed by the EPA and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, which will oversee the operations and maintenance phase.

The one-time gorilla, stated and summarized in a one-page document, is the county’s assertion that “property owners will not bear the cost of any future issues” related to the site.

“Support of or participation in O&M elements will be based on this position,” the document states.

The county’s position is predicated by seemingly inconsistent and infrequent communications by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding who is responsible for the monitoring and maintenance — and any associated costs — of the cleanup remedy the agency has spent years putting in place.

Peck shared with The Western News two documents highlighting the uncertainty. One is a letter, dated Sept. 13, 2004, that was sent to a property owner following the cleanup of her property. It states in part, “There is no financial liability to the property owner or renter of this property, either current or future.”

The other document is a page from the EPA’s final Record of Decision, issued February 2016, concerning the site’s operating units 4 through 8. The section pertaining to the operations and maintenance phase states that aspects of monitoring and maintenance “will be left to the property owner” and that “information will be provided to assist property owners and their contractors in understanding the appropriate maintenance procedures that apply to their properties.”

“Bottom line,” Peck said, “is putting a burden on property owners is completely unwarranted.”

Peck also pointed to former EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman’s assertion years ago that Libby citizens would not “bear one penny” of any aspect related to the cleanup. Though it wasn’t a legally binding statement, he said it set an important expectation that hasn’t been forgotten.

The county’s concern extends beyond the potential financial impact on its residents. As the position statement asserts, “a drastic change (reduction) in funding support, particularly shifting the burden to the property owner, is inconsistent with the expectation that the remedy can be maintained.”

“The purpose of O&M is to preserve the remedy and protect public health,” said George Jamison, who chairs the IC Steering Committee. “You cannot protect or preserve the remedy or protect public health if you don’t have financial means to do this.”

A primary concern of the O&M phase for Libby that Jamison said is atypical for a Superfund site is a cornerstone of the EPA’s remedy — that some of the asbestos is effectively sealed inside structures rather than removed.

Left untouched there’s little risk of the asbestos getting out and contaminating the cleanup. But contamination is “a given,” Jamison said, if a structure is remodeled, burns down or falls down due to age and neglect.

Jamison also noted the potential for future development of parts of properties left untouched by the risk-based cleanup project.

“I’m not questioning the remedy,” Peck said. “But (the EPA) chose to leave stuff inside these homes. (And) what about (asbestos) we haven’t discovered yet?”

Peck introduced the county’s position statement at a recent meeting with the EPA in Denver. He said the agency’s response has been “open and favorable.”

“They get it,” he said. “They took it seriously. The devil’s in the details,” but their concerns have been raised to upper level management, Peck was told.

Jamison said the position statement represents a stake in the ground.

“This is going to guide everything we do,” he said. “Period.”