Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Groundwater Nrdp topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Natural Resource Damage Program opens Libby Groundwater assessment for public comment; deadline Oct. 30
Summary
A Montana Natural Resource Damage Program official outlined the NRDP assessment process for Libby Groundwater, confirmed the assessment plan is out for comment with a Oct. 30 deadline, and described possible restoration funding paths tied to litigation or settlement.
Sydney Stewart, an environmental scientist and project manager with the Montana Natural Resource Damage Program, told the Libby City Council that NRDP has finalized a pre‑assessment and released a draft assessment plan for Libby Groundwater. The agency said the draft assessment plan is available for public comment through Oct. 30 and that comments should focus on the scope, data sources and any local information relevant to injury and restoration.
Stewart said NRDP acts on behalf of the governor under federal Superfund law (CERCLA) and state natural resource damage law, and that trustees can recover damages for injuries to natural resources caused by releases of hazardous substances. She said the Libby Groundwater assessment stems from historic wood‑treating operations at a former J. Neals Lumber and St. Regis facility, with contaminants of concern including pentachlorophenol (PCP), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzene, arsenic and dioxins. Stewart said International Paper is the potentially responsible party by succession of liability.
NRDP staff said the assessment will determine whether groundwater used as drinking water has been injured, will quantify injury in time and space (including baseline condition and post‑release extent), and then evaluate damages by resource‑equivalency analysis or other valuation methods. Stewart noted the assessment uses existing data where possible but may identify data gaps — she specifically cited emerging concerns about PFAS that EPA has flagged for the site — and said any additional data collection would follow a public work‑plan and quality assurance project plan.
Stewart described restoration examples such as water conservation, repairing leaky infrastructure, and protecting groundwater recharge areas. She warned that trustees cannot recover damages for injury prior to CERCLA’s 1981 enactment, though baseline is still evaluated to the pre‑release condition. If damages are recovered, NRDP said any settlement with International Paper would be subject to public comment and that a separate restoration plan would be written and opened for comment before funds are spent.
Council members asked about the depth and scope of aquifers under review; Stewart confirmed NRDP is considering both upper and lower aquifers and said the assessment plan will be followed by implementation if the public comment period supports the approach.
Stewart encouraged public attendance at a Wednesday workshop on asbestos restoration funds and at NRDP’s groundwater discussion, and provided contact details and the NRDP website for the draft plan and submission instructions.
