Job opening, timeline dominate meeting

The Libby Asbestos Superfund Advisory Team, established in Senate Bill 315, signed into law by Gov. Steve Bullock last May and required to meet quarterly, met June 28 for the fourth time overall and the second time in Libby.

The team is comprised of Montana Department of Environmental Quality Director Tom Livers; Lincoln County Commissioner Mark Peck; Rep. Steve Gunderson (Montana District 1); Sen. Chas Vincent (State Senate District 1); and Lincoln County citizen George Jamison.

The three-hour meeting, held in the County Commission meeting room in the Lincoln County Courthouse, was dominated by discussions about a still-unfilled staff position and project timelines, and ended with a look ahead to resolving an open question about future financial responsibility.

Job opening

In addition to establishing the advisory team, SB315 outlined the Libby-based position of a liaison — a DEQ employee who will serve as staff to the advisory team.

Though the person will be employed by the DEQ, Lincoln County must recruit someone to fill the position. The bill stipulates that the County Commission will nominate three job candidates and the governor will make the final decision.

A candidate recently offered the job turned it down when a request for $10,000 more in pay could not be met.

The county has since re-advertised the position, which pays between $51,880 and $64,850, but Thursday’s meeting included discussion about raising the pay, whether through reclassification or legislation.

Peck said he believed the “higher level expectations” of the role would make it tough to fill at the current salary classification, while Livers indicated concern about other state employees doing comparable work for less money if they were to bump pay.

Vincent, who sponsored SB315, suggested he could seek to amend the bill either to set the salary amount or to allow a cost-sharing agreement with Lincoln County.

Peck thought the latter might be “a viable option,” though he stressed the matter would have to go before the County Commission.

Vincent indicated he would probably raise the topic at the meeting of the Environmental Quality Council in late July, while Livers said the DEQ meanwhile will “do what it can” to revisit the salary.

Project timeline

Peck and Jamison raised the need to clarify project timelines, specifically concerning when the EPA would hand over site management to the DEQ.

“We’re getting conflicting signals on the importance of the timeline in place,” Peck said.

That timeline states the Libby Asbestos Superfund site will enter the operational and functional phase Jan. 1, 2019, and the operation and maintenance phase a year later.

The former phase acts as a transition time, where the DEQ can ramp up to take over site management with the onset of operation and maintenance on Jan. 1, 2020.

Jenny Chambers of the DEQ and Mike Cirian, the EPA’s site manager for Libby, both reaffirmed they anticipate the timeline to proceed as planned. Cirian also stated that the EPA will “still have control” for up to the entire year of the operational and functional phase.

Next steps

As the meeting came to a close, Peck asked that the EPA’s Record of Decision for the site be a “standing agenda item” until lingering concerns about future financial responsibility for the cleanup are “cleared up.”

“If we could get that settled, we’re so close to having the rest of this figured out,” Peck said at Thursday’s meeting.

In making his request, Peck referred both to a position statement the City-County Board of Health released in February — asserting that “property owners will not bear the cost of any future issues” related to the site — and to a statement EPA Region 8 Administrator Doug Benevento made during his first visit to Libby on June 4.

The health board’s position statement was predicated by seemingly inconsistent EPA communications about 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 and other county officials, maintaining that language in the Record of Decision contributes to the lack of clarity, have asked the EPA to revisit it, and have sought support for their case from Sen. Steve Daines, among others.

When Peck raised the issue with Benevento during the June 4 meeting, the EPA administrator indicated he understood concerns local officials and residents have, and brought up a principle he referred to as “delta” as a possible solution to formally address.

“The ‘delta’ concept Doug discussed is not a Superfund term or a formal legal or administrative tool,” Rich Mylott, EPA Region 8 spokesperson, explained in a follow-up email to The Western News. “It is a general principle we will apply going forward to make sure we develop institutional controls and (operation and maintenance) processes that account for any additional incremental homeowner costs associated with safely managing asbestos.”

The example Benevento used at the June 4 meeting, and that Mylott reiterated, centered on a homeowner wanting to renovate or remodel a home in which asbestos was sealed inside as part of the EPA’s remedy.

The delta would represent the difference between the homeowner’s ordinary renovation costs and the total cost after factoring in any additional measures taken to address the asbestos.

“The goal, as we begin to discuss and define long-term O&M with local partners, is to develop specific protocols and processes that isolate any extra costs associated with work needed to address asbestos,” Mylott wrote. “Doing so will quantify the ‘delta.’”

Mylott also provided a statement from Benevento “to underscore that addressing concerns about homeowner costs will be paramount as we work together to define and implement institutional controls.”

“The most important aspect of my visit was listening to the community and the local leadership discuss the remaining work that needs to be done and their expectations of EPA as we move closer to completion,” Benevento wrote, noting in particular “their expectation that homeowners not be responsible for the additional cost of remodeling the interior of their homes attributable to precautions that are necessary to avoid exposure to Libby Amphibole asbestos.”

“I think that expectation is a valid one and I have asked EPA staff to work with all parties to reach that goal,” he wrote.

The next meeting of the Libby Asbestos Superfund Advisory Team will likely occur in September, Livers said. Jamison asked that it and subsequent meetings be held in Libby.