In a rush to halt the oncoming record of decision on the EPA’s proposed cleanup plan at the Columbia Falls Aluminum Company Superfund Site, members of the community approached Columbia Falls City Council during their Feb. 5 meeting.

“Once that decision is issued, our opportunity to shape the cleanup and the future of that site is effectively over. Right now the company who wrote the plan is driving this process, and it’s important that we have an opportunity to ensure the EPA is actually listening to the local community,” Coalition for a Clean CFAC representative Peter Metcalf said to the council. 

The record of decision is set to be presented in March and is the final stage of developing a cleanup solution in the EPA’s process. However, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Missy Haniewicz has previously informed Hungry Horse News that all comments received during or after the public comment period will be included in the record of decision. Once the record of decision is released, the community involvement plan will be updated to include opportunities for community engagement during the remedial design process and remedial action phase, next on the docket. 

The Coalition has already released a letter to the EPA and Montana DEQ promoting a “timeout” to reevaluate the cost-benefit of removing the toxic waste from the site completely. 

Currently the EPA’s preferred plan suggests capping hazardous areas to prevent water infiltration, building slurry retaining walls to divert uncontaminated groundwater, installing monitoring wells downgradient of polluted sites, a groundwater treatment facility to treat cyanide, fluoride, and arsenic with infiltration basins for discharge of treated effluent back to groundwater, and excavating impacted soil and disposing of it onsite in one of the landfills. 

All of these solutions would be implemented at various levels across polluted sites with reviews every five years. The total price tag, with implementation and maintenance, would be just under $58 million. 

A plan for removing the waste completely and transporting it to an off-site disposal facility was evaluated and eliminated by the EPA. Their feasibility study lists reasons including the nearest qualified disposal facility being 500 miles away in Oregon, pre-treatment of waste extending the remediation timeline, and a need for 60,000 trucks or rail cars to transport an estimated 1.2 million cubic yards of waste. 

“Disposal fees and transportation costs are generally very high. The volume and nature of waste from [CFAC landfills] makes offsite disposal extremely expensive and is as protective as the containment approach,” the Proposed Plan for Cleanup reads. However, no definitive cost is listed. 

“I think we deserve at least a fair understanding of what the cost would be to remove that waste,” Metcalf said. 

Mayor Don Barnhart and City Manager Susan Nicosia recently met with representatives from CFAC and their parent company, Glencore, to present community questions. Barhart relayed that CFAC owns about 2,400 acres of land, with the EPA study area encompassing about 1,300 of those acres. Five hundred acres used by CFAC for industrial purposes have been deemed hazardous, and 16% of total land will be used for industrial purposes post-cleanup.

The proposed cleanup plan reads, “In the absence of a definitive local plan, the feasibility study identifies potential future uses such as commercial, industrial, and recreational.”

“It was a really big disappointment to me that we didn’t get to do a community visioning process for that site and the future of that site. I feel it’s our responsibility as a community to clean up that site so our children and our children’s children don’t inherit all the contamination the company has left there,” Erin Sexton, a member of the CFAC Community Liasion Panel commented. 

CFAC and Glencore representatives maintained that a land use plan could not be released until after the record of decision. 

“There isn’t a whole lot that this group right here can do,” Barnhart said, referring to the council. He noted that the council was involved with getting the area designated as a superfund site and requested the removal of waste, and had been involved with the project for eight years. Now, the County Commissioners, EPA and DEQ are the people to turn to. 

“I’m sorry there’s some people here that have just started speaking up about this. Maybe seven, eight years ago if they had spoken up at that time, there would have been something started back then. That’s the position we’re in as this council.”