CFAC damage assessment could reap rewards; But residents raise a host of concerns, including forever chemicals

Forever chemicals. Concerns about future residents and development, and plenty of “what ifs?”

Those were just some of the topics residents brought up concerning a Columbia Falls Aluminum Co. Damage Risk Assessment for the Superfund site at a meeting held earlier this month in Columbia Falls.

The Damage Risk Assessment is separate from the Superfund cleanup of the defunct aluminum plant site. Instead, it looks to recoup damage done to the human environment by historic  polluters, in this case the Columbia Falls Aluminum Co. And the Atlantic Richfield Co., both previous owners of the site.

That’s typically done through a settlement process with the responsible parties, noted Katherine Hausrath, an attorney with Natural Resource Damage Assessment Program, which is administratively attached to the Montana state Department of Justice and is funded through the state. 

While the Superfund cleanup largely involves the Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Environmental Quality, the damage assessment includes the state, the Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), the Department of Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.

Though it will likely take years to see a settlement, the program eventually makes a report and recommendations to the governor. Settlements often range in the millions. In Libby, for example, the program saw about $18.5 million in restitution.

It has also done key work in the Upper Clark Fork Superfund site and in Anaconda, as well. Not all settlements are simply  cash payments, either. Sometimes they result in land swaps. For example, in Helena, a settlement with Asarco resulted in 322 acres of company land being converted into trails and parkland for the city in 2020 under the Damage Risk Assessment Program.

Nino Berube, a resident and former plant engineer openly wondered about “forever chemicals” of PFAS at the CFAC site. He claimed with the amount of fluoride at the plant along with the extreme heat of the aluminum-making process, there should be thousands of pounds of the substances on the site.

“Are you willing to look at PFAS in detail?” he asked.

“That’s an excellent question,” Hausrath said.

The EPA, in its record of decision on the site cleanup, admitted it did not survey the site for PFAS.

“Regarding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) substances, these are emerging contaminants that were not required for analysis by EPA when the (remedial investigation) work plan was finalized in 2015. EPA is currently formulating a national policy to address PFAS contamination at sites characterized before EPA proposed listing the two PFAS compounds as hazardous substances in 2022,” the EPA noted in its Record of Decision on the CFAC cleanup.

The cleanup plan for the site calls for scraping the ground of some known contaminants near site landfills and the old plant. They’ll be piled up on top of an existing west landfill, which will be recapped.

The west landfill and an area known as the wet scrubber sludge pond will then be surrounded by a slurry wall designed to keep groundwater contaminated with high amounts of fluoride and cyanide contained to one relatively small area.

The hope is that over time, the groundwater south of the landfill will then become cleaner to the point where it’s all but contaminant-free.

But critics of that plan note that plan keeps the landfills and the waste there in perpetuity. The EPA has argued, in turn, that even if it dug up the waste, it couldn’t get it all and so there would still be contamination on the site, regardless. Digging it up also comes with a steep price tag, with estimates running over $1 billion.

Having said that, groundwater contamination was certainly a concern by the Damage Risk Assessment Program and would be addressed.

People at the meeting were also concerned about residential development planned for most of the property, as developer Mick Ruis has plans to put housing there. Most of the land is assumed to be uncontaminated, and tests to date have shown as much. But what if something  were found in the future? Was it simply buyer beware?

Neither Hausrath or project manager Sydney Stewart had direct answers. But in the event of an emergency, the EPA would likely be the responding agency. But once a settlement is reached under the Damage Risk Assessment Program, they couldn’t look to reopen the case against CFAC or ARCO, as settlements typically hold the company harmless for future claims.

Hausrath and Stewart did say, however, that any concerns that were brought up by residents currently would be forwarded to the EPA and the state Department of Environmental Quality. In addition, they noted they could do further environmental analysis of the site if they need further data,

They also urged anyone with any further information or concerns to contact them. Particularly if they feel something has been missed or omitted in previous studies or analysis.

Written comments must be submitted by July 23. They can be emailed to: nrdp@mt.gov. Please use the subject line “CFAC Draft Assessment Plan”

Or mailed to: The Natural Resource Damage Program P.O. Box 201425, Helena, MT 59620-1425; or faxed to: 406-444-0236.