Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superfund Libby topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EPA says Libby Superfund remedies are protective in third five‑year review; agency to consult ATSDR on health data
Summary
EPA told Lincoln County commissioners that its third five‑year review finds most operable units protective of human health and the environment and said it will consult the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) on clinic and public‑health data. EPA staff emphasized outreach and said partial delisting is a milestone, not the end of long‑term operation and maintenance.
The Lincoln County Board of Commissioners heard an update July 16 from EPA and state officials on the Libby Superfund site, where EPA said its third five‑year review found existing remedies protective of human health and the environment based on current data.
Daniel Zenner, EPA project manager, told the board that five of the site’s eight operable units (OUs 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8) have been partially deleted from the National Priorities List and that the agency’s recent review concluded the remedies are currently protective. Zenner said partial deletion is a regulatory milestone and does not end operation and maintenance or the protections tied to OU3 — the former vermiculite mine still undergoing remedial evaluation.
"With our current data … we believe that all operable units are protective of human health and the environment," Zenner said, adding that five‑year reviews and on‑going O&M will continue.
EPA staff said they will consult the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to analyze clinical and public‑health data from roughly 2000–2025 to look for trends in asbestos‑related disease. That review will consider clinic records and public‑health registry data and could take time because of the long latency of asbestos‑related illnesses. Zenner said EPA hopes to have some results to discuss in the fall.
EPA speakers also distinguished between changing a toxicity value — a long, data‑driven process that revises the numeric inputs used in risk assessments — and risk management steps the agency can take immediately, such as expanded community education, realtor trainings and outreach through the county’s Asbestos Resource Program (ARP). Zenner said risk‑management measures are often faster to implement and can reduce exposures while scientific reviews proceed.
Commissioners and staff urged targeted public information to avoid confusion about what partial deletion means. Several county officials said community members could interpret delisting as an end to cleanup; EPA staff agreed that clearer messaging and fact sheets are needed. Zenner said EPA would consider a public comment period if the community requests one and will work with county staff on outreach materials.
The update also covered OU3, where the remedial options are still in a feasibility study phase. Melod y Carlds of the state Department of Environmental Quality and EPA staff described ongoing evaluations of forest‑management and mine‑site cleanup options. W. R. Grace, the company with property in OU3, is conducting some stabilization and vegetation work on its land; Nick Reigns of W. R. Grace offered to arrange site tours for commissioners to view remedial work in person.
"If you have any interest in getting up to the site, I would love to get you up for a tour," Reigns said, offering his contact information for scheduling.
Next steps include EPA’s consultation with ATSDR, targeted community outreach this summer and a planned follow‑up discussion in the fall when preliminary ATSDR findings or additional technical material may be available. EPA staff emphasized that operation and maintenance funding and five‑year reviews will remain in place even if parts of the site are partially deleted from the National Priorities List.
