Council says CFAC Superfund listing is OK by them

After a spirited discussion Monday night, the Columbia Falls City Council united in its call for the fastest cleanup of the Columbia Falls aluminum Co. site. 

And if that means a Superfund designation, then so be it.

Just a week ago, city leaders were leaning to a Superfund Alternative Approach, which would have held the cleanup to the same standards as a Superfund site, without the designation. But after some research by staffers with Montana Sen. Jon Tester’s office, they thought the site doesn’t qualify for the alternative listing, because it’s already on the National Priorities List, which is a precursor to Superfund listing. The alternative is only used for sites that haven’t been put on the Priority List.

That development didn’t sit well with Mayor Don Barnhart, who noted project manager Mike Cirian was touting the alternative as a possibility last fall and in a community liaison meeting last month, still indicated it was a possibility.

But Cirian said Tuesday that the site isn’t actually on the NPL, it’s just proposed for the NPL, so it could still be considered for the alternative assessment. 

But alternative or not, council wants it cleaned up as soon as possible and was openly frustrated with the process.

Councilman Dave Petersen questioned the validity of the liaison panel as a true community panel. He noted it was put together by Glencore, CFAC’s parent company, and was run by the company’s public relations firm. He claimed talk of a Superfund stigma hanging over the city’s image may have been crafted at the meetings set up by the company.

“This isn’t their first rodeo,” Petersen said.

Petersen said his objective was to get the site cleaned up.

“I’m not afraid of Superfund listing,” he said.

He also questioned a recent letter to the Environmental Protection Agency by the Flathead County Commissioners that claimed there was “consensus” in the community that the site be listed under the alternative approach.

“I’m totally unaware of any consensus,” Petersen said.

He also questioned whether there would really be any stigma attached to a Superfund listing. 

He said he Googled other cities that have Superfund sites and the negative connection simply didn’t exist. 

Petersen also openly wondered about the future financial stability of the company. While the company has provided $4 million for the initial investigation of the site, that process will take four to five years, and an actual cleanup will likely cost millions more. Without Superfund listing, there’s no guarantee the site would get cleaned up if the company goes bankrupt.

Councilman Mike Shepard, who worked at the plant for years and knows where material has been buried, said the plant will be a threat to the city’s water quality in the future if it’s not cleaned up.

“The material that is underground will continue to degrade the water quality,” he said.

Test wells at the site have found elevated levels of cyanide. 

Though wells outside the site have not shown any cyanide levels above safe water drinking thresholds to date.

“Let’s get it listed and move forward,” he said.

The bottom line is the city is still worried about contamination of its water supply, which comes from wells downstream of the site. The water is come of the purest on the planet. It doesn’t even require chlorination.

In the end, the council voted unanimously to send a letter to the EPA recommending the fastest route possible to cleanup, which could include a Superfund listing, if need be.