Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Superfund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EPA: Libby groundwater remedy largely protective but reviews and extra controls needed
Summary
At an Aug. 6 meeting, EPA remedial project manager Jason Rafy told Lincoln County commissioners that the agency’s seven‑time five‑year review finds the Libby groundwater remedy generally protective in the near term but flagged limited institutional controls, a deferred lower‑aquifer review and a need to investigate potential PFAS impacts.
Jason Rafy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency remedial project manager for the Libby groundwater Superfund site, told Lincoln County commissioners on Aug. 6 that the agency’s freshly finalized five‑year review finds the remedy generally protective in the near term but identified important information gaps and follow‑up work.
“The five‑year review itself, it’s an EPA document. It’s a statutory requirement,” Rafy said, describing the three review questions EPA uses to judge whether sites with waste left in place remain protective of human health. He said EPA’s review looks at remedy performance, whether exposure assumptions and cleanup values remain valid, and whether new information undermines protectiveness.
Rafy summarized the review’s principal findings: institutional controls (ICs) protecting groundwater remain limited on some parcels outside municipal boundaries; the soil remedy is effectively complete with the consolidated landfarm now clean and scheduled to be seeded; an in‑situ biospar system selected in 2020 has started up in Area 2 and crews are drilling wells in Area 1 with startup anticipated in spring next year; and the lower aquifer assessment is not yet finished, so EPA deferred a protectiveness determination for that unit. He also said EPA will investigate the possibility of PFAS (referred to in the meeting as “POS”) at the site.
Rafy told the board that the agency will pursue additional ICs where needed — such as a controlled groundwater area or strengthened deed restrictions — and will coordinate with county, city and state officials. “We want to work on finding additional ICs to cover those last remaining parcels,” he said, and suggested the county health board could be a partner.
On timing, Rafy said the lower‑aquifer evaluation and a PFAS investigation will be handled through five‑year review addenda; once Area 1 is operating, that startup will trigger a record‑of‑decision review of the remedy. He said the on‑site landfarm work is complete and the consolidated landfill (the CAMU) is likely to remain available as a staging option for contaminated material before final closure, expected in the coming two years.
Commissioners asked about potential interactions between new private wells and the remedy, the location of the CAMU relative to the landfarm, and whether monitoring has shown contamination outside the primary plume. Rafy said available data show rivers remain clean, monitoring wells surround the plume and EPA would install additional sentinel wells or modify the remedy if monitoring indicated movement of contamination.
Why it matters: the five‑year review directs next steps for protecting county groundwater and informs whether new or strengthened institutional controls are needed to prevent exposure in areas not covered by city ordinances. The county will have a role as EPA pursues deed restrictions, control areas, and the addenda that will resolve lower‑aquifer questions and the PFAS inquiry.
Next steps: EPA will prepare one or more addenda (lower‑aquifer review and PFAS inquiry), continue drilling and start up Area 1 treatment next spring, and work with county staff on potential county‑level controls where ICs are incomplete.
