Commissioner apprises senator's staff of county's position on future Superfund cleanup costs

Lincoln County Commissioner Mark Peck recently met with Sen. Jon Tester’s staff to apprise them of a position statement a City-County Board of Health committee prepared in response to an Environmental Protection Agency document that seems to place a future financial burden on Libby Asbestos Superfund site property owners.

“We just need to line them up and have them on board, because we need to prepare ourselves for (the fact that) we’re going to have to push this,” Peck said at the Feb. 14 Board of Health meeting.

By “this” Peck meant the county’s assertion in the position statement that “property owners will not bear the cost of any future issues” related to the site.

The Board of Health’s Institutional Controls, or IC, Steering Committee — on which Peck sits — is behind the position statement. ICs are policies and procedures developed to protect the EPA’s cleanup, or remedy, and to manage potential future releases of Libby Amphibole asbestos.

The committee was formed to advise the health board about ICs proposed by the EPA and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, which will oversee the operations and maintenance, or O&M, phase.

The O&M phase is crucial to the long-term viability of the EPA’s remedy in Libby. Just as crucial is Lincoln County’s support of or participation in O&M elements — both of which are contingent upon the EPA’s acceptance of the county’s position regarding financial responsibility, according to the position statement.

The county’s position is predicated by seemingly inconsistent and infrequent communications by the EPA 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 previously shared with The Western News two documents highlighting the uncertainty. One is a letter dated Sept. 13, 2004 and 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.”

The spirit of the latter seems to run counter 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, Peck has said it set an important expectation that hasn’t been forgotten.

Before sharing the position statement with Sen. Tester’s staff, Peck ran it by EPA staff at a recent meeting in Denver. Peck said they assured him they would raise his concerns with administrators “to try to fix this thing.”

“(The) EPA has had productive conversations with Lincoln County about its concerns regarding financial responsibility and long-term operations and maintenance and institutional controls in Libby,” Mike Cirian, EPA Libby Site Manager, said via email. “We are evaluating the county’s position statement and will continue to work with the county and Montana DEQ (through the Libby Asbestos Resource Program, the IC Steering Committee, and the operations and maintenance workgroup) to build upon ideas and address concerns that have been discussed over the past several months.”

Part of the ongoing process “to identify the specific O&M activities and institutional controls that will ensure the long-term protection of public health Libby,” Cirian wrote, will be “a thorough evaluation of financial needs, resources, and options associated with those activities and controls as they are discussed and defined.”

Cirian noted that though the Record of Decision is a final document, it is periodically reviewed and can be “evaluated for minor changes, explanation of significant differences and ROD amendments.”

According to an email from EPA spokesperson Jennifer Harrison, the ROD requires the EPA to issue a document called an Explanation of Significant Differences to supplement the ROD and clarify the final plan for ICs.

Development of that document will include a public comment period and public meeting, she wrote.

Cirian said the EPA “remains committed to open and transparent communication” as part of the process.