Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Superfund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EPA: Libby Superfund five‑year review finds remedy largely protective but gaps remain, PFAS probe recommended
Summary
EPA remedial project manager Jason Rafy told Lincoln County commissioners the finalized five‑year review finds the remedy performing overall but identified incomplete institutional controls on county parcels, a still‑unreviewed lower aquifer, and the need to investigate potential PFAS impacts.
Jason Rafy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency remedial project manager for the Libby groundwater Superfund site, updated Lincoln County commissioners on the agency’s July 2025 five‑year review and its next steps.
“The five‑year review itself...is a statutory requirement,” Rafy said, describing the review’s three central questions: whether the remedy is functioning as intended, whether exposure assumptions and cleanup values remain valid, and whether new information calls the remedy’s protectiveness into question. He told the board the review is designed to identify data gaps and recommend follow‑up actions.
Rafy said the EPA’s main findings include limited institutional controls (ICs) on several county parcels outside municipal boundaries and the need to strengthen deed restrictions in some places. He said the in‑situ biospar remediation system selected in 2020 is being phased in: Area 2 began operation last year and Area 1 (the primary source area on International Paper property) has new wells drilled and is expected to start up in spring. Rafy said the soil land farm has been cleaned and the agency plans to seed it this fall and close the on‑site landfill in the next two years.
The review also prompted additional technical work. “We decided to take a closer look at the lower aquifer remedy,” Rafy said, and the EPA will complete a five‑year review addendum focused on that aquifer. He added investigators will also evaluate the possibility of PFAS (per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances) at the site and said a PFAS investigation could become another addendum.
County officials pressed several operational questions, including whether privately drilled wells near the treatment area could interfere with remediation. Rafy said the currently installed domestic wells are low‑flow (about 35 gallons per minute) and that monitoring wells would reveal if there were any impacts; the agency could modify the remedy or work with property owners if needed.
Rafy said the EPA will pursue additional ICs or a controlled groundwater area and will coordinate with local officials and the county board of health. He said the agency will also shore up deed restrictions both on International Paper’s property and on other parcels. The lower aquifer review and any PFAS work will determine whether the agency's sitewide protectiveness determination remains appropriate.
What happens next: the EPA plans to complete addenda for the lower aquifer and any PFAS findings as data permit, to bring Area 1 online next spring and to continue monitoring and community outreach. Rafy closed the presentation by inviting questions and noting timelines depend on the pace of additional sampling and literature review.
The board recessed after the presentation to continue other agenda items.
