Butte-Silver Bow holds county comment on EPA BPSOU plan as residents, commissioners push for faster cleanup

Don Patrice, representing Butte Watchdogs for Social and Environmental Justice, told the Butte-Silver Bow Council of CommissionersCommittee of the Whole on Jan. 15 that the countycomment draft on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) proposed remedial plan for the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit (BPSOU) did not foreground human health and should be rewritten to demand much faster cleanup.

"The EPA's proposal to take up to 25 years to complete the testing and cleanup is totally unacceptable," Patrice said, arguing that local government comments should prioritize health over economic concerns or staffing interests.

Why it matters: The EPAproposed plan (October 2024) would change the remedial approach for soils in the BPSOU. The countycomment letter is the local governmentposition the EPA will consider during its public comment period; residents and some commissioners said the letter should press EPA to require the responsible parties to complete testing and remediation far sooner than the timeline the draft appeared to allow.

Several public commenters echoed Patrice. Bill Foley, a Butte resident, told commissioners the draft prioritized corporate cost concerns over childrenand urged the council to "be forceful in your comments. Demand that the EPA ensures that BP spares no expense to make sure the cleanup is closer to 5 years than 25 years." Evan Barrett, a Butte Hill resident, said the countyshould remove extended questions from the formal comment and send them separately to EPA so the official comment can be "clear and crisp and concise" about timeliness.

Commissioners and staff debated both the tone and the technical questions the draft raised. Commissioner Shea said on the record that "25 years is unacceptable" and urged the county to press EPA for a single-digit-year timeline. Commissioner Anderson described personal losses and health concerns that motivate a faster schedule and said the letter's language "could be a lot harsher." Commissioner Fisher said he wanted the county to be more assertive with EPA and criticized perceived delays in agency responses.

Eric Hassler, Butte-Silver Bow Reclamation and Environmental Services Director, told the council that much of the actual soils and remediation work is performed by contractors and that the countyasks the EPA technical questions to define the scope (materials, repository capacity, expected rates of contamination exceeding various thresholds). "All of the soils work are contracted out with local contractors throughout our community," Hassler said. He also said available historical data show much variation in how many soils would exceed the proposed lower action levels and that the county posed questions to EPA to clarify the likely scope and impacts.

Chief Executive J.P. Gallagher said the communication was brought to the council to prompt this public discussion and that the draft does not "say that we accept 25 years." He said county staff and its consultant have reviewed the draft and that commissioners and members of the public should provide edits and suggestions for inclusion.

Formal action and next steps: The council agreed to hold communication 25-18 (the proposed county comment on the EPA BPSOU proposed plan) in abeyance in the Committee of the Whole to allow additional public input and edits before final county action. The county clerk noted the EPA comment deadline is Feb. 14 and that the council would need to take final action (authorize the chief executive to send the comment) at a regular meeting no later than Feb. 5 unless a special meeting is called.

Public record and points raised: Speakers urged the county to (1) emphasize human-health protection as the primary driver of the comment; (2) ask EPA for clearer, publicly available answers about repository capacity, replacement soil availability, and the likely percentage of soils exceeding the proposed action levels; (3) avoid framing the local comment around county costs or local job creation; and (4) require that any biomonitoring or health studies be conducted without conflicts of interest.

The council did not adopt a final comment at the Jan. 15 meeting and left the item open for another round of public input and for staff to circulate redlines of the draft comment for commissioners to review ahead of final action.

Ending: County staff and multiple commissioners encouraged the public to submit comments directly to EPA as well as to provide suggested edits to the draft county letter during the two-week window ahead of the Feb. 14 deadline.