County, consultants outline EPA‑funded abatement and demolition plan for former hospital site

Carter County commissioners spent the bulk of a recent meeting reviewing steps to clear and prepare the former hospital site for redevelopment under an EPA‑supported abatement and possible demolition program. The county’s consultants said they have submitted a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and are awaiting the agency’s approval before advertising bid specifications.

The consultants said the SAP documents the post‑abatement testing and clearances that must occur before re‑occupancy or demolition: "All it is is it says what we're gonna do once the abatement and demolition is done," a consultant explained, describing visual clearances, air sampling and laboratory slide checks that will demonstrate whether friable asbestos remains.

Why it matters: EPA approval of the SAP and the agency’s interpretation of allowable Brownfields or RLF expenses will determine whether the county can use grant/loan funds to remove nonfriable materials or must separately fund demolition of small outbuildings. The board needs that clarity before finalizing bid specs and contractor scopes.

What was discussed: Commissioners and consultants recapped that the county had previously selected Alternative 3 from the planning report. Consultants said that strategy removes friable asbestos (the material that can become airborne) and then performs clearances; nonfriable materials would be handled later during demolition. They raised one recurring technical problem: a small boiler shed on the site contains about 1,600 square feet of transite wall panels (friable material) and will require abatement before a contractor could lawfully demo the remainder of that structure.

"Once they give us that clearance report saying that all tests came back negative, the building is clean and clear, the site is free of all hazardous substances from the building," the project lead said, "I will then submit that report to Montana DEQ and as long as everything is met, they will issue a no further action letter for those substances." The board flagged that separate petroleum contamination (an underground storage tank and associated soil impacts) likely will have to be addressed as a distinct project using Petroleum Fund or other state resources.

Scope questions: Commissioners pressed consultants on whether Brownfields funding could be stretched to cover demolition of the boiler shed, a nearby maintenance garage and concrete patios — items that are not hazardous but would simplify future site reuse if removed. Consultants recommended asking EPA to include those elements as addenda or separate work orders; if EPA declines, the county would either fund the demo itself or include the work as a county‑led task order.

Logistics and procurement: Consultants requested any utility drawings the county holds and local public‑works contact information so they can mark water, sewer and gas connections before bidders mobilize. They also urged the county to get written confirmations from nearby landfills that they will accept asbestos and demolition waste; one consultant warned that some landfills decline out‑of‑network asbestos shipments, which would materially increase hauling costs.

Bid structure and oversight: The consultants said they favor a line‑item bid format (mobilization, abatement square footage, demo cubic yards, hauling, backfill) to reduce change‑order risk and allow oversight, but commissioners discussed bonding, disposal accounting and the option of the county paying landfill disposal directly to reduce contractor markups.

Next steps: The team set an initial public meeting window during EPA’s 30‑day comment period (consultants proposed mid‑April for the public meeting and mid‑May bidding), agreed to schedule a site visit for a measurement specialist the week of April 6–8, and assigned follow‑ups: county staff will check for available local backfill and provide town utility contacts; consultants will draft bid specs, request landfill acceptance letters and pursue EPA guidance on the boiler shed and maintenance garage.

The county did not authorize a contractor or award construction work at the meeting; commissioners said they would revisit any funding revisions once abatement and demolition bids are returned and priced.