By: Jennifer Harrington
A Superfund Site Runs Through It
The development of the Missoula Valley began in 1860 when C. P. Higgins and Francis Worden opened a trading post called the Hellgate Village on the Blackfoot River near the eastern edge of the valley. It was followed by a sawmill and a flourmill, which the settlers called "Missoula Mills".(Destination Missoula, 2014) The Northern Pacific Railroad development through Missoula in 1883 converted it from a town of 300 to a city of 12,000 in 1920, with an economy based on trade, timber, and agriculture. (Missoula.org, 2014) A mill was opened up on the Northside of Missoula in 1900. When World War I ended in November 1918, consumer demand led to continued expansion of the Huttig operation. In 1920 Huttig Sash and Door entered into a joint venture with Spokane, Washington-based White Pine Sash Company, to establish a sash factory in Missoula, Montana, which took the name Missoula White Pine Sash Company (MWPS), with Huttig owning a controlling interest. (Huttig Sash and Pole.com, 2014)
Until the mid-1970s, logging was a mainstay industry with log yards throughout the city. The mills would run teepee burners to dispose of waste material, contributing to the smoky haze that sometimes covered the town. However, by the early 1990s, changes were in the economic and environmental policy forefront which shifted the size and scope of mill activities in Missoula. (Destination Missoula, 2014)
Bibliography
Scott Street Partners and Missoula Housing Authority’s involvement with the White Pine Sash site
A Superfund Site Runs Through It
The development of the Missoula Valley began in 1860 when C. P. Higgins and Francis Worden opened a trading post called the Hellgate Village on the Blackfoot River near the eastern edge of the valley. It was followed by a sawmill and a flourmill, which the settlers called "Missoula Mills".
From the mid-1930 until 1987, milled products were dipped for three minutes in chlorophenolic formulations in order to reduce the potential for mold and fungus growth (Envirocon, Inc, 2, 1995).
The mill employed many residents from the Northside and Westside. It provided wood products for the growing northwest. The White Pine Sash and Pole would give scrap wood to the Northside community remembers one-time resident Jerry Cantrell. His first thought at the question about growing up near the mill was that they gave away scrap wood and the neighborhood kids would gather it and stock up the woodsheds of some of the elderly residents on the Northside, when woodstoves was their only source of heat.
The origin of the wood-treating process area on the property consisted of approximately 74 foot by 250-foot area where the dip rooms were formerly located on the property. (Envirocon, 2000)
The treatment system of this period consisted of two underground storage tanks (UST’s), which were used to store diesel that was then pumped to a heated mixing vat. In the vat, solid pentachlorophenol (PCP) flakes or pellets were mixed with diesel to create a 5 percent PCP solution. This solution was pumped into the original dip tank where products were dipped individually and allowed to drip dry above the tank before shipment offsite (Envirocon, 2000).
In 1950 PCP became available premixed with mineral spirits in a 5 percent solutions. The original treatment system was replaced to include a second dip tank. The original treatment building was not removed until the 1980’s. The two UST’s were abandoned and left in place. The second system included two above ground storage tanks in the southwest portion of the site. There was also a concrete dip tank located below the ground surface inside a second treatment building. A rock and concrete overflow cistern was also located below the ground surface east of the building (Envirocon, 2000).
The PCP mixtures were reused as much as possible to reduce operation costs. Prior to the adoption of hazardous waste regulations for the use of PCP, waste sludge from the dip tank was reportedly sold or given to local ranchers for their use in treating fence posts and other ranch materials when the tanks had to be cleaned out (Envirocon, 2000).
In 1987, new hazardous waste regulations created an incentive for MWPS to replace the PCP treatment system with a new mineral spirits based (Woodlife F) system that would not produce hazardous wastes. The above ground storage tanks (AST’s), were used to store the new dipping solution although the underground piping was cut and rerouted to the new dip tank with some old piping left in place. The AST’s, dip tanks, and old piping were removed in 1998 and 1999 when the site was purchased by new owners (Envirocon, 2000 pg. 2).
In 1995, MWPS shut down the mill and began buying precut lumber, consequently they reduced its workforce. At the end of 1996, MWPS decided to close the entire facility laying off approximately 80 employees (Envirocon, 2000 pg. 2-3).
It was reported in the Executive Summary of the Remedial Investigation of 1995 that at least two dip tanks were used during this period, however in the same report it is stated that there were two dip tanks discovered when removing known dip tanks (Envirocon, Inc, 2, 1995). One dip tank was reported to have been installed in 1930 and removed in 1950. The second known dip tank was installed in 1950 and removed in 1989 (Envirocon, Inc, 2, 1995).
According to Jon Harvala of the Missoula Water Quality District, during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promoted nationwide regulations on Underground Storage Tanks (UST’s). A movement was initiated across the country to remove UST’s. In the Executive Summary of the RI in 1995 it is stated that during the removal of the dip tank in 1989, the first unknown, abandoned, UST was discovered. Both tanks were removed (Envirocon, Inc, 2, 1995) .
In a memo from Mike Trombetta of the Department of Health and Environmental Services to Carol Fox, Program manager of the Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act( CECRA) superfund division at the time dated January 17, 1990, Mr. Trombetta designated three tanks that were excavated and that below tank #2 a soil sample contained a lab result of 85mg/kg. The letter said that Bob Blanchard, MWPS Co., was under the impression that 85mg/kg of PCP was an acceptable level. Mike Trombetta goes on to say that the soil that was inside tank #3 had been applied on the site. The letter is asking for help from Carol Fox as Mr. Trombetta states that his, “experience with Penta is nil at best”. (Services, 1990)
In the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences Missoula White Pine Sash Remedial Investigation Work Plan Responsiveness Summary of June 5, 1995, the background information given indicated that soil contaminated with PCP and diesel were discovered during the removal of an UST but that the levels of contamination at the time, 85mg/kg, did not appear to indicate extensive contamination that would require clean up. (Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, 1995) pg. 1. Soil inside the tank was sampled and analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), the sample contained 29,000 parts per million (ppm) TPH. (Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, 1995)
A new abandoned underground storage tank was discovered in the same area in 1992. Soil samples collected below the tank indicated the tank had released PCP and petroleum hydrocarbons. (Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, 1995) Further investigations indicated the presence of diesel range organics (DRO), hexachlorobenzene (HCB), and pentachlorophenol (PCP) in the soil. While the groundwater on the site indicated contamination of dioxins, DRO, and PCP. (Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, 1995) Two soil samples were collected beneath the UST by the Montana Department of Agriculture (MDA). The samples were analyzed for TPH and PCP. The samples contained less than 0.5 ppm and 21.5 ppm PCP and 1600 ppm and 1200 ppm TPH respectively (Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, 1995).
In 1993 the MDA began to address the site under the Montana Agricultural Chemical Groundwater Protection Act (Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, 1995) . PCP was regulated as a pesticide which lead to the MDA being put in charge of the investigation. In May 1993 MDA sent a letter to the Missoula White Pine Sash company (MWPS) requiring an investigation of soil and groundwater contamination (Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, 1995).
MWPS began their investigation of the nature and the extent of impacts on soil and groundwater resulting from past activities on the site (E.S. pg. 14). Twenty-two monitoring wells and three soil borings were installed and several test pits were excavated and sampled (Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, 1995) .
“It quickly became clear that the extent and the nature of the contamination was beyond MDA expertise.” Jon Harvala pointed out (Harvala, 2014)
In December 1994 MDA and MDHES that the site be addressed under the Montana Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act (CECRA). 75-10-701 MCA. CECRA is also known as the “State Superfund Law”. (Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, 1995)
In December 1994, MDHES issues General Notice Letters to MWPS and its parent company, Huttig Sash and Door Company, informing them of their status under CECRA as a potentially liable persons (PLP’s) (Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, 1995) . In January 1995 MDHES issued Special Notice Letters to MWPS and Huttig to initiate formal negotiations on an Administrative Order on Consent (Consent Order) for the completion of a Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the MWPS site. MWPS (Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, 1995). Company developed a work Draft RI work plan on February 10, 1995. After Consent Order negotiations failed MDHES decided to issue a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to MWPS and its parent company Huttig Sash and Door Company on March 17, 1995 (Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, 1995) . An UAO is an order to a potentially responsible party (PRP) under Section 106 of CERCA requiring PRP cleanup of a contaminated site without providing an opportunity for a hearing (Wendell, 2011).
Mountain Water brought in a line to connect the Northside after closing the well at Dickens and Defoe. According to Jon Harvala, the well on Dickens and Defoe had to be shut down because of contaminants found. Huttig settled with Mountain Water, paying them to keep the well off-line (Harvala, 2014).
The contaminants of concern were not always connected with cancer but the release of the Environmental Protection Agency new correlation between dioxin and cancer gave the residents near the brownfield site both validation and concern. “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will officially announce Monday what several Missoula-area groups have been saying publicly for years: Dioxin is a human carcinogen (Missoulian, June 10, 2000)."
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicates dioxin is particularly dangerous because it is so pervasive. The chemical becomes airborne largely through industry emissions and enters the food chain when animals eat contaminated plants. The chemical accumulates in the fat of mammals and fish, and then, in the humans who eat them (Cohen, 2000).
According to the report, 4,000 people in the United States will get cancer from dioxin exposure this year, or, at least 10 new cancer cases will be detected every day (Missoulian, June 10, 2000). The chemical has been linked to other health problems such as diabetes and developmental defects in children, Henry said (Cohen, 2000).
In May 1998, Missoula received one of 36 grants awarded nationwide which earmarked $200,000 in federal money to sites like the old Champion International sawmill near McCormick Park and the White Pine Sash property (Cohen, 2000).
The grant money cannot be used for cleanup but can help the effort by establishing goals for the property (Holien, 1999).
“Eight local businessmen calling themselves the Scott Street Limited Liability Partnership (SSLLP) bought 32 acres north and east of the Watkins property, but Mike Stevenson made it clear Wednesday night they're uncertain what they'll do with the property (Holien, 1999)."
"We got a pretty good deal on the low-risk part of the property and as business people profit to us is not a dirty word," said Stevenson (Holien, 1999).
After considerable effort, and with $70,000 in funding from an EPA Assessment Grant, in September, 2007, a cleanup plan was approved by DEQ. By May of 2009
EPA Cleanup Grant and matching contributions, the City Public Works Department has removed 8,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil, excavating a minimum
below grade for the park area and an adjacent area with elevated levels of contamination. By June of 2010, the City had imported and graded 10,000 cubic yards of topsoil, and 400 cubic yards of soil amendment, and seeded the new ground. In August, 2010, the city submitted a Construction Completion Report to the MTDEQ and requested a Letter of No Further Action for the entire city-owned portion of the site, with institutional controls (Missoula County, 2014).
Brownfields are abandoned, idled or underused industrial and commercial sites where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination (Missoula County, 2014).
Jon Harvala, of the Missoula Valley Water Quality District, outlined the procedures and reports completed thus far: Remedial Investigation (RI) and Risk Assessment (RA), though the RA was redone due to changes in acceptable levels of contaminants determined by the EPA (Harvala, 2014). Treatment studies have been done at MWPS and they looked at what potential existed to treat the contaminants in-situ, or in place (Harvala, 2014). “The studies continued to ask what technologies are available and can actually do the job without disrupting existing businesses and homes (Harvala, 2014)."
The perched aquifers are 15-30 feet below the surface at the MWPS site. There is a shallow groundwater zone, a saturated clay lens, at the north end of Scott Street Bridge. The Missoula Valley Water Quality district drafted comments that encouraged deeper excavation and in-situ oxidation to get at the source directly. Harvala noted that, “over time levels of contamination have declined to low levels (Harvala, 2014)."
As the land lies in wait for the decision from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, there are lessons that should not be ignored from this twenty-year process. What should and could be done to a Brownfield site in a neighborhood? Will institutional controls ever be enough to ensure the health and safety of the populace?
“The take-away is it is very hard for DEQ in Helena to control what is happening on a site that is still being used (Harvala, 2014)." He went on to say that, “institutional controls have negative impacts on a community. It failed to do what they were supposed to do. If you rely on institutional controls, there has to be some mechanism to enforce them. When you are thinking about it, people are living near it (Harvala, 2014)!"
So what is next after the DEQ makes it Record of Decision (ROD)? A remedial design. Environmental engineers will figure out the details of the decided upon cleanup plan. It will be a remedial design due to the nature of the contamination as a petroleum carrier. (Harvala, 2014) “There is PCP and diesel fuel saturated in clay. It is a very difficult situation to remediate.” (Harvala, 2014)
Bibliography
Cohen, M. B. (2000). Missoula group steps up dioxin fight follwing report. Missoulian .
Destination Missoula. (2014, November 15). Destination Missoula. Retrieved from (http://www.destinationmissoula.org/history)
Envirocon. (2000). Final Draft Work Plan Baseline Risk Assessment Missoula White Pine Sash. Missoula.
Envirocon, Inc, 2. (1995). Revised Final Draft Remedial Investigation Work Plan White Pine Sash Company Site. Missoula.
Envirocon, Inc. (1998). Final Remedial Investigation Report White Pine Sash Company Site. Missoula.
(2000). Executive Summary.
Harvala, J. (2014, November 1). Missoula Valley Water Quality District. (J. Harrington, Interviewer)
Holien, M. M. (1999). Neighbors mull future on White Pine Sash site.
Huttig Sash and Pole.com. (2014, November 15). Huttig Building Products. Retrieved from History: (http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history/He-Ja/Huttig-Building-Products-Inc.htm
Missoula County. (2014). Missoula County. Retrieved from Brownfields White Pine Sash: ftp://www.co.missoula.mt.us/opgftp/Grants/Brownfields/WhitePineSash.htm)
Missoula.org, H. (2014, November 15). Historic Missoula. Retrieved from (http://www.historicmissoula.org/History/tabid/107/Default.aspx)
Montana Department of Environmental Quality Remediation Division. (2000). Final Draft Workplan Baseline Risk Assessment. Missoula.
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. (1995). Missoula White Pine Sash Remedial Investigation Responsiveness Summary. Misoula.
Services, M. T. (1990, January 17). Memo. White Pine Sash and Pole . Missoula, Montana.
Wendell. (2011). Retrieved from Knowledge Center publications: (http://www.wendel.com/knowledge-center/publications/2011/epa-s-authority-to-issue-prps-unilateral-orders-affirmed)
Scott Street Partners and Missoula Housing Authority’s involvement with the White Pine Sash site
By: Jack Mueller
In
1999, Scott Street Partners bought 30 acres of the former White Pine Sash from
Huttig Building Products after it had already been deemed a Superfund site in
1994. Zip beverage and the city of
Missoula also bought property at the location.
For nearly 70 years the site was the location of the White Pine Sash and
Door Company – who dipped wood products into underground vats of petroleum
products and pentachlorophenol (PCP) to prevent mold growth.
Figure
1: Example of a window sash that was being dipped into the chemical vats
Scott Street Partners bought the property
knowing that the soil and groundwater was contaminated with carcinogen
chemicals. Mike Stevenson is one of the
six investors that make up Scott Street Partners, “Stevenson worked for 16
years at the Missoula-based environmental remediation company Envirocon. He knew
full well that investing in a state-designated Superfund site was risky. But he
didn't see himself getting saddled with—and paying taxes on—a blighted weed lot
for more than a decade. “We didn't feel
that the environmental impacts were all that great—that they could be pretty
easily handled,” he says. “[With] a bulldozer and three months you probably
could have cleaned that property up.” ” (Missoula Independent). But as it turns out, the environmental
impacts associated with the site are much worse than Scott Street Partners
might have anticipated. In a Missoulian
newspaper article Stevenson said that he and his associates are eager to see
some development take place on the property, “I’m getting tired of paying taxes
on a piece of property I can’t do anything with . . . After 14 years, we’re
kind of anxious to do something,” Stevenson said. “Every year, (there’s)
another anxiety attack that goes by.” ” (Missoulian).
There was a deed restriction placed on the sales agreement preventing residential use of the White Pine Sash site when Huttig sold the property to Scott Street Investors in 1999. If residential development was not permitted on the property, then Huttig would only be required to clean the property to commercial/industrial standards. “Huttig’s intent was to pass any possible environmental cleanup expense entailed in the superior residential standard to succeeding owners. The DEQ’s attorney, Cynthia Brooks reports that the agency does not recognize the legal validity of such an agreement between two private parties, and that Montana Superfund law does not allow deed restrictions or restrictive covenants to be placed on the sale of contaminated properties without the agency’s prior approval” (NMCDC). In 2008, Scott Street Partners tried to rezone the property to commercial/industrial because it was more in line with the deed restriction – having commercial/industrial zoning would prevent any residential development. If the property were rezoned, DEQ indicated that it would likely recognize that new zoning and require cleanup only to risk levels applicable to commercial reuse” (NMCDC). However, the Missoula Planning Board recommended that the request be denied so the partners withdrew the rezone request before it was voted on by the city council. What’s interesting is that according the to the NMCDC, Scott Street Partners had actually supported the idea of residential development in the past – “In 1999 a spokesperson for the Partnership, Mike Stevenson, was quoted in a Missoulian article as saying that the group would “develop conceptual plans on what would be the highest and best use of the property” and that “We would like to see some residential application.” The Scott Street Group, for a number of years, with prominent on-site signage, advertised the property for sale for a variety of potential uses, including residential” (NMCDC). The Scott Street Partners contradicted their statement that they would like to see residential application at the site when they attempted to rezone the parcel, preventing residential use in the future.
I was unable to contact Mike
Stevenson or any of the other partners of Scott Street Partners. However I was able to get some comments from
City Council member Bryan von Lossberg.
He said that he himself is a Northside resident, so this is an issue
that he has a personal connection to. Brian
is very concerned with any dangerous chemicals that may be present, and that
the health of the neighborhood and the community are of utmost importance to
him. Brian co-sponsored a resolution
that calls on the state agency to recognize residential use – among a mix of
residential and commercial/industrial activities – in its cleanup plan. Von Lossberg explained that he doesn’t know
what type of development will be best suited to the site; however, he believes
that cleaning the site so that it is safe as possible for public health is important
for any type of development that takes place.
He hopes that the DEQ will recognize the possibility of residential use
of the site, and require Huttig to clean the property to residential
standards.
Missoula
Housing Authority
The
Missoula Housing Authority owns and manages 45 public housing units located
near the White Pine Sash site. An
article in the Missoulian newspaper stated that, “the agency[MHA] argued that 19 vacant acres
at the old White Pine mill site should be cleaned to residential standards
because of existing homes near the Superfund property and the need for more
affordable units there and throughout the city” (Missoulian). The Missoula housing authority also stated in
the article that they think cleaning to residential standards will allow for
the highest and best use of the land.
Works
cited:
Mayrer, Jessica. No End in
Blight. Missoula Independent. Last
modified 2/23/12, Accessed 11/14/14,
http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/no-end-in-blight/Content?oid=1537406
Oaks, Bob. White Pine Sash Site
at a Crossroads. NMCDC Last modified
3/27/14, Accessed 11/14/14, http://www.nmcdc.org.php53-10.dfw1-1.websitetestlink.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/White-Pine-Sash-History.pdf
Szpaller, Keila. Chorus grows
for DEQ to clean White Pine Superfund site to residential standards. Missoulian. Last modified 4/13/14,
Accesssed 11/15/14,
http://missoulian.com/news/local/chorus-grows-for-deq-to-clean-white-pine-superfund-site/article_8b200872-c2a0-11e3-86c1-0019bb2963f4.html
Szpaller, Keila. Decision on
White Pine Sash cleanup delayed; public meeting this fall. Missoulian. Last modified
8/3/14, Accessed 11/13/14, http://missoulian.com/news/local/decision-on-white-pine-sash-cleanup-delayed-public-meeting-this/article_a75579d0-1a86-11e4-b0e7-001a4bcf887a.html
Erickson, David. Cleanup
decision for Missoula's White Pine Sash site coming in November. Missoulian. Last modified 10/6/14,
Accessed 11/13/14, http://missoulian.com/news/local/cleanup-decision-for-missoula-s-white-pine-sash-site-coming/article_9761bc3e-4dbf-11e4-b42e-834d5ea09192.html
By:
Andrea Jacobson
Huttig is the main stakeholder that was found responsible,
by the DEQ, for the cleanup at the old White pine and Sash mill site. Huttig bares all costs in the cleanup and
pays for the oversight of the DEQ. They would prefer to do the cleanup either
way, but want to do what is right for the land and the company. There are many opinions out there as to
whether the property should be cleaned as industrial use or light industrial
and residential use.
I found a website called 4&20 Blackbirds. On the site I
found an article written by jhwygirl called, Rezoning Request Designed to Avoid
Full Superfund/DEQ Cleanup (2008). This article leads people to believe that
Huttig is trying to get out of a cleaning the site better. “Missoulians and the
MT DEQ should expect nothing less than a complete cleanup of an aquifer being
polluted with carcinogens.”
Looking at the
Missoula Consolidated Planning Boards (MCPB) minutes, for April 1, 2008, I
found that Ben Schmidt, an air quality specialist, finds that rezoning the site
would make residential development difficult in an area that has residential
uses in place. I also found, in the meeting, that The Missoula Historic
Preservation Office disagrees with the zoning change request. They find, “the existing zoning district
provides greater flexibility for development on this site because it includes
residential uses.”
An interview I did with Bryan Douglass, the lead scientist
hired by Huttig, was insightful. I asked him, “Why he thought the site should
be zoned as an industrial (I-1) lot instead of residential with light
industrial (D)?” He had said, “When they sold the land, to the Scott Street Partners
and Zip Beverage, they had sold it with deed restrictions.”
The Scott Street Partners knew this was a cleanup site with
contaminants.” Mike Stevenson of Scott
Street Partners says, “In April 1999, Scott Street Partners formed and
purchased 32 acres on the Scott Street property from Huttig Building Products.
And when we purchased the property, we were fully aware of the environmental
impacts or impairments that existed on the property from past practices and
uses of it (MCPB 2008).” He also
mentions in the board meeting, “If we can get it changed to the I-1 zoning,
where the residential is eliminated, we will be able to move ahead in a very
expeditious manner--not we, but Huttig and DEQ--I should say, and get the
property cleaned up if it’s not already to that standard at this point in
time.”
Huttig put in the deed restrictions that they would clean
the site to an industrial level. If
Scott Street Partners wanted to build residentially they would have to clean
the site further to the standards of being residential. The Partners signed agreeing to the
condition.” Douglass also said, “They would like to clean it as an industrial
site, to stay on the cautious side and not end up being liable for people
getting sick.” When speaking with Mr. Douglass about the possible sale of the
property by the Scott Street Partners he mentioned that, “All the parties
interested in the location, except one (Sparrow), have been for industrial use
of the property. If this is the main interest in the property than it should only
be cleaned to an industrial standard instead of light industrial and
residential.”
Huttig believes the Scott Street Partners bought their
portion of the land knowing the deed restrictions so the DEQ should at least
take in to affect that The Partners should be responsible for the residential
cleanup if they are found not able to rezone the property. Personally, I feel
this is a fair assessment and should be left up to the Scott Street Partners to
clean it to residential standards if they choose to sell the land to
residential developers.
While testing the 32 acres that the Scott Street Partners
own, Douglass found the main issues to be methane, pentachlorophenol (PCP),
dioxins, and ash. Douglass said, “If the proposed plan would let Huttig aerate
the land, the methane problem would go away on its own, and it would only take
about a half a day to clean up the ash mess in the field.” Instead this has
been dragging on for 20 plus years. He mentioned another site in Oregon that
had the same problem but it only took 6 years for the whole process to be done.
The area that Zip Beverage owns has already had one area
cleaned and refilled. This particular area was 10ft down. When I asked Mr.
Douglass why the area by the railroad tracks was cleaned only 10ft down, he had
a good explanation. He said, “The soil in the area is very loose and the more
you dig the more the sides of the hole collapsed. By the time they were done
digging a 10ft hole it was 40ft in diameter.” This particular area they had to
remove the chemicals and dump the waste in a hazardous materials site in Utah.
He mentioned this was very costly, being at $200-300 a cubic yard.
On the Zip site is the worst area in the whole lot. There is a section that had the dipping tanks that were full of the pentachlorophenol and dioxins for treating wood. These tanks seeped PCP and diesel fuels into the perched aquifer. Mr. Douglass showed me two large tanks that he has used to inject the mixture of water and potassium permanganate to chemically oxidize the fuels where the dipping tanks were originally seeping into the ground. This area is the only area on the site that is the real issue that may be damaging to residents health. This is also, the only area on the lot that has a fence with a Hazardous Materials sign on the gate. Mr. Douglass did tell me that the perched aquifer is starting to dissolve the chemicals on its own. The longer it has to clean itself it may just happen naturally. Douglass made a comment that, “Not many people think that dissolution is the solution, but in this case it is working.”
I think Huttig, personally, has a lot of unnecessary costs
that have built up and that zoning the property shouldn’t matter as to how,
Huttig particularly, cleans up the property. They had an obvious agreement in
place with the parties that bought the property to clean it as an industrial
site. So I believe they should be able to clean it to industrial standards to
get their portion of the costs and clean up fulfilled so they can move on with
their lives. When speaking to Bryan Douglass, I found that the costs to keeping
this issue unresolved is too high and unnecessary and if the DEQ would just let
them clean it up, most people would be satisfied with the turn out of the
property. I find that they have already proved, several times over, that they
are willing to clean up the site, so let them do it. The DEQ process is
painstakingly too long.
CITATIONS
Douglass,
Bryan (November 2000). Missoula White Pine and Sash Site Fact Sheet.
Douglass, Inc.
Douglass,
Bryan interviewed on November 13, 2014. Douglass, Inc.
jhwygirl
(April 1, 2008) 4&20 blackbirds. Blogging the politics and culture of
Missoula and Montana and everywhere else beyond. Rezoning Request Designed to Avoid Full Superfund/DEQ Cleanup. Last
accessed 11/12/14. http://4and20blackbirds.wordpress.com/category/missoula-city-council/page/4/
McQuillan,
Jessie (April 10, 2008). Zoning Mess
Northside seeks deep cleaning for toxic site. The Missoula
Independent. http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/zoning-mess/Content?oid=1138273
Missoula
Consolidated Planning Board Minutes, APRIL 1, 2008 7:00 PM. Missoula City
Council Chambers, 140 West Pine Street ftp://www.co.missoula.mt.us/planningftp/SubZone/CityZone/2008/Lot3ScottStreetLots/PBMinutes040108.pdf
THE CITY OF MISSOULA
By:
Andrea Jacobson
The City of Missoula is also a stakeholder in the WPS mill
site. They own a 15 acres of land located between the Zip Beverage and The
Scott Street Partners properties. On the city portion of the land is the 3 acre
White Pine Park. This property has been cleaned to an industrial use except for
the 3 acres where the park is located. The park was cleaned to residential
standards.
Cleaning of the City of Missoula’s portion has sparked some
of the controversy, because they cleaned their portion to two zoning
standards. A Missoulian article by Keila
Szpaller says, “Several years ago, the city created White Pine Park with land
donations from Zip Beverage and Scott Street Partners, and it cleaned the park
to residential standards.” Missoula
City has built a vehicle maintenance garage on the other portion of their.
Bryan Douglass, a scientist working for Huttig, was unsure as to why the city
was able to clean up to both standards.
When looking at the 2011 Risk Assessment for The City of
Missoula, you can tell the Cities worst spot was where they put the park. The
2012 Assessment, in comparison to 2011, shows a drop in ppm for cancer risk by
dioxin and pentachlorophenol (PCP) on the Missoula City sites. There are still
“hot spots” on the northern portion of the city land, next to the Scott Street
Partners property.
According to the Master Plan for White Pine Park, the city
and neighborhood would like to see:
fences, sidewalks, soccer field, bathrooms, picnic area, and park
maintenance and a play area. So far there is only a mound with a couple toys on
it. Hopefully, Parks and Recreation will
be able to finish the project soon.
CITATIONS
AMEC
Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. (revised January, 2011) Construction Completion
report Missoula White Pine and Sash.
Douglass,
Bryan interview on November 13, 2014. Douglass, Inc.
Parks
& Recreation (March 28, 2012) PRESS RELEASE. Parks and Recreation Seeks
Public Input on New Playground. http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/5223
Szpaller,
Keila, “Missoula neighborhood pushes DEQ
to strengthen cleanup order for northside”, Missoulian. (March 23, 2014 7:30am) http://missoulian.com/news/local/missoula-neighborhood-pushes-deq-to-strengthen-cleanup-order-for-northside/article_3a87d02c-b21d-11e3-9b02-001a4bcf887a.html
By: Danielle Kelly
Here is how the Montana Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) defines the problem surrounding the Missoula White Pine Sash Superfund
Site: “MWPS was a precision wood,
window and door component manufacturing facility which operated from the 1920s
through 1996. From the mid-1930s until 1987, milled wood products were dipped
into mixtures of pentachlorophenol (PCP) and petroleum products. Some of these
mixtures were released into the environment, contaminating soil and groundwater
with PCP, petroleum hydrocarbons, and dioxins/furans” (Montana DEQ).
The City of Missoula has
already cleaned up its section of the land, which is now a park. Huttig
Building Products, Inc. is in charge of cleaning up the rest of the site, which
is still plagued with contaminated soil and water (Sanchez 2014).
The DEQ is
the decision making entity in this case. In 2004, the DEQ did a review of a
cleanup plan for the northern segment of the site that was intended for
residential development (Szpaller 2014). Residential development standards of
cleanup differ from industrial development standards. A cleanup to industrial
development level standards would require less remediation than a cleanup to
residential development standards. Given that no development whatsoever can
take place on the site until the DEQ issues an order for a cleanup plan that Huttig
will be mandated to carry out, the Northside residents have been eager for many
years to see the DEQ make a choice in the matter. 8 years later, the City of
Missoula cleaned up its portion and built the playing park. In 2011, a city
official made it clear to the DEQ that “residential
use is one of the most valuable and most viable potential future uses of the
northern portion of White Pine Sash.” In February 2014, after missing a few
deadlines, the DEQ finally issued a proposed cleanup plan which
anticipates that the land will be used for commercial/industrial purposes, not
residential. The Northside residents were not pleased with this decision, to
say the least, and have adamantly called for the DEQ to come up with a
different plan (Szpaller 2014).
The DEQ then opened up a period
for public comment, which extended in to March 2014, and acquired 665 pages of
comments before the period was closed.
Tracy Stone-Manning, the DEQ’s director, said that the DEQ has been
doing “deep technical work” in order to respond to every single comment
(Erickson 2014).
During
my interview with Cindy Brooks, Senior Legal Counsel for the DEQ, I asked her
how the DEQ goes about efficiently responding to each comment made, and how
exactly the responses are decided upon and by whom. She responded, “DEQ staff assigned to
the MWPS project review each comment made during the public comment
period. For similar or identical comments, DEQ may group comments
together for response in the written responsiveness summary.” Even though the DEQ
staff will be responding to each comment, Tracy Stone-Manning has asserted that
the comments are “not a vote” (Erickson 2014).
I brought this up with Ms.
Brooks, and asked how the DEQ goes about integrating the abundant number of
comments submitted by the public concerning the White Pine Sash Superfund Site
in its decision making. I also asked how these comments affect the final
decision. She responded by saying that the DEQ “considers” every comment that
was made during the public comment period and “evaluates whether any change to
the final remedy is warranted or statutorily justified under the Comprehensive
Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act (CECRA).”
Huttig feels that, as
the party responsible for the cleanup, it should not have to clean up an area
to residential standards that has historically been used as industrial land and
is currently being used as such. As mentioned before, the Northside residents
feel differently. If Huttig feels that the DEQ reaches its decision
“erroneously”, Huttig can sue the DEQ (Erickson 2014). I have personally heard
that the Northside residents are already “lawyering up”, so to speak, and are
also prepared to file a lawsuit against the DEQ if the decision the DEQ comes
out with seems unjust to them. I asked Cindy Brooks if she thought that it was
a possibility for Huttig and Missoula’s Northside residents to find some sort
of middle ground, or if she thought the final decision of residential standard
vs. industrial standard is a win-lose situation. Perhaps apprehensive about
giving me an actual opinion, she made it clear to me that “DEQ is required to select the final remedy based
upon the criteria in CECRA. The final remedy is not negotiated between
stakeholders, and DEQ’s job is to objectively analyze the site-specific
conditions at the facility and evaluate those conditions against the statutory
criteria in CECRA.” I think the stakeholders themselves are painfully aware of
Ms. Brooks’s point that the final decision is not a negotiation between Huttig
and the Northsiders. What I was trying to get at was an attempt to see whether
she thought that the two sides are absolutely pitted against each other, and
unwilling to sway to some sort of middle ground, however that could be done.
But she did have a valid point. The decision is going to be one way or the
other, and the DEQ needs to try and make that decision whilst staying as close
as possible to the regulations that are laid out in CECRA. Most likely, either
the Northside residents or Huttig are going to be infuriated by whichever
decision is made; that is the unfortunate reality of the situation.
Clearly, the issue of the White Pine Sash site has
been a hot topic around Missoula, especially in the Northside where the site
resides. The Missoulian and other news
outlets have extensively covered the issue, laying out the facts of the issue
as well as interviewing residents that have strong opinions about the future of
the site and the DEQ’s response to this high level of interest. I told Cindy
that I have observed that the media coverage on the WPS issue seems to, for the
most part, be focused around the Northside residents and their urging of the
DEQ to require Huttig to clean the site up to residential standards. I asked
how, if at all, the ample media coverage affects the DEQ’s decision making
process for this issue. She had a simple answer: “Media coverage does not
affect DEQ’s decision-making process. DEQ is required to conduct its work
as required by the law in an objective manner.” This answer makes sense on all
fronts. Of course the DEQ cannot be swayed by any sort of media coverage; that
probably wouldn’t be lawful. But I am still left wondering if the DEQ staff
sees all of the news stories and editorials surrounding the WPS issue when they
go home and feel mounting pressure as they go back to work the next morning. It
can’t be an easy task to try and work objectively on a decision for a topic
that is so loudly debated about, but this is the job that the staff members at
the DEQ have been tasked with.
Finally, I asked Cindy for another opinion. I asked
if she thought the collaboration process for the WPS Superfund Site issue
(public meetings, public comment, etc.) has been productive and fair. I also
asked if she thought there were any improvements that could be made to the
collaborative process for this particular problem. She again chose not to give
any sort of opinion, telling me instead that “DEQ
is required to select the final remedy based upon the criteria in CECRA, which
is not a collaborative process. However, DEQ takes public comment and
input very seriously and will consider each and every comment submitted during
the public comment period.” CECRA is not a collaborative process, to be sure,
but I like to think that the conversation that has been going on between the
stakeholders involved in the WPS issue and the DEQ has been some form of
collaboration. After all, this is a class revolving around collaboration, and
we wouldn’t be investigating this issue if it did not involve a collaborative
process of some sort.
While the DEQ is the decision maker for this dilemma, and
CECRA dictates which decision the DEQ makes, there most likely will be
consequences for the DEQ once its final decision is issued because this is a
contentious issue for the public that the DEQ serves. Hence, the DEQ has
decided that reading through the multitude of public comments before deciding
whether or not to change the decision is a good idea. The Final Decision will
be made sometime towards the end of this very month (November). It is hard to
say what that decision will be, and what the aftermath to follow will look
like. However things turn out, they will be a result of the DEQ trying to make
a difficult decision concerning a heated issue that is fueled by the emotions
of the community whose future of housing depends on it, a building products
company whose budget depends on it, and an environmental cleanup act whose
lawfulness depends on it.
Szpaller, Keila. "Missoula Neighborhood Pushes DEQ to
Strengthen Cleanup Order for Northside." Missoulian. March 23, 2014.
Accessed November 8, 2014.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/missoula-neighborhood-pushes-deq-to-strengthen-cleanup-order-for-northside/article_3a87d02c-b21d-11e3-9b02-001a4bcf887a.html.
"Missoula White Pine Sash." Montana.gov. Accessed
November 7, 2014.
http://www.deq.mt.gov/StateSuperfund/missoulawhitepinesash.mcpx.
Sanchez, Ashley. "Clean Up Plan for Missoula Superfund
Site to Be Ready in November." Fox Montana. October 7, 2014. Accessed
November 8, 2014.
http://www.abcfoxmontana.com/story/26730060/clean-up-plan-for-missoula-superfund-site-to-be-ready-in-november.
Erickson, David. "Cleanup Decision for Missoula's White
Pine Sash Site Coming in November." Missoulian. October 6, 2014. Accessed
November 10, 2014.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/cleanup-decision-for-missoula-s-white-pine-sash-site-coming/article_9761bc3e-4dbf-11e4-b42e-834d5ea09192.html.
The North-Missoula Community Development
Corporation (NMCDC) is a community-advocate organization based in Missoula.
While the organization is involved in a number of programs, one of their most
important is that of White Pine Sash (WPS). Director Bob Oaks, along with
NMCDC’s followers are advocating for a residential grade cleanup. Members worry
about the socio-environmental repercussions that could ensue without a full
cleanup of the site.
North-side lumber mill and wood treatment
plant began production in the early 1900’s. In 1995 it was found that chemicals
used in production processes were hazardous. Thus, the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) held Huttig, the previous site owner, liable for
the damages. “For this reason the NMCDC has
elected to retain legal council and create a legal defense and educational fund to support the
neighborhoods’ continued fight for a full cleanup of the site” (nmcdc.org).
The NMCDC has
not been fond of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and it’s
handling of the WPS issue. “Overwhelming (in a ration of more than a hundred to
one) the public demanded a revision of the DEQ’s position to one that would
require a residential-level standard for the site’s 19-acre vacant lands
parcel. Unfortunately, to this date the DEQ has been unresponsive the
public’s outcry for a proper cleanup. In looking at the history of the
place it is abundantly clear why the public would want cleanup standards at a
residential level” (nmcdc.org).
I spoke with Heidi West, a soil scientist,
mother of two children, and a passionate stakeholder involved directly with the process. West has been critical of the DEQ.
“A recent meeting”, she said, “was hosted in a room that was not ADA accessible and too small to accommodate all those members of the public that wished to attend” (H. West, personal communication, November 11, 2014).
“A recent meeting”, she said, “was hosted in a room that was not ADA accessible and too small to accommodate all those members of the public that wished to attend” (H. West, personal communication, November 11, 2014).
West
lives on the North side and, like the NMCDC of which she is part of, she hopes
for a full-scale residential grade cleanup. She recently published a
residential cleanup plan in response to the final cleanup plan that was
proposed by the Montana DEQ (MDEQ) wherein she carefully lays out some of her
plans, opinions and critiques.
“In March 2014 the Missoula White Pine Sash
Facility Update Fact Sheet was released to the public. It provided a brief
context to the history and current contamination of the site as well as a summarized
overview of the preferred cleanup plan proposed by the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ). It reads: “DEQ has determined that the preferred
remedy would ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment and
comply with applicable state and federal environmental laws”. While repeatedly
stating that the DEQ's preferred final cleanup protects human health and the environment,
it fails to mention that this plan does not meet the standards of a residential
cleanup” (West p. 2).
In addition to this problem, West also sees a
problem with the DEQ’s estimate for cleanup of the site. Over email and in a
personal interview she told me that, “During the
meeting a 21 million dollar amount was tossed
at the audience as an alternative to the preferred plan of action. This was
misleading. The 21 million dollar figure is not a clean up option, but rather
one of many soil treatments alternatives. Utilized individually these soil
treatment alternatives do not protect human health and fail to comply with all
applicable state and federal environmental laws. The exclusion of relevant
information from the fact sheet, the lack of adequate and accessible meeting
space and the manner in which the information was delivered at the public
meeting demonstrates that the MDEQ has been grossly negligent of the public
trust placed in them to uphold their mission; to protect, sustain, and improve
a clean and healthful environment to benefit present and future generations”
(West p. 2).
West concluded her residential cleanup plan
by stating, “As it stands, the Proposed Final Cleanup Plan for the Missoula
White Pine Sash State Superfund Facility is unacceptable. A residential level
of the White Pine Sash is needed for the DEQ to comply with its mission, and to
protect the health of citizens, the health of the community, the health of the environment
and the long-term sustainability of future development” (West p. 8).
WORKS CITED
Oaks,
Bob. White Pine Sash Site at a Crossroads. NMCDC
Last modified 3/27/14, Accessed
11/14/14, http://www.nmcdc.org.php53-10.dfw1-1.websitetestlink.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/White-Pine-Sash-History.pdf
North Missoula
Community Development Corporation. (n.d.). Retrieved November 12, 2014, from http://www.nmcdc.org.php53-10.dfw1.websitetestlink.com
/?page_id=491
Szpaller,
Keila. Decision on White Pine Sash cleanup delayed; public meeting this fall. Missoulian. Last modified 8/3/14, Accessed 11/13/14,http://missoulian.com/news/local/decision-on-white-pine-sash-cleanup-delayed- public-meeting-this/article_a75579d0-1a86-11e4-b0e7-001a4bcf887a.html
West, Heide. Personal Interview. November 11,
2014.
*All photos from www.nmcdc.org
by Andrea Jacobson
Suggestions for improvement on the site
Suggestions for improvement on the site
The majority of the blogs authors agree the property should be cleaned to a residential standard and keep the zoning as residential, light industrial (D) instead of industrial (I).
1) Clean it up the best they can, even if the property is only used as light industrial.
2) Aerate the Scott Street Partners Property.
3) Get rid of ash that’s been built up by the Missoula City property’s north end.
4) Check random homes that are above the perched aquifer to test for toxins in the air.
5) Use potassium permanganate to help dissolve fuels where the dipping tanks were.
6) Just let the perched aquifer and Missoula aquifer heal itself.
7) Fence the property off to keep people and dogs off the Scott Street Partners property.
Suggestions for improvement in the process of collaboration
1) Different stakeholders were invited to the public meetings.
2) The DEQ process has seriously slowed the process of finishing the cleanup of the superfund site.
4) The DEQ is ignoring the deed restrictions Huttig put on the deed when they sold the property. 5) There isn't a lot of trust between stakeholders. The issue seems to be Huttig and Scott Street Partners against everybody else.
6) People feel they aren't being listened to and that the collaboration process has failed to be collaborative.
7) Transparency is there but needs to be more specific with intentions, so the same argument isn't always the issue. The intention of the meeting needs to be clear so everyone is on the same page.
8) Change the times to have the meetings (10am-12pm). Should be in the evenings or a weekend so more people who want to be involved, can be involved.
