10-9-2024 Coalition for a Clean CFAC Ltr to Governor final
Dear: Governor Greg Gianforte,
Senator Steve Daines,
Senator Jon Tester,
Representative Ryan Zinke,
Representative Matt Rosendale,
The Flathead County Commissioners,
The Columbia Falls City Council,
This letter is written on behalf of the Coalition for a Clean CFAC regarding the proposed remedy
(aka cleanup plan) for the accumulation of highly hazardous waste at the Columbia Falls
Aluminum Company (CFAC). As many know, there is intense pressure to adopt some sort of
clean-up plan and move this project forward. However, anyone who lives, recreates, works, or
visits the Flathead should not confuse the desire to start a clean-up plan, with a science-based
understanding of whether a clean-up plan will, in-fact, clean-up the toxic CFAC pollution.
The owner of CFAC, Glencore, is advocating that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
adopt Preferred Alternative #4 (out of 6 options). Having spent the past 3 months researching
the more than 10,000 pages of the EPA records, which Glencore’s consultants primarily wrote
and compiled and the EPA relies on to justify the selection of Alternative #4, we are obligated
to share our opinion that Alternative #4 is a raw deal for the Flathead, is not as protective as
other feasible alternatives, and relies more on hopes and prayers for a permanent solution to
toxic clean-up than it does best available science. For the reasons explained below we strongly
encourage elected leaders to stand united in telling EPA that they must pause decision-making
on any preferred alternative and issuing a Record of Decision until this happens.
Below we share critical flaws in the proposed cleanup plan, as well as discuss the alternatives
that could provide greater long-term, permanent protection of our local economy, future
redevelopment of the CFAC site, our clean water, healthy rivers, and fisheries. Note this letter
follows a series of earlier letters we have sent you and the EPA. As always, we would welcome
an opportunity to meet with any of you directly to discuss this issue.
As set forth on the front page of the 35-page CFAC Cleanup Plan Summary, “…EPA will review
and consider all comments provided and, in consultation with the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), will move forward with the Preferred Alternative, modify it, or
select another of the alternatives presented in this plan. The Selected Alternative will be
documented in a formal Record of Decision that will include a responsiveness summary to
address comments received.”(emphasis added) Note that we are recommending, consistent
with this statement, that the Preferred Alternative #4 be replaced with Alternative #6 and
2
modified to include treatment strategies improperly dismissed by Glencore’s consultant
ROUX, in the Feasibility Study, due to alleged cost or other unsubstantiated reasons. These
modifications include:
(a) treatment of toxic waste through Solidification and Stabilization1 (S/S) combined
with;
(b) Alternative 6’s option of consolidation of still hazardous waste after S/S in a newly
constructed on-site repository meeting substantive RCRA Subtitle C requirements for
modern hazardous waste impoundments; and
(c) ground water extraction and treatment called for in Alternative 4C, which could
reduce the cleanup time of the existing contaminated plume from 35-60 years to 6-9
Years. (Note Alternative #6 ranked in the draft plan as the highest Alternative for long-
term effectiveness and permanence.)
Furthermore, and in support of our request that you join us in urging EPA to pause any Record
of Decision and instead, re-evaluate its preferred alternative, please consider the following:
It is wrong to prioritize cost-savings to multi-national corporations like Glencore and ARCO,
who are responsible for cleanup costs at the Columbia Falls Aluminum Company (CFAC) site,
by approving cleanup remedies that cost much less, but will take an estimated 35 to 60 years, if
even then, to fully cleanup the existing polluted groundwater plume, over more costly remedies
that would clean up the polluted ground water in six to nine years, and with a higher degree of
certainty. The statutory and regulatory context for the consideration of cost in selecting a
preferred alternative in a CERCLA plan is one of five criteria. Remedies must (1) protect human
health and the environment, (2) comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements unless a waiver is justified; (3) be cost-effective; (4) utilize permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable; and (5) satisfy a preference for treatment as a principal element, or provide
an explanation why such preference was not met.
The proposed draft remedy of Preferred Alternative 4 reflects a unitary focus on the lowest
cost, with short shrift being given to other mandatory criteria. The draft plan needs to be
amended to include strategies that prevent an undisputed, existing, toxic plume of
groundwater from continuing to enter the Flathead River and shallow backwaters that are
critical habitat for rare and/or threatened species like the Bull Trout2 and the Westslope
Cutthroat Trout. Notably, there has been inadequate assessment of the undisputed toxic plume
from CFAC, upon threatened and endangered aquatic species or their critical habitat, which
support both those species and the Flathead’s world class recreational opportunities, much less
the outdoor economy driven by our healthy rivers and clean water.
1 Solidification/stabilization (S/S) transforms potentially hazardous liquid or solid contaminants of concern (COCs)
present in soil or sediment into environmentally innocuous materials of considerably reduced mobility, thus
preventing the hazardous waste from reaching receptors. https://frtr.gov/matrix/Solidification-and-Stabilization/ .
This treatment method is one of the top five treatment methods used at Superfund sites and is currently in use at
over 250 Superfund sites across the country. Studies show S/S has been used to successfully clean up cyanide.
2 Bull trout were listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act in 1998.
3
CFAC's investigation of impacts on the groundwater plume ended with the finding that toxins
related to CFAC were present in and contaminating surface waters in the Flathead and other
creeks, but did not adequately evaluate how the preferred alternative would, or would not,
violate water quality criteria or harm aquatic life. CERCLA requires evaluation of why a
proposed remedy satisfies components of the federal Clean Water Act, including compliance
with toxic water quality criteria and demonstrations of how remedies will, or will not, be
protective of aquatic life. This diligence is simply ignored in Preferred Alternative 4.
Additionally, regarding groundwater treatment, one of EPA’s consultants identified the
deficiencies of Alternative 4 long before release of the draft clean-up plan:
“The addition of downgradient groundwater extraction and treatment adds an
incremental cost of $30 million to the fully encompassing slurry wall alternative,
leading the [Feasibility Study] FS to conclude that the benefit of adding groundwater
extraction and treatment would not substantially increase the long-term
effectiveness and permanence, as compared to a functioning fully encompassing
slurry wall. As such, the additional cost is unjustified. A downgradient groundwater
extraction and treatment system would have to operate year-round, with flow rates
of up to 1,500 gallons per minute during high water table conditions. The benefit of
capturing and treating the groundwater at the downgradient end of the plume
would be to accelerate the timeframe to attain Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs)
(specifically to meet the PRG for free cyanide in porewater and surface water at the
River Area DU) to an estimated 6-9 years. Without treatment of the downgradient
edge of the plume, the timeframe is estimated at 35-60 years.” (emphasis added)
Memorandum from Gunnar Emilsson, CDM Smith to: Ken Champagne, EPA, Amanda Bartley, EPA, and
Dick Sloan, DEQ June 17, 2022 Page 5
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.ars&id=0800392&doc=Y&colid=67352
®ion=08&type=AR
CERCLA3 (and EPA regulations) require decision-makers to prioritize treatment4 over
containment, yet instead the draft Clean-up Plan calls for approval of containment over
treatment. A review of the record suggests that CFAC’s consultant hired to research and
create this Cleanup Plan, ROUX, arbitrarily and without merit, dismissed a top treatment
option used at Superfund sites around the country--Solidification and Stabilization5 (S/S).
3 42 U.S.C. 9621(b)(1) “Remedial actions in which treatment which permanently and significantly reduces the
volume, toxicity or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants is a principal element, are
to be preferred over remedial actions not involving such treatment.”
4 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=42-USC-
63342472-1059234779&term_occur=999&term_src=title:42:chapter:82:subchapter:I:section:6903
5 Solidification/stabilization (S/S) transforms potentially hazardous liquid or solid contaminants of concern (COCs)
present in soil or sediment into environmentally innocuous materials of considerably reduced mobility, thus
preventing the hazardous waste from reaching receptors. https://frtr.gov/matrix/Solidification-and-Stabilization/
Note it is our belief that the use of S/S combined with Alternative 6’s option of consolidation of still hazardous
waste in a newly constructed on-site repository meeting substantive RCRA Subtitle C requirements for modern
4
Specifically, ROUX concluded in several places in the Feasibility Study (FS) that “These
technologies do not provide a better effectiveness compared to more proven and easily
implemented technologies (e.g., soil cover). Therefore, both solidification and
stabilization for the Soil DU has been screened from further consideration.” 6 However,
ROUX failed to provide evidence demonstrating why CERCLA's preferred treatment
approach, and specifically S/S strategies, would not be more effective at remediating the
CFAC contamination. ROUX concludes S/S strategies are expensive,7 but fails to explain
how a soil cover would be more or equally effective, or how a soil cover in this
application even qualifies as treatment. We cannot find within EPA regulations where soil
covers in this context are even considered a treatment strategy called for by EPA. Put
simply, soil cover is a containment strategy. EPA’s own history demonstrates that
solidification and stabilization have been selected or are being used in cleanups at over
250 Superfund sites across the country currently.
The Draft CFAC Cleanup Plan also runs afoul of CERCLA's penultimate focus - protecting public
health and the environment - by recommending the cheapest option for containment, and
what evidence suggests is one of the least permanent and most risky containment methods—a
slurry wall. The draft recommendation is being made over the concerns expressed by EPA’s
own engineer (quoted below) in his review of the draft Cleanup Plan before its release to the
public. Further, the majority of public comment that followed the draft plan’s release favored
removal and/or treatment, over mere containment.
40 CFR § 300.430(a)(1)(iii)(A)
(iii) Expectations. EPA generally shall consider the following expectations in
developing appropriate remedial alternatives:
(A) EPA expects to use treatment to address the principal threats posed
by a site, wherever practicable. Principal threats for which treatment is most likely
to be appropriate include liquids, areas contaminated with high concentrations of
toxic compounds, and highly mobile materials. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-
40/chapter-I/subchapter-J/part-300/subpart-E/section-300.430
~~~~~~
hazardous waste impoundments and the ground water extraction and treatment called for in Alternative 4C which
could reduce the cleanup time of the existing contaminated plume from 35-60 years to 6-9years is the best
option…The President shall select a remedial action that is protective of human health and the environment, that
is cost effective, and that utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable.”
6 Feasibility Study Report | ROUX | page 80
7 The Feasibility Study Report | ROUX | pages 69-70 recognizes that “Section 4.2.5 of CERCLA RI/FS Guidance
(EPA/540/G-89/004) states that “cost plays a limited role in the screening of process options.” Yet ROUX goes on to
say in the very next paragraph, “For this evaluation, relative cost is used to screen out process options that have a
high capital cost if there are other choices that perform similar functions with similar effectiveness.” The Feasibility
Study Report | ROUX | page 80 also dismisses Solidification/Stabilization (S/S) as being able to treat PAH’s found at
CFAC but the following web sites notes it can be treated with S/S using organic binders.
https://www.frtr.gov/matrix/Solidification-and-Stabilization/
5
“The alternative ranking displayed in Table 7-2 indicates that the fully
encompassing slurry wall was the highest-scoring alternative. During the June 6
call, CDM Smith expressed concern over the constructability of the slurry wall.
The FS indicates that the slurry [wall] would be installed to depths of up to 120
to 150 feet, which is at the limit of current slurry wall construction capabilities.
CDM Smith’s knowledge of another barrier wall installation to depths of up to 90
feet within glacial till (at a Superfund site in Washington) suggests that the
occurrence of boulders and other natural obstructions along the wall alignment
may require significant pre-drilling effort to penetrate. Additionally, complex
construction methods such as a composite barrier wall (e.g., a combination of
slurry trenching and jet grouting) may need to be considered to construct the
wall to the target depths. The inherent complexity of such construction
approaches may increase the likelihood of the target depths not being
achieved along portions of the wall, thus reducing the effectiveness of the
barrier.” Memorandum from Gunnar Emilsson, CDM Smith to Ken Champagne, EPA, Amanda
Bartley ,EPA, and Dick Sloan June 17, 2022 Page 4
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.ars&id=0800392
&doc=Y&colid=67352®ion=08&type=AR (emphasis added)
Additionally, regarding protection of human health and the environment including fisheries,
we are concerned with the EPA’s and DEQ’s failure to require the taking of specific samples
from the seven (7) landfills on the CFAC property.8 This makes absolutely no sense. Without
knowing the identity of the contaminants in the landfills and the concentration of these
contaminants present in the worst portions of this contaminated site, it’s not possible to know
what health risks these areas really pose to the public, or fisheries, or wildlife. Using data
collected from monitoring wells and from surface samples collected some distance from the
landfills will at best underestimate the human health and environmental risks and at worst,
provide a false sense of security. This is especially important since the EPA is considering leaving
the contamination in place.
Glencore’s consultants have expressed concern about “compromising the integrity of the
covers” of the landfills and EPA is thus far accepting their reasoning. Yet, Glencore’s consultants
have already drilled soil borings and collected soil samples from three of the landfills (the
sanitary, industrial and center landfills).9 However, the lab analysis for these samples was not
included in the Remedial Investigation (RI) report. This information needs to be made public
and included as part of human health and ecological risk analysis included in the RI report. We
want to know what the agency looked for in these samples and what was found. Furthermore,
it’s unclear what the condition is of the existing covers. The RI report states that “the industrial
8 “Samples were not directly collected from landfills at the site to avoid compromising the integrity of the covers.
In lieu of direct sampling, EPA sampled monitoring wells previously installed in locations down-gradient and up-
gradient of the landfill and sludge pond sources to determine if contaminants have been released to
groundwater.”
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.cleanup&id=0800392
9 Note that consolidation of additional on-site waste to some of these landfills is part of Alternative 4.
6
landfill is ‘uncovered,’ that it’s unclear if asbestos is present at the surface” of the asbestos
landfills, and that the west landfill cap is synthetic and was installed in 1994. The main concern
with covers is the loss of integrity over time. The EPA must do a better job of describing the
integrity of the existing covers for each of the landfills on the CFAC property and define and
provide science-based evidence of what would be the dangers of compromising the integrity of
the covers by collecting additional samples.
In closing, we ask you to step back and reevaluate the adequacy of Preferred Alternative 4 for
the CFAC Project. The Flathead deserves a plan that is more protective of our economy - which
is driven by our unparalleled and spectacular natural resources including our clean water, clean
rivers, the fisheries, and the critical habitats they and we all rely upon to stay healthy. Our
Coalition represents approximately 20,000 citizens who have already petitioned the EPA for
reconsideration of this draft Cleanup Plan for CFAC.
We ask that you speak up quickly and request continued delay in the adoption of the ROD for
the CFAC site and/or for serious consideration of amendments to the ROD that support our call
for the Preferred Alternative #4 to be replaced with Alternative #6 and modified to include
treatment of toxic waste through Solidification and Stabilization10 (S/S) combined with
Alternative 6’s option of consolidation of treated but perhaps still hazardous waste in a newly
constructed on-site repository meeting substantive RCRA Subtitle C requirements for modern
hazardous waste impoundments (and ranked in the draft plan as the highest Alternative for
long-term effectiveness and permanence), and for the ground water extraction and
treatment called for in Alternative 4C which could reduce the cleanup time of the existing
contaminated plume from 35-60 years to 6-9 years and at long last put an end to this ongoing
pollution of the Flathead River, as the preferred option . (Shortening the on-going monitoring
required from 35-60 years to 6-9 years will be a huge savings that must also be considered.)
While the age-old proverb goes trust but verify, we find it may be more appropriate to flip
these and say verify before you trust; at least that is what we have been working hard to do.
We look forward to hearing from you on this issue and thank you for giving this your immediate
attention before the EPA issues a final ROD.
Sincerely,
The Board of the Coalition for a Clean CFAC , coalition@cleancfac.org
Shirley Folkwein (406-890-1659), Phil Matson, Del Phipps, Laura Damon, Mayre Flowers (406-
253-0872), Peter Metcalf
Cc
• Michael Freeman, Governor’s Office, Natural Resources Policy Advisor
• KC Becker, Regional Administrator for EPA’s Region 8
10 Solidification/stabilization (S/S) transforms potentially hazardous liquid or solid contaminants of concern (COCs)
present in soil or sediment into environmentally innocuous materials of considerably reduced mobility, thus
preventing the hazardous waste from reaching receptors. https://frtr.gov/matrix/Solidification-and-Stabilization/
7
• Carolina Balliew, Montana Remedial Section C Supervisor, for EPA Region 8
• Matthew Dorrington, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Division, EPA Region 8
• Sonja Nowakowski, Director of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality
• Montana DEQ Project Manager, Richard Sloan
• The Montana Environmental Quality Council
• Columbia Falls City Council, Mayor Don Barnhart, (no public email available)
• Whitefish City Council, Mayor John Mulfield,
• Kalispell City Council, Mayor Mark Johnson
• Flathead County Commissioners: Brad Abell, Randy Brodehl, and Pam Holmquist
• US Senator Jon Tester , c/o Erik Nylund, Regional Director Butte, and Chad Cambell, Regional Director,
Kalispell
• US Senator Steve Daines, c/o Katie Devlin, Natural Resource Liaison
• Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal Council, Michael Dolson , Chair
• Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes: Richard Janssen, Natural Resources Dept. Head
• The Montana Natural Resource Damage Program: Doug Martin and Katherine Hausrath
• Flathead City-County Health Department: Jennifer Rankosky
• Flathead Lake Biological Station, UM, James Elser, Director and Tom Bansak , Associate Director
• Western Montana Conservation Commission, Casey Lewis, Executive Director, Mike Koppel, Chair
• Flathead Conservation District, Pete Woll, Board Chair, and Samantha Tappenbeck, Resource
Conservationist